| (Copyright 2021) by Rich Traver (Clifton, Colorado) |
|---|
| Perhaps we haven’t given adequate scrutiny to aspects of Physical Appearance. While Paul admonishes ‘Modest Apparel’, and more importantly, that we not look to a person’s dress as reason to show them preference, yet we occasionally see that very response happening in so many societal situations. In a number of formal gatherings, it would be expected that any person attending would appear appropriately dressed for the occasion. There’s a disturbing Biblical example where a person invited to a wedding ceremony came in ‘ordinary’ apparel that was deemed disrespectful. And we might further surmise that the individual in question was deliberately blasé about it, effectively exhibiting contempt toward the event, by not reflecting due respect for the importance of the occasion. Overseeing those Attending “And when the king came in to see the guests, he saw there a man which had not on a wedding garment: And he saith unto him, Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? And he was speechless. Then said the king to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast him into outer darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth…” (Matt. 22:11-13) Now, this particular narrative poses a question. Having on a wedding garment suggests more than him just simply attending the ceremony as a guest. (It also seems to allude to a particular type of garment, not just ‘ones’ best’.) This appears to be a man who was invited to be part of it. Perhaps that would help explain the harsh reaction to this individual, that it was incumbent on him to take the responsibility of his invitation seriously. Keep in mind, he was personally ‘invited’ to this celebratory occasion! (v.10) It’s also apparent that the ‘king’ saw it appropriate to review and evaluate who was there out of respect for what was to be celebrated and how the invitees regarded being called-in. A level of respect was important considering who this marriage involved. It was the king’s own son after all! Now, another ‘interesting’ situation was when Jesus brought up the ministry of John the Baptist. “And when the messengers of John were departed, he began to speak unto the people concerning John, What went ye out into the wilderness for to see? A reed shaken with the wind? But what went ye out for to see? A man clothed in soft raiment? Behold, they which are gorgeously apparelled, and live delicately, are in kings’ courts. But what went ye out for to see? A prophet? Yea, I say unto you, and much more than a prophet. This is he, of whom it is written, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee. For I say unto you, Among those that are born of women there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist: but he that is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he.” (Luke 7:25) Let’s keep in mind, this was a man who didn’t measure up to expectations at first encounter. A true minister of the LORD should reflect the highest standards, should he not? “…But what went ye out for to see? A man clothed in soft raiment? Behold, they which are gorgeouslyapparelled, and live delicately, are in kings’ courts”. This speaks to usual expectations. There are certain situations where appropriate apparel is to be worn in deference to the occasion. But John was a course man, ”…clothed with camel’s hair, and with a girdle of a skin about his loins; and he did eat locusts and wild honey;” (Mk. 1:6) Definitely not a prissy dude! John didn’t LOOK like anything they would have expected of ‘a man of God’! I wonder how we would have reacted? Where we need to make distinction is propriety in Church Services. Dress standards are not the first consideration, while at the same time there is propriety. But that comes in time. It’s not a mark of conversion necessarily, but it can be a reflection! Nor is it in any way what long-time attendees should focus on first when a new attendee comes among the congregation. A Contrasting Consideration On the other end of the spectrum, is the admonition to not take into account how a person is dressed, exhibiting a disdain for the less well-off, while showing respect to the obviously more wealthy person. Unfortunately, in some aloof gatherings, this can make or break relationships. It’s important to keep in mind that being respecters of persons is built-into our carnal natures. Depending on the acceptance atmosphere in a particular congregation, new attendees might be turned-off when shown contempt due to their appearance. But here’s what should be: “My brethren have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons. For if there come unto your assembly a man with a gold ring, in goodly apparel, and there come in also a poor man in vile raiment; And ye have respect to him that weareth the gay (sharp looking) clothing, and say unto him, Sit thou here in a good place; and say to the poor, Stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool:” (James 2:1-3) He’s saying that we aren’t all right in this! Can we see how such action would reflect on a person, by wanting to identify with and be seen with the sharply dressed dude? Bling is Irrelevant This situation is presented in the context of it being a matter of faith. It shows that the LORD doesn’t exhibit a negative regard for people based on their dress or impose a ‘dress code’ upon those who seek Him before they can become assimilated fully into the community of faith. There’s another consideration with this, and a story about something I personally witnessed that speaks to the matter: It was back in about 1988 when a well-dressed young man (could have been an AC Student for all appearances) came into our congregation of some 125 people. Word got around that the man was “from Pasadena”! (He was!) I couldn’t help but notice how all the ‘biggies’: deacons, elders, etc. all made a bee-line to meet the man, introduce themselves and shake his hand. He was kind of swarmed at first, but then as the