Law and Grace in Church Clothing

There is an increasing trend towards becoming trendy at church, which is not always bad. We must make a distinction between faith and culture; culture is dynamic and flexible; faith has to be absolute. The problem rises when faith attempts to claim elements of culture in order to sacralize them and render them inflexible. When faith tries to do that, then the result is a legalistic religious system that is very fundamentalistic. These issues were earlier discussed here. However, grace is not lawless either. The New Testaments cautions us against those who attempt to turn the grace of God into license for evil (Jude 1:4, NET).

Take the Example of Clothing

Let's begin at the pulpit and one immediately notes at least 5 variants:
1. Those who stick to orthodox robes and cassocks or sacralized color definitions (e.g. white)
2. Those who stress on wearing business suits or traditional suits
3. Those who like to wear designer and more trendy clothes
4. Those who like to wear casuals.
5. Those who are comfortable with two or more of the combinations above
    (a) Those who are comfortable with 1-4
    (b) Those who are comfortable with 2-4
    (c) Those who are comfortable with 1,2,4 but not 3
    (d) Those who are comfortable with 2,3,4 but not 1
    (e) Those who are comfortable with only 2 and 4.
    (f) Those who are comfortable with only 1 and 2.
    (g) Those who stick to 2 and 3 or 3 and 4.

It is not attempted to state here who is right and who is wrong. However, it will become evident to the reader by now that the issue of law and grace is basic even to the kind of dress we choose to wear to church.

Now, while it does seem that the sacralizers (1) are particularly legalistic, the fact is that even those who maintain that only casuals "ought" to be worn to church are not less legalistic. On the other hand, there are those who look at dress in a more instrumental manner, as something to be used to suit some purpose. The wiser instrumentalists also know that dress-forms as cultural forms also communicate meanings and are cautious how they dress up. There are also revolutionaries who dress up to explicitly and blatantly communicate their revolt against some legalistic system. Then, there are the popularists who dress up in order to have a trendy following or to create a brand.

"Do not be conformed to this present world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may test and approve what is the will of God – what is good and well-pleasing and perfect." (Rom.12:2)

"those who use the world as though they were not using it to the full. For the present shape of this world is passing away."(1Cor.7:31)

"to dress in suitable apparel, with modesty and self-control." (1Tim.2:9)

Suitable apparel refers to dress that suits the occasion and is comfortable to wear in the conditions. Modesty implies that the dress we wear must not be embarrassing and must protect shame, not be shameless and exposing privacy; dress must be honorable. Self-control means that our dress must not be provocative or appealing to the flesh but must exhibit self-control, temperance, and sound mind.

God-Christ-Man-Woman Relationship in 1 Corinthians 11

It is important for us to affirm some of the absolutes that Paul highlights about God-Christ-Man-Woman relationship:

1. The head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God (1Cor.11:3). Certainly, this is not with reference to the Church; for, Christ is the head of the Church and in Christ there is neither male nor female (Gal.3:28). So, this is with reference to creation-order of authority.
2. Man is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man (in the Creation-order) (1Cor.11:7). However, in the absolute sense, both male and female are created as man in the image of God (Gen.1:27).
3. Man is not from woman, but woman from man (in the Creation-order) (1Cor.11:8).
4. Nevertheless, neither is man independent of woman, nor woman independent of man, in the Lord. For as woman came from man, even so man also comes through woman; but all things are from God. (1Cor. 11:11-12)
5. Man was not created for the woman, but woman for the man (in the Creation-order) (1Cor.11:9)

What Does the Bible Mean When It Asks Women to Cover Their Heads?

See The Position of Women in the Bible

In 1Corinthians 11:4-14, Paul gives instructions regarding headcovering in the Church. He instructs that women should cover their head while praying or prophesying in the public. However, with regard to men, he says that a man ought not to cover his head. His arguments are as follows:

1. A man who prays or prophesies, having his head covered, dishonors his head.
2. A woman who prays or prophesies, without having her head covered, dishonors her head.
3. A man ought not to cover his head since he is the image and glory of God.
4. A woman ought to cover her head since she is the glory of man.
5. Headcovering is seen as a symbol of authority (1Cor.11:10), at least in that culture.
6. A woman ought to cover her head because of the angels (1Cor.11:10).
7. "Nature" (that is laws of understanding, in this regard, as related to the culture) teaches that it is shameful for a man to have long hair, but it is an honor for a woman to have long hair (1Cor.11: 14)

Conclusively, a woman's hair ought to be long and, during prayer, must be covered.

It is important to note here that headcovering for men, as well as uncut hair, was common among the Jews (Lev.16:4; Zech.3:5; Num.6:5). However, the same was not considered "natural" among the Romans. Of course, commentators like John Gill believe that this change in the New Testament is because Christ the head of the man is now in heaven and man is so liberated; however, since the head of woman is man, she ought to cover her head. Nevertheless, the very language that associates covering with headship and honor suggests a semantic association rather than an ontic one; that is, the relation doesn't appear to be compelled by a logical necessity but only by the grammar of a culture that gives a practice its semantic sense. The chief point of the instruction is that one must not disregard the cultural sense of honor and shame in public worship. Of course, culture is not static and undergoes changes as its elements also undergo semantic changes - their meanings change. For instance, folding of sleeves might be symbolic of vandalism at some time, some where. It might symbolize a common style at some other time at some other place. Whatever, one must not be insensitive to cultural language (especially, when elements that have one meaning in our culture have another meaning in some other culture).

