The lost art of dressing for the occasion

[rue]

Interesting article about dressing up for church:

http://www.truthaccordingtoscriptur...actice/dressing-up/dressing-up-for-church.php


Although I'm a Christian, I don't attend church often, but when I do, I have always tried to look my best, because I think it shows respect to God. In my eyes, your "Sunday Best" doesn't have to be expensive or fancy, but it should be the most respectable, modest, cleanest thing in your closet. Like Tom said, you can buy a pair of slacks and a button up shirt at Goodwill for less than the T-shirt and shorts that most people wear.

 

[Undertow]

Keep in mind that many religions - not just mainstream Christianity - require/request their adherents to cleanse themselves and dress appropriately, even if that is only in a ceremonial way.

Paganism is quite difficult to define, so I won't begin here, but if you look at a broad mix of "pagans" from around the world, you will see many of them cleanse and don appropriate clothing prior to calling upon their gods - in fact, that is an important piece of their ritual.

I would think wearing ratty lawn clothes wouldn't exactly be appropriate, but I guess if an adherent sincerely felt they were doing everything they could to appear correct in the eyes of their god(s), they could be blameless.

 

[William Stratford]

Interesting article about dressing up for church:

http://www.truthaccordingtoscriptur...actice/dressing-up/dressing-up-for-church.php


Although I'm a Christian, I don't attend church often, but when I do, I have always tried to look my best, because I think it shows respect to God. In my eyes, your "Sunday Best" doesn't have to be expensive or fancy, but it should be the most respectable, modest, cleanest thing in your closet. Like Tom said, you can buy a pair of slacks and a button up shirt at Goodwill for less than the T-shirt and shorts that most people wear.

Exactly.

Similarly, I only attend church for advent, easter and harvest festival, but I dress smartly (shoes, not trainers, trousers, not jeans, oxford shirt, not t-shirt, and a sports jacket) because, as you say, it is about being "respectable, modest, clean" because, as LizzieMaine says its to do with how we "recognize and acknowledge the authority". Casual dress means a casual attitude, rather than a respectful one.

 

[ThesFlishThngs]

I don't even like going to the bank & seeing the young staff dressed in jeans and polos. What happened to mature bank ladies in sweaters, skirts, and blouses?

 

[kamikat]

It's sad, really. I think it stems from the youth ideal of the 'you're not going to tell me what to do' attitude. Yes, you're non-conformist, just like everybody else.

In the parish I used to attend, it was not unusual to see people attend mass in hospital scrubs, chef's coats, various job uniforms. At some masses, it wasn't unusual to see people in what is clearly yardwork coveralls. Again, they're there to worship their lord, not to impress anyone else. God knows what's in the person's heart.

 

[jamespowers]

Interesting article about dressing up for church:

http://www.truthaccordingtoscriptur...actice/dressing-up/dressing-up-for-church.php


Although I'm a Christian, I don't attend church often, but when I do, I have always tried to look my best, because I think it shows respect to God. In my eyes, your "Sunday Best" doesn't have to be expensive or fancy, but it should be the most respectable, modest, cleanest thing in your closet. Like Tom said, you can buy a pair of slacks and a button up shirt at Goodwill for less than the T-shirt and shorts that most people wear.

David Daubenmire has a better article simply titled The Death of Shame that describes the reasons for the slovenly look that people now exhibit(I removed the political parts for obvious reasons):


Shame--the painful feeling arising from the consciousness of something dishonorable, improper, ridiculous, etc., done by oneself or another.

I’m not really sure when it began, as it has been a gradual thing, I’m sure. But like the slow removal of a grass stain from a teenager’s hack-around T-shirt, the impression has slowly been extracted from the conscience of America.
Whatever happened to shame?

