3. Isn’t this contrary to class distinctions?

Before I try to prove that dressing up for church is Biblical, I think I need to deal with another objection that is uppermost in people’s minds. As one person (who prefers to remain anonymous) worded it, “Church finery also opens the door for economic and class distinctions which we’ve been told to steer clear of.”

But this socialistic thinking is far removed from the Bible. I know, I know. People will immediately quote Galatians 3:28: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” But if this is an argument for abolition of all economic and class distinctions, then the homosexuals are right, and it is also an abolition of all distinctions in sex. (Hint for those who are out of the loop: So-called “Evangelical homosexuals” claim that since there is no male and female distinction in the church, anyone can marry anyone. “To insist that males must marry only females is to fly in the face of Paul’s obliteration of distinctions.”) But our equality in Christ (Gal. 3:28) does not remove distinctions of sex, class, or social groups. It makes all people equally accessible to salvation and to church membership (notice that the context is baptism – v. 27). The Bible is replete with not only social distinctions, but with clothing that shows such distinctions. It speaks of:

• “Men’s clothing” and “women’s clothing” (Deut. 22:5). God clearly makes distinctions between the sexes on the matter of clothing. I would hope that we would still value this distinction! Especially since God says that cross dressing is “an abomination to the LORD your God.”
• “Priestly garments” (Lev. 21:10; Ezra 2:69) or “garments for priests” (Neh. 7:70,72). These were special garments for use in the temple alone: (covering thighs and hips [Ex. 28:42,43; Lev. 16:4], long embroidered tunic [Ex. 28:40; 39:27], and elaborate belt [Ex. 28:40; 39:29]). Outside of the temple service the priests wore linen (1 Sam. 22:18; 2:18).
• “Royal garments” (Esther 8:15) or “royal robes” (1 Kings 22:10,30; 2 Chron. 18:9,29; Acts 12:21; cf. Esther 6:8-9) of blue, white, and purple. Interestingly, David’s wife, Michal, was upset with David for dressing down from royal garments into non-royal worship clothes (see 2 Samuel 6:14,16,20 and 1 Chron. 15:27). These non-royal worship clothes were composed of “a robe of fine linen” and “a linen ephod” (1 Chron. 15:27). Though this was still somewhat costly clothing that not all might be able to afford, Michal was upset that he didn’t keep his royal dignity. But what she wanted him to do would be as inappropriate as wearing a tuxedo to church today. It would be pretentious. And David’s goal for going to church was not dignity before men, but honoring the Lord (v. 22). David did not have a problem with class distinctions in clothing for other occasions. It is the context that is important. For worship he chose stylish, but non-royal garments.
• Different robes for the queen (Esther 5:1) and the king’s virgin daughters (2 Sam. 13:18) and the heir to the throne (1 Sam. 18:4; cf. Gen. 37:3-4). Others in the King’s household (Matt. 11:8).
• Noblemen clothed in purple (Prov. 31:22; Dan. 5:7,16,29; Luke 16:19; Matt. 22:11,12).
• The clothing of scribes (Ezra 9:3,5; Ezek. 9:2-3) who could be either Levitical teachers (1 Chron. 15:27; 2 Chron. 5:12; 34:13) or non-Levitical ministers (1 Sam. 2:19; 28:14; 15:27).
• The robe or mantle of a prophet (1 Sam. 28:14; 2 Kings 1:8; Zech. 13:4; Matt. 3:4; Mark 1:6).
• “Foreign clothes” (Zeph. 1:8) (Israelites had four blue tassels).
• “Prison clothes” (2 Kings 25:29; Jer. 52:33).
• “Warriors in full dress” (Ezek. 23:12).
• “Widow’s garments” (Gen. 38:14,19) or “mourning clothes” (2 Sam. 14:2).
• “Wedding clothes” (Matt. 22:11,12) which is probably the same as white clothes for feasting (Eccl. 9:8; Is. 61:3).
• Likewise, Scripture mandates a distinction between “modest apparel” (1 Tim. 2:9) and being “dressed like a prostitute” (Prov. 7:10).

Etcetera. See the New Bible Dictionary under “Dress,” as well as H. F. Lutz, Textiles and Customs among the People of the Ancient Near East (1923), Biblical Archaeologist, XXIV, 1961, 119-128, and Benzinger, Hebraische Archaologie, 1927, 72-89, for numerous pictures of the variations in clothing between a charioteer, a king, a soldier, a nobleman, noblewoman, a prince, a slave, warrior, a diplomatic envoy, etc.

All of these things indicate that there is a time and a place for a variety of clothing. What has ironically happened in the church is that it has adopted the socialistic revolution against dress codes and against class distinctions. Levi Strauss recently spoke of the almost mandated super-casual dress code that has developed and said that it is “the most significant apparel trend of the century.” But make no mistake about it: the world has imposed a new dress code that has the potential of being just as legalistic as any “dress-up” church can be. As Kevin D. Hendriks pointed out, “Wearing a suit at my church actually makes you stick out so bad you suddenly revisit the awkward feelings of adolescence. Except for Easter. Then it’s okay.”