Dear Abby: Can I wear my swim trunks to church? | TheResurgence

The issue of how we dress when we go to church is second in its verbal volatility only to that of “shall we sing with or without a drum set in the sanctuary.” Mark Driscoll, a modern day seeker sensitive Calvinist mega church pastor, has commented on the subject of how we should dress in church.

Through a quick read of his bullet-point responses, Pastor Driscoll is quite clear that he is very concerned about how people look on Sunday. His comments suggest that dressing formally at church is neither Christ-like nor is it a result of a pure heart of worship before the Lord.

For example, Driscoll states:

If God is our Father and the church is our family, should we view going to church services as a formal event or a family event?

Could I not equally ask, “If God is the sovereign, most-high King of the universe and the church is his most valuable and prized treasure, should we view going to church services as informal pep-rally or banal sporting event?

Driscoll further asks:

Is the church building somehow a magical sacred space like the Old Testament Temple? Or is it simply a place where God’s people gather that is no more and no less sacred than the homes they live in, now that the Spirit has been released from the Holy of Holies into the whole earth?

Again, I would ask, “Is he suggesting that the gathered church is not a sacred place and that the Holy Spirit’s presence is not in any way unique in the gathered church as compared to His work in ‘the whole earth?'” 1 Corinthians 3:16-17 asks an important question in response to Driscoll’s question above,

Do you not know that you are a temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you? If any man destroys the temple of God, God will destroy him, for the temple of God is holy, and that is what you are.

I have a hard time seeing how Paul is arguing here for sloppiness and casualness in regard to the blood-bought church of the most high God, who also is our Father.
Driscoll again asks:

Do we think that Jesus the homeless guy who was born in a barn was dressed up when He held church outdoors?

Could we not equally ask: “Do we think that Jesus, the homeless guy who was born in a barn made it his aim to look homeless? Was his drive to look like a derelict while representing His Father whom he was seeking to glorify?”

Driscoll asks:

When Jesus says that people judge the outward but God is looking at the heart, does that mean that as long as women don’t show up in clear heels looking like they need an aluminum pole to dance around, appearance is really a secondary matter?

I would like to ask, “When Jesus says that people judge the outward but God is looking at the heart, does that mean that if a man did show up to church in a coat and tie, or a lady actually wore something to church that she would not have worn while tanning at the beach, that his or her hearts are hypocritical and only concerned with the external?”
I’m not arguing for a fashion show at church. Such is a sinful attitude. But it should be noted that the “fashion show” mindset exists among the casual crowd as much as it does the formal. I would like to suggest that Bro. Driscoll is just as anal retentive about dressing down as the hypothetical formally dressed advocate he is arguing against.

As a matter of fact, the end of his post is a discussion of his own preoccupation with clothing at church. Outward appearance does not appear to be a secondary issue to Driscoll. He appears to be very concerned that no one in his church treat Jesus too seriously: “I am planning on wearing some funny Jesus t-shirts to show how much of a pop-culture icon Jesus is.”

I think the pendulum has now swung to the opposite extreme. Before my conversion, I used to hate Christianity because of the upper and upper-middle-class fashion show that existed in the church I attended as a kid. It was an issue to me, because I wasn’t upper or upper-middle class and could never reach up to the clothing expectations people expressed. I despised the emphasis on the external to the exclusion of the heart.

But now, it appears the external is still the issue and I think it is equally as hypocritical among the casual crowd. To suggest that sloppiness, casualness and a hatred for the formal is now somehow spiritual, makes me equally as sick. Now we contend with the mindset that if someone did wear a suit, they must not be an internally godly man. Only those who have holes in their faded and frayed jeans with a t-shirt that doesn’t fit and three dollar flip-flops are the ones who are somehow the only ones serious about spirituality and concerned about the lost. I despise this kind of hypocritical attitude as well.

I wear a coat and tie on Sunday. Others in our fellowship do also. Some wear jeans and a t-shirt. I serve in Southern California, where we will see shorts at church all year. Some are more business casual. Who cares? What I am more concerned about is that I not represent either an unapproachable attitude or a casual attitude toward God, worship and the gospel. If one thinks that what God wants from us is starched shirts, polished shoes, and pressed suits with classy ties, I don’t think that one truly understands God, worship and the gospel. If one thinks what Jesus most wants from His people is a flippant high-five and a mosh-pit approach to worship, I don’t think that one understands God, worship or the gospel.

Let’s also not think that the external doesn’t matter to God. It does (Romans 2:6-11). The issues of the outer man are not more important than the inner man. But it is true that the outer man can and often does reflect the attitudes of the inner man. So, my gripe is that yes, formal appearance in church can reflect a major internal spiritual problem. It may indeed reflect a hypocritical, look-down-your-nose-at-those-poorly-dressed people at church. We should preach against such an attitude.

My gripe is also that casual appearances in church can also reflect a major internal spiritual problem. It may indeed reflect a hypocritical, look-down-your-nose-at-those-formally-dressed people at church. We should equally preach against such an attitude. Where, in his article on church-dress, does Driscoll address this issue?
In my pastoral ministry, I’ve never really had to, nor do I plan to, get on to people about their dress at church. The more people change internally, it is amazing how they also respond on the outside. I’ve seen the formal-freaks change their attitude and their clothes and I’ve seen the casual-cronies become more serious about God both internally and externally.

Driscoll closes:

“Dear Abby” hit one of the more debated missional theology issues in our day that is related to many other issues, such as how we view God (e.g., daddy, boss, or president), church buildings (e.g., God’s special house or just another room), what constitutes a church (e.g., a formal building or a people who love Jesus), and the feel of a church service (e.g., formal meeting or family reunion).

In my estimation, Driscoll still misses the biblical emphasis. His false dichotomies are obvious. God is not only “daddy,” the church gathering is not merely in “another room,” people who love Jesus can indeed truly worship in a formal building and the feel of a church service should not merely feel like a casual family reunion. We need a more balanced biblical approach that does in fact focus upon the heart. I don’t think Driscoll’s dress issues have reflected that balance.