One important thing to note is that the Bible doesn’t lament a culture if that culture properly functions to safeguard the Christian virtues. However, it does oppose any culture that turns the natural into unnatural, that promotes a false sense of shame and honor and despises what God has divinely instituted in nature. Therefore, whenever a clothing or even hair style is culturally distinguished as masculine or feminine, violation of the same within that culture is considered unnatural by God – not because a dress form is absolutely masculine or feminine, but because the dress form in the language of the particular culture means either masculine or feminine (Deut.22:5; 1Cor.11:14). Therefore, violation of the dress form becomes a violation of nature itself in the same manner that one cannot violate grammar of a particular language and still make sense in that language. The argument that the violation doesn’t exist in another language will not apply in this particular language. (Clothing and Culture)

In every rule stated in the Scripture, it is important to look not at the letter of the law but at the spirit of the law (2Cor. 3:6).

For More Questions and Discussions Check Theology of Clothing

_________________
April 13, 2016
HEADCOVERING AMONG GREEKS AND ROMANS
(From Wiki article Veil)
Classical Greek and Hellenistic statues sometimes depict Greek women with both their head and face covered by a veil. Caroline Galt and Lloyd Llewellyn-Jones have both argued from such representations and literary references that it was commonplace for women (at least those of higher status) in ancient Greece to cover their hair and face in public. Roman women were expected to wear veils as a symbol of the husband's authority over his wife; a married woman who omitted the veil was seen as withdrawing herself from marriage. In 166 BC, consul Sulpicius Gallus divorced his wife because she had left the house unveiled, thus allowing all to see, as he said, what only he should see. Unmarried girls normally didn't veil their heads, but matrons did so to show their modesty and chastity, their pudicitia. Veils also protected women against the evil eye, it was thought.

Clothing and Culture

Clothing and culture are closely knit together. Often, clothing is identified with culture. However, in modern times, people in most parts of the world are embracing a plurality of inter-cultural dress culture. The dominating influence is Western. People of some cultures have protested against the new dress forms (imported or innovated) as threatening the indigenous forms. Much can be written on the variety of issues that concern the dress ethic and theology. However, that is not the goal here.

One can take any of the many approaches to understand the origin, nature, function, and end of clothing. For instance, one can take the historical approach and study the origin and evolution of one or many dress forms; similarly, one can take the psychological approach and study human behavior and attitudes towards clothing from childhood to old age. Likewise, one can also take the religious approach and see what religion has to say about clothing with regard to sin, purity, ritual, and salvation, and religions have lot to say of this. A Christian theological approach would attempt to understand not only the historical dimension of clothing, but also its ethical and eschatological dimensions.

One important thing to note is that the Bible doesn’t lament a culture if that culture properly functions to safeguard the Christian virtues. However, it does oppose any culture that turns the natural into unnatural, that promotes a false sense of shame and honor and despises what God has divinely instituted in nature. Therefore, whenever a clothing or even hair style is culturally distinguished as masculine or feminine, violation of the same within that culture is considered unnatural by God – not because a dress form is absolutely masculine or feminine, but because the dress form in the language of the particular culture means either masculine or feminine (Deut.22:5; 1Cor.11:14). Therefore, violation of the dress form becomes a violation of nature itself in the same manner that one cannot violate grammar of a particular language and still make sense in that language. The argument that the violation doesn’t exist in another language will not apply in this particular language.

The 7 Purposes of Clothing
1. To cover nakedness, not expose it (Gen.3:21)
2. To protect shame, not promote shamelessness (Gen.3:7,21) 
3. To honor, not rebel (not rebellious dress forms, not for attracting through shock or provocation) (e.g. dress to honor various occasions like wedding. Jesus mentioned in his parable of the rich man's banquet that the man who didn't wear the wedding garment was thrown out, because he didn't honor the occasion, Matt.22:11; Gen.24:65)
4. To aid the body, not violate it (There are different clothing for different seasons - winter, summer, rainy; different clothing for different purposes: to protect against sun or wind or rain - hats, headgears, etc, 2Tim.4:13,21)
5. To celebrate fidelity, not become feast to the eyes of everyone (Sol.4:12).
6. To display modesty and humility, not trot out arrogance and pride (Isaiah 3:17-23; 1Pet.3:3,4)
7. To focus on inner beauty, not distract with or compensate with outer one (1Pet.3:3,4; Prov.31:30; Jer.2:33; 2Kings 9:30)