realization hit that he wasn’t someone of stature in Pasadena, their interest faded rather quickly. It was apparent to me that they wanted to be seen ‘hobnobbing’ with this ‘important fellow’. Upon realizing that he was in effect just an ordinary ‘visitor’, all of that posturing dissipated! Not long after this initial overt interest went by the boards, I saw him standing sort of alone, so me – the nobody – went and talked with him for some time. I didn’t let on what I’d noticed. But that incident demonstrated something about how and what we are as a people. This was a ‘respecter-of-persons’ situation if ever there was one! The first interest reaction was more a matter of what our ‘important’ (or self-esteemed) persons wanted this visitor to think of them. They wouldn’t DARE snub someone from ‘headquarters’! But when it was realized he wasn’t anyone of stature their interest in him evaporated. (He did look like he could have been, so we can, I suppose, give some credit to their perceptual senses.) But WHO Were They Honoring? But this situation exposes a danger when we focus on a dress code and not the individual. There are those who naturally ‘suck-up’ to preeminent people (as we might define it) rather than being genuine. Any of us can be a clothes tree for fine apparel, but where is our heart? That’s a more relevant question. Our outward appearance may count in certain situations, but all too often it’s vanity. “Who shall ascend into the hill of the LORD? or who shall stand in his holy place? He that hath clean hands, and a pure heart; who hath not lifted up his soul unto vanity, nor sworn deceitfully.” (Ps. 24:3-4) It would seem that the feigned interest in this well-dressed visitor exposed a few ‘souls lifted up unto vanity’. In the above experience, we need to ask, were any of those ‘kiss-up types’ being in any way deceitful? Were they deceiving themselves by doing what they did on the basis of their perceived self-importance? Was any of this action an expression of vanity? Are any of these actions a factor in how people continue to operate today? The Widows Mites I can’t help but wonder how the woman who gave her two mites offering was dressed. I expect her apparel gave away her impoverished situation. Can our personal dress exhibit pride? Can our group ‘dress code’ exhibit pride or group vanity? How can we tell whether it does or not? External Considerations Man looks on the outward appearance, but God looks on the heart. 1st Samuel 16:7 tells us this: “…but to this man will I look, even to him that is poor and of a contrite spirit, and trembleth at my word…. Nevertheless in a contrite heart and an humble spirit let us be accepted. (Isa. 66:2 & 16) Here’s the difference. Is a person’s dress code a reflection of his regard for himself, or is it to enhance or exhibit his status in any way? It can subtly factor in. At the same time, being clean, well groomed and suitably attired can express respect for the audience, for the occasion and for who a person is representing, whether himself or God. We do things for different reasons! Motivation? We might consider how a person regards the attire of another as an indicator of the above question. “For we commend not ourselves again unto you, but give you occasion to glory on our behalf, that ye may have somewhat to answer them which glory in appearance, and not in heart.” (2nd Cor. 5:12) One can wonder if we dressed better would we attract more attendees? Would their dress code explain the popularity of the Protestant Evangelical churches? Oh, waitaminute, I don’t think they have much of one. You know, it just might be their enthusiasm! Of course, their belief system is in line with the commonly accepted teachings, so that may explain things. Birds of a feather… as they say. The more important considerations in regard to a formal ‘dress code’ is whether it’s an expression of self or of respect for those attending and who the individual regards himself as representing. Each of us does things for a variety of reasons. Suitable Suit Situation But then, we have the overt situation where being ‘suitably suited’ is a requirement for representing an organization, but with less regard for the content of one’s ‘message’. (Unfortunately, appearance often is noted more than the content of the message being presented.) In some groups, it’s a requirement IF a person is to be an up-front part of the Service. Even in the minor roles, a person’s attire can be taken into account. Suit and tie for sure! This is the standard a person serving must exhibit. Such display (or lack there-of) is regarded as a reflection on the ministry overall. Are we displaying our self-importance with our apparel, are we exemplifying the organization that we’re representing, are we showing respect for the occasion and the audience? Is it representing God? These are the questions we need to consider: Both as a participant or as recipients. Visual Response Both Paul and Peter recognized how our dress can affect peoples’ judgment and assessment of one another. They both address the impropriety of doing so with just a ‘surface’ consideration. “… In like manner also, that women adorn them-selves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; (1st Tim.2:9) “Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel;” (1st Pet. 3:3) So, were they advocating against any dress code? Or were they diminishing ones’ personal attire being as important as it often is taken to be? Granted, the above two references are specifically considering women (who are the more obvious in doing what they do for notice), but the same can apply with men, and with greater consequence, IF their actions are self-motivated for the purpose of enhancing personal prestige rather than to honor their calling and the people they serve. ———————————————————————– Reprinted with permission from: Golden Sheaves https://www.goldensheaves.org/ ———————————————————————– |
Views: 9
Sign up to Receive [The "New" Church of God Messenger] weekly newsletter: