Before reading this exchange, I recommend you read, "The Community Church Movement" (just click on to visit).   There are many changes underway and one of the most noticeable is the change in the public worship of many different religions, churches of Christ are no exception.   There are many influences at work, but the basic impetus is the discontent with the "traditional" and a rejection of Bible authority.  The following exchange took place on an Internet list involving a number of preachers within churches of Christ.   There is focus on dress because one of the first goals of the contemporary worship proponents is to create a certain dress code that is conducive to the other changes pertaining to singing, the Lord's Supper, the role of women in public worship, etc.   Drama productions, quartets, and a totally casual atmosphere are being more in vogue.  The "contemporary worship experience" is what it is called.    You will also find in this exchange an example of the situation ethics rationale regarding dress.  In this vein, the cultural influence is considered.   

Don Martin to the list:

I do not know what all of you are seeing in the areas in which you live, but I am seeing a growing trend toward denominations offering two different types of worship service on the Lord's Day, traditional and contemporary.

By "traditional" they mean a service that is in harmony with what they have done in the past. By "contemporary" they mean a service that is modern and in keeping with the trends and styles of the day and viewed as seriously different from the usual or traditional.

The contemporary worship service often involves very casual dress. I attended a service last week where there was a person present in shorts and this person did not stand out as being seriously different in dress. The contemporary service stresses spontaneity as opposed to a structured service. The song leader in the service I attended did not even have any songs ready to lead but simply let others spontaneously recommend song selections (appeared to be the practice). The contemporary service is geared toward entertainment and participation. There is often a funny slant provided and audience responsive participation is encouraged. Everything is kept on a shallow level and there is deliberate effort expended to avoid the serious and studious.

I was recently invited to attend a seminar on how to "organize" (should be "disorganize") a contemporary worship experience and it stressed the above and more. The contemporary worship advocates talk about the "worship leader" and emphasizes doing away with the "preacher image." The worship leader is taught how to dress down and how to talk. Street language is often encouraged as opposed to "stiff proper grammar."

Let me be plain: As far as I am concerned denominations can worship in any way they decide. After all, denominationalism is simply the aggregate of people seeking to please themselves rather than God (cp. Mk. 7: 6-13). However, I wonder just how long it will be before we see clear attempts on the part of "churches of Christ" to provide two worship service choices for the Lord's Day: Traditional and contemporary? It is plain to any discerning brother who has even a minimum exposure that there is a strong identifiable movement within churches of Christ toward the contemporary.

Many members are becoming more and more irritated with one another as they seek to meet in one assembly. I say this because of the traditional view and the contemporary understanding that different ones have. Too many are presently attempting to placate those who want the contemporary. They have the same attitude that Tant advocated in the Vanguard Magazine back in the seventies with the "box in the vestibule" solution.

I have more to say, but I shall stop for now to see if there are any responsive posts. Suffice me to say, however, that we should be content and insist upon the traditional, not simply "the way we have always done it" but duplicating first century Christianity (cp. 2 Thes. 2: 15; 3: 6).

Don Martin to Gary Smith and the list:

In response to my post relative to the contemporary worship service emphasizing casual dress, Gary wrote the following (first quoting me):

"Don Martin" wrote: 'Suffice me to say, however, that we should be content and insist upon the traditional, not simply "the way we have always done it" but duplicating first century Christianity (cp. 2 Thes. 2: 15; 3: 6).'

Don, I fear that we will not maintain the traditional view - especially if you have in mind duplicating first century Christianity in dress! I don't think they wore a suit and tie when they met in secret places they had to meet to avoid persecution."

Don comments:

Gary, my post with the subject line, "traditional and contemporary worship services" was an extension of my first post today (as I explained). In my foundational post, I wrote the following:

"As I have always included, I am not binding a universal dress code that does not consider cultures, etc. However, I am saying that there are biblical principles that do involve clothing in public worship that is respectful, decent, and appropriate for the nature of the occasion, 'regardless of and in harmony with the prevailing culture'" (cp. I Tim. 2: 9).

Gary, what is your thinking about the traditional and contemporary worship service trend? Also, to what verse in the New Testament do we look for "secret places?" It seems to me the New Testament presents the idea of worshipping and suffering what ever consequences might be forthcoming (Rev. 2: 10). I taught a class recently in which a visitor advocated Christians in countries where Christianity is not favorably viewed having to live secretly the life of the Christian. "My uncle preachers in....and they cannot even invite others to worship with them for fear of persecution," he said. It seems to me we have mixed up "secular history" and Bible teaching.

Don Martin to the list (Gary Smith did not answer my post):

I have posted about traditional worship (that based on the teaching of the New Testament, 2 Thes. 2: 15, 3: 6) and contemporary (that which is current relative to trends, styles, and religious preferences) and how a number of denominations are now offering each type worship service on the Lord's Day. I have commented that the contemporary worship experience involves spontaneity as opposed to a structured service, street language and clothing, and in general emphasizes the casual. I mentioned how my wife and I were considered out of place at a place we attended last week because she had on a dress and dress shoes and I wore a sport coat and tie. I related how the preacher's wife who was in tight fitting blue jeans and flip-flops apologized to us because she failed to tell us to dress casually when she provided directions to the meeting place. In this vein, I asked when would "churches of Christ" start offering a choice of traditional and contemporary worship services. To this Jay Goff responded:

"I am glad that Don will not bind a universal dress code, ignoring culture. Considering that we live in a 'multicultural' nation, I would hope he would not presume to speak for my culture. Quite honestly, I deny being from the same culture as him.

Don comments:

I am very much aware that I am increasingly finding myself from a different culture. I continue to believe that public worship is a very important and reverent occasion. Therefore, I expect brethren to be prepared, the song leader having songs to lead, brethren being appointed to wait on the Lord's table, and lead in public prayer. I also expect decent and appropriate attire, not tight fitting blue jeans and flip-flops! I mentioned that another local church we visited had a member present who had on shorts (knee length) and his dress fit perfectly with the casual atmosphere that prevailed (the preacher had on a casual shirt and pants).

Please allow me to lay aside all the extraneous and say that such contemporary features (there is definitely a definition for the "contemporary worship experience" that is now appearing more in churches of Christ) belong more to a secular gathering than to the Lord's people assembling to commemorate the death and resurrection of Jesus and to praise and extol God!

There is more involved than the outward dress and the general casual spirit: There is often a flippant attitude of disrespect.

A funeral that I will never forget was a funeral that I held for my step-father many years ago. About half way through the service (typical of the casual climate), a group of people came down the isle dressed in blue jeans, sweat shirts, and tennis shoes. They sat down and talked aloud during the service. Their dress and casual conduct was disrespectful and was so noted by most of the people present. I am seeing more of this same conduct now in the Lord's church. Keep in mind that I am not limiting my definition of "contemporary worship service" to dress, but dress is an important element making up the contemporary and casual environment.

Yes, I believe public worship is sober and somber. I dress as if I am going to an important occasion: BECAUSE I AM. Moreover, I expect brethren to be prepared and the preacher to be the preacher and speak with dignity rather than slang. It truly saddens me to see that a number are saying, "Quite honestly, I deny being from the same culture as him." Just as the church that had a partial contemporary worship was uncomfortable in view of our presence (they told us so); we were uneasy in their presence. As far as the climate was concerned, I felt more like I had been to some shallow gathering for the purpose of people simply being together and making each other feel relaxed.

I believe my posts have been qualified and intelligible. I have not said "it is universally a sin for a male Christian to fail to wear a tie in the assembly." I know, however, that some will thus attempt to reduce my posts. I am addressing the general climate that makes up the "contemporary worship service" that is finding more acceptance, it is now a matter of degrees, in churches of Christ. "We cannot resist the change toward the contemporary," I am being told, "because we will have people to leave and go else where." If these people cannot be taught and are discontent, I say let them go! It is a historical fact that the church has repeatedly been led astray while trying to placate the malcontents. (Jay may cry misrepresentation but it was he who made the blanket statement, not I in quoting him.)

It may come as a shock, but I agree with elders who do have a dress code for the men who publicly serve in the assembly. It is a sorry reflection on an eldership that allows men to wait on the Lord's table in blue jeans and such casual wear. In closing this post, the thing that disturbs me the most is not some disagreeing with me: but the fact that a number disagreeing do not even know what I am saying!

Don Martin to Ronnie Baxter Jr. and the list:

Ronnie, I appreciate your participation. Ronnie asked;

"Don, sometimes, the dense, blond preacher that I am is overwhelmed by the material in your posts. Take that as an indication of my lack of ability rather than a problem with you. However, your quote, referenced above stuck a chord as well as a question. What exactly does being content and insist upon the traditional, not simply 'the way we have always done it' but 'duplicating first century Christianity' really mean? Are you referring to forms or patterns or concrete examples? Are you referring to 'spirit and truth'? From all the indications I have seen and found, our singing--four part harmony--is nowhere near the kind of singing the first century Christian evidenced. In fact, our brotherhood experienced a major problem over using shaped notes in our singing. As for the pejorative terms "contemporary" and "traditional", my understanding is that what is traditional today was contemporary at one time.