7 Purposes of Clothing

1. To cover nakedness, not expose it (Gen.3:21)
2. To protect shame, not promote shamelessness (Gen.3:7,21) 
3. To honor, not rebel (not rebellious dress forms, not for attracting through shock or provocation) (e.g. dress to honor various occasions like wedding. Jesus mentioned in his parable of the rich man's banquet that the man who didn't wear the wedding garment was thrown out, because he didn't honor the occasion, Matt.22:11; Gen.24:65)
4. To aid the body, not violate it (There are different clothing for different seasons - winter, summer, rainy; different clothing for different purposes: to protect against sun or wind or rain - hats, headgears, etc, 2Tim.4:13,21)
5. To celebrate fidelity, not become feast to the eyes of everyone (Sol.4:12).
6. To display modesty and humility, not trot out arrogance and pride (Isaiah 3:17-23; 1Pet.3:3,4)
7. To focus on inner beauty, not distract with or compensate with outer one (1Pet.3:3,4; Prov.31:30; Jer.2:33; 2Kings 9:30)

Theology of Clothing: Discussion Points & Questions (Notes)

In the beginning the man and his wife were naked, but not ashamed.

• Shame & dishonor are terms contingent to the world of sin
• Where there is sin there is the sense of shame & dishonor

When the man and his wife sinned, they acquired the sense of fear and shame; and, found the remedy in clothes of fig leaves to cover their nakedness

• Nakedness is contingent on sight and the sense related to it. It is not merely sexual (for the woman and man wouldn’t feel ashamed of each other with regard to that)
• Clothing is not just a symbol; it is a remedy… it is a basic need.
• Physically it covers against the antagonistic physical forces.
• Psychologically it remedies shame by hiding nakedness.
• Nakedness needs to be hid because man has become a private being.
• Nakedness relates to the organs primarily associated with sexuality.
• “Culture” (concepts and customs) play important rule in defining “nakedness” and “shame”
• “Cover” indicates the need for privatization of sexuality in a world that has grown adverse. It symbolizes the first instance of alienation and threat of privacy and dehumanization by bestial humans. “Uncovering” is only permitted where mutual self-giving has occurred through a nuptial covenant. To “uncover” would mean to bare the private areas; to “know” would mean to experience the privacy of the other through union. These are terms conditioned by the culture of shame.
• The sense of “nakedness” is not a solitary and subjective sense. It is a generic human sense. It is a sense and a feeling (quite unrelated to the original fact of nakedness without shame). It is a social sense. It is the sense of knowing original sin; that “all have sinned”. The sense of “nakedness” will not exist in solitariness or before those who do not have the “knowledge of good or evil” (e.g. children).. unless the self has been unnaturally deformed by sin. Nakedness and fear of moral evil are related. Adam’s fear involved distrust of and alienation from God.
• This “original nakedness” (as a sense not as a fact) would be impossible to be broken. Thus, all offspring, henceforth, though born in a state of innocence, will soon be covered by the culture of shame and honor; for the moment, they have the insight into their own sexuality, they’ll see the need for cover.

Q. Did God appear to them clothed?

• Mark of Sin-clothing: Fails to Cover the Private Parts (Highlights them). Is Shameless.
• Mark of Righteous Clothing: Covers Well. Symbol of Honor. (later history, Ring, Crown, Veil…).

God provided for the man and his wife, clothes of skin to cover their nakedness.

• Animals might have been killed since then to cover the nakedness of man.
• God is not against the sense of shame & honor, which are the senses of a rightly functioning conscience.
• God provides clothing in the world of sin (cf. Matthew 6).

Clothing plays an important role in divine communication with man.

• Heaven and angels do not appear without a covering of some kind. Why? What kind of clothing is that? Glory? Raiment?
• God specifies the clothing for the priests and His covenant people.
• Symbols relate to things that are known and mediate to convey things yet unknown (Angels using swords, for instance; what would angels appear wearing today?)

God institutes the Veil in Worship

• The Veil that separates the people from the Holy Place
• The Veil that separates all from the Most Holy Place

• Nakedness must not be exposed.
• Man must not approach except in proper covering: Clothes, Animal Blood.

God ordains the tearing of the Veil.

• It is not the removal of the veil; but the piercing through it.
• The Veil was pierced through the Flesh of Christ.
• The Temple Veil was torn.
• Where the Spirit of the Lord is there is freedom and we can behold Him face to face with unveiled faces.
• We are the Most Holy Place of God.

Paul instructs headcovering for woman, and removal of headcovering for man during worship

• The New Covenant hasn’t done away with the Original Shame. Man still needs the covering of his nakedness; between humans. His spiritual nakedness, however, is done away before God. He’s clothed with Christ. But, the generic sense of human sinfulness and nakedness still exists. The symbol of clothing is not removed even in the visions of heaven in Revelation.
• Shame and Honor are often gender relative (what is shame for man (e.g. long hair) is honor for woman).

Questions for Discussion:

1. How can nature (physis) teach about shame and honor; that long hair for man is dishonor while long hair for woman is honor?
2. Is such specification absolute (natural) or just relative?

Further Points:

• Noah’s loss of sense due to drunkenness, his nakedness, and the curse of Ham
• The veil of Rebekah
• The veil of Tamar
• Ruth’s uncovering of Boaz’s feet
• The mantle of Elijah
• The concept of “Cover” in both Covenant and Clothing: Tabernacle and Society.
• The man who fled naked in Gathsamane
• The robe of Jesus that was cast lot upon

© Domenic Marbaniang, 2012