I suppose some of it could be traced to Dr. Spock, as he is responsible for so much of what is wrong with child-rearing these days.
But the bare boned bottom line is that the goal of “building self-esteem” in our young children required the elimination of any type of negative reinforcement and led to the development of the value system we now see permeating the American culture.
Let me ask you again, “Whatever happened to shame?”
I’m sure I was a handful in elementary school. I was small in stature but big on the inside. Always striving to be the center of attention (big families teach you to fight to be noticed), I spent my early school daze with my nose stuck to a dot written on the chalkboard, standing face-first in the back corner of the classroom, or in isolation in the hallway where I couldn’t distract the rest of the class.
In small town America in the fifties we still believed that shame was a good thing. My parents didn’t call the principal, we didn’t hire a lawyer, child psychologists were as common as cordless phones, and “mood altering medications” were something the hippies hadn’t even thought of. In the 1950’s they would have thrown you in jail for giving drugs to a young child.
Yep, I would have been the poster child for Ritalin. But instead of medicated, I was disciplined. Despite what the child experts want to tell us, applied lovingly, shame is a great teacher. I know it is a matter of opinion but I think I turned out all right.
It was 1989. I was over a decade into my “public-fool system” career when I first noticed it. I was teaching “special education” (in many cases this is nothing more than a made-up disability where schools warehouse students who won’t behave: read this on ADD) when a 15 year-old thug named John came waltzing in late to class, basking in the glory of having been in the principal’s office, and proudly strutting in to tell his fellow future-felons about “the discipline” he had just survived.
“F-Him Man.” John announced to his captive audience as his chain-linked ear-ring dangled under his long, scraggly, pot-perfumed hair. “I ain’t serving no f-in detention. I told that m-f-er that he ain’t my old man so he could shove the detention up his a--. Who does that m-fer think he is telling me that sh-t? I should have kicked his f-in a--.”
You may think I am making it up. Ask your child. This type of language is common-place in our “public” schools today. In 1989, John was a bit ahead of his time.
With all of the class waiting on my reaction, I uttered a phrase that I used often with troubled kids.
“You know the problem with most of you in here?” I declared to the room full of cultural-misfits. “You are ashamed of what you should be proud of and proud of what you should be ashamed of.” (By the way, it took 4 years but I eventually tamed John -- amazing what a little love and strong discipline will do for a malcontent.) I thought of John as I looked around America this week. The results of this false self-esteem are all over the television. It has even crept into the church.......​

 

[AtomicEraTom]

To all the anti-formalists on my case here; the bottom line is when you're in the house of the lord, you show respect. Wearing your Sunday best wasn't created by Madison Avenue as a way to make money on dress clothes.

 

[Noirblack]

God only cares about what is in your heart. Not what is on your back.

 

[AtomicEraTom]

If you have the ability to show respect, you damn well should.

God only cares about what is in your heart. Not what is on your back.

 

[jamespowers]

If you have the ability to show respect, you damn well should.

Obviously he knows what God thinks.

 

[AtomicEraTom]

I wish I had that talent

Obviously he knows what God thinks.

 

[rue]

David Daubenmire has a better article simply titled The Death of Shame that describes the reasons for the slovenly look that people now exhibit(I removed the political parts for obvious reasons):


Shame--the painful feeling arising from the consciousness of something dishonorable, improper, ridiculous, etc., done by oneself or another.

I’m not really sure when it began, as it has been a gradual thing, I’m sure. But like the slow removal of a grass stain from a teenager’s hack-around T-shirt, the impression has slowly been extracted from the conscience of America.
Whatever happened to shame?

I suppose some of it could be traced to Dr. Spock, as he is responsible for so much of what is wrong with child-rearing these days.
But the bare boned bottom line is that the goal of “building self-esteem” in our young children required the elimination of any type of negative reinforcement and led to the development of the value system we now see permeating the American culture.
Let me ask you again, “Whatever happened to shame?”
I’m sure I was a handful in elementary school. I was small in stature but big on the inside. Always striving to be the center of attention (big families teach you to fight to be noticed), I spent my early school daze with my nose stuck to a dot written on the chalkboard, standing face-first in the back corner of the classroom, or in isolation in the hallway where I couldn’t distract the rest of the class.
In small town America in the fifties we still believed that shame was a good thing. My parents didn’t call the principal, we didn’t hire a lawyer, child psychologists were as common as cordless phones, and “mood altering medications” were something the hippies hadn’t even thought of. In the 1950’s they would have thrown you in jail for giving drugs to a young child.
Yep, I would have been the poster child for Ritalin. But instead of medicated, I was disciplined. Despite what the child experts want to tell us, applied lovingly, shame is a great teacher. I know it is a matter of opinion but I think I turned out all right.
It was 1989. I was over a decade into my “public-fool system” career when I first noticed it. I was teaching “special education” (in many cases this is nothing more than a made-up disability where schools warehouse students who won’t behave: read this on ADD) when a 15 year-old thug named John came waltzing in late to class, basking in the glory of having been in the principal’s office, and proudly strutting in to tell his fellow future-felons about “the discipline” he had just survived.
“F-Him Man.” John announced to his captive audience as his chain-linked ear-ring dangled under his long, scraggly, pot-perfumed hair. “I ain’t serving no f-in detention. I told that m-f-er that he ain’t my old man so he could shove the detention up his a--. Who does that m-fer think he is telling me that sh-t? I should have kicked his f-in a--.”
You may think I am making it up. Ask your child. This type of language is common-place in our “public” schools today. In 1989, John was a bit ahead of his time.
With all of the class waiting on my reaction, I uttered a phrase that I used often with troubled kids.
“You know the problem with most of you in here?” I declared to the room full of cultural-misfits. “You are ashamed of what you should be proud of and proud of what you should be ashamed of.” (By the way, it took 4 years but I eventually tamed John -- amazing what a little love and strong discipline will do for a malcontent.) I thought of John as I looked around America this week. The results of this false self-esteem are all over the television. It has even crept into the church.......​

Great article James!

 

[Noirblack]

Obviously he knows what God thinks.

I know God puts us on this earth naked. We aren't born in little suits and ties or dresses. I know the church has been around for centuries and there have been lots of different types of clothing worn by worshippers.

 

[jamespowers]

I know God puts us on this earth naked. We aren't born in little suits and ties or dresses. I know the church has been around for centuries and there have been lots of different types of clothing worn by worshippers.

And that is all you know.

 

[Noirblack]

And that is all you know.

Was it the statement of my belief that God only cares what is in your heart that lead you to insult me? If you disagree with me, then let's discuss the topic, rather than trade insults.

 

[jamespowers]

Was it the statement of my belief that God only cares what is in your heart that lead you to insult me? If you disagree with me, then let's discuss the topic, rather than trade insults.

You said: "God only cares about what is in your heart. Not what is on your back." That was not a "belief" that was a positive statement that you know what God cares about. That implies that you are talking to God. None of us know what God thinks and we shouldn't presuppose that we do. Keep it on a proper/improper level. You can contact the Pope if you want to know what the church dress code is. He is the closest thing we are going to get to God.
Your tone is also insulting. When you become a bartender then you can dictate how we discuss a topic.

 

[Noirblack]

You said: "God only cares about what is in your heart. Not what is on your back." That was not a "belief" that was a positive statement that you know what God cares about. That implies that you are talking to God. None of us know what God thinks and we shouldn't presuppose that we do. Keep it on a proper/improper level. You can contact the Pope if you want to know what the church dress code is. He is the closest thing we are going to get to God.
Your tone is also insulting. When you become a bartender then you can dictate how we discuss a topic.

Because the statement about God only caring about what is in your heart was a theological statement, I did not think that adding the word belief was required. I assume that when talking about God you are always talking about what you believe and have faith in. Not what you know. As for my second statement about being born naked and worshippers having worn many types of clothing over the centuries, those are not belief statements. Those are simple facts. I am not trying to dictate how a topic is discussed. I stated my belief then two facts. Then I am told my knowledge is limited. Then I asked if we could not trade insults. If asking not to trade insults is dictating how a topic is discussed, then I am guilty as charged. Is that what you are referring to?

 

[John in Covina]

This ought to get somebody upset but it's my point of view.

Church - While there is a side of "if they are too poor to own decent clothes come as you can," but there also is sense of a decorum.
Long pants and a collared shirt is not too tuff to do really.
If you are serving as an usher a tie would be nice and maybe throw on a jacket, it shows respect for the service you render.
The question is does one see Church as something that is outside of regular life? Or is church an alternateive to going to the moives?
From my LCMS side we come to church as poor miserable beggers, we also need a sense of respect.
Does one show up to the white house in shorts or entertain the Queen of England in shorts?
I played my best for him pahrump papapum, rump pahpahpum, rump pahpahpum.

 

[jamespowers]

Because the statement about God only caring about what is in your heart was a theological statement, I did not think that adding the word belief was required. I assume that when talking about God you are always talking about what you believe and have faith in. Not what you know. As for my second statement about being born naked and worshippers having worn many types of clothing over the centuries, those are not belief statements. Those are simple facts. I am not trying to dictate how a topic is discussed. I stated my belief then two facts. Then I am told my knowledge is limited. Then I asked if we could not trade insults. If asking not to trade insults is dictating how a topic is discussed, then I am guilty as charged. Is that what you are referring to?

Religion is outside of the scope of this topic. Bringing God into it makes the arguement one that is not going anywhere. When stating belief then make sure to do so rather than make it a positive.
Your second statement got a comment that was appropriate for it. That is what you know---we are born naked and people dressed differently through the ages. Knowledge is limited. That is a fact.
Those were not insults. They were facts. Let's refrain from the passive agressive stuff and get back on topic.

 

[1961MJS]

Hi

Religion aside, I firmly believe that you should always dress for your occasion whatever it may be. Church is somewhere you should show respect (or maybe not go), so you should be clean and look your best. On the other hand if you show up at all, I'm betting God likes that better than your staying at home.

There are places that make me nearly as upset at the dress as church, and this IS topical, graduations. I graduated from high school in the 1970's and even in the height of the Hippy era, graduation was dignified. Graduation has gotten less and less dignified as time progresses. I don't go anymore unless I can't avoid it and my Mom feels the same way. She is a retired grade school teacher and just can't take it anymore.

Later y'all