Don answers:

Ronnie, by referring to "first century Christianity" I mean the pristine examples and teachings we find in the New Testament that are there for our study and emulation. Perhaps you are not aware of the Contemporary Worship Movement that has pervaded denominationalism and now has vestiges being seen in the Lord's church. I do not believe focusing on such matters as "four part harmony" should constitute our definition of traditional and contemporary (remember that I have repeatedly used 2 Thes. 2:15 and 3: 6 as an example of what I mean by "traditional").

Ronnie, since you mentioned singing allow me to address the matter. I have a family member who is a preacher in the church. A while back he was spiritually euphoric and wanted to tell me about one of the greatest worship services he had attended. "There were three quartets present who performed and the singing was unbelievable," explained he, "I just do not know why churches do not incorporate such singing in their worship." The traditional singing of the first century was individual and congregational (Eph. 5: 19, distributive action). There were no quartets or solo singers. As far as four part harmony, the singing was simple and sincere. While I am not prepared to say part singing is a sin, I will affirm that some of our singing has become more manifestly designed for the entertainment of the singers rather than the worship of God. However, such matters do not constitute the core of my posts on traditional and contemporary worship services and I will not allow myself to be limited to such matters.

We must remember that we assemble in the "presence of God" in order to worship him from whom all blessings flow (Acts 10: 33, Jn. 4: 24). Our attitudes, conduct, dress, and speech should all reflect the fact of the seriousness of the occasion. We are making a statement to others in our mannerism and dress and we need to send the right message, this is what I am saying.

Don Martin to Randy Watson and the list:

Randy has a lengthy post and I shall as concisely has I can address some of his points.

Randy wrote:

I was one of those involved in the discussion several years ago. I want to thank Don for that discussion because I learned a great deal in studying that matter. So before Don comes back and tells you that I advocated preaching in blue jeans, I will say guilty as charged.

Don comments:

At this point, I am highly impressed with Randy's post. Randy was, indeed, part of a serious exchange on…..(name of list) several years ago in which I was involved.

Randy continues:

And I have relayed information that some preachers in foreign fields have observed the bare-chested women during worship. But my comments about different cultures having different standards was abused and misused by Don in that discussion.

Don reflects:

Randy, I try my best to understand and correctly represent others. I do not see how I misunderstood or misrepresented you. I am afraid we sometimes make statements concerning which we are not willing to accept the consequences. Here is what I said you advocated during the previous discussion: "Randy Watson said that it is appropriate in the assembly for a bare chested woman in the Philippines to worship God." Randy, this is what you said. You maintained that such a bare chested woman publicly worshipping God is not in conflict with the stated principles resident in I Timothy 2: 9.

Please note that I DID NOT SAY that you affirmed that it is appropriate for a bare chested woman in the typical assembly in America to worship God. I carefully and fully represented your qualification of "in the Philippines." Now, please tell the list and me exactly how I misrepresented you.

I again affirm: It is unacceptable for a bare chested woman to worship God in the public assembly in the Philippines. I said then and now that such a woman in such circumstances must be taught. Such is not binding American culture, but is practicing the teaching of I Timothy 2: 9.

Randy, again, is it appropriate for a bare chested woman in the Philippines to thus attend the public assembly? Should the above the waist naked woman in the Philippines be simply viewed as a cultural matter and the circumstance ignored? The list and I shall await your reply.

Randy wrote:

Don's attempt then as now to show an overall disrespect for God by the clothes a person wears is judgemental, and attempting to read the hearts of men and women he does not know.

Don replies:

Randy, I respectfully counter by saying that the bare chested woman in the assembly in Philippines is not acceptable and the woman must be taught such scriptures as I Timothy 2: 9. I will say, though, that you are consistent in your position.

Randy continues:

Don attempts to tell us that this is a poor attitude, but he doesn't know what is insomeones heart except by the fruit they offer. Don has been exposed to some poor examples of human behavior, and then attributes any appearance of like manner as being of the same character and general disrespect. Don had no right to condemn any brethren in their worship to God.

Don replies:

Our dress is reflective of who and what we are. Just as the attire of a harlot bespoke her character, so does our dress indicate our hearts (Prov. 7: 10).

I have been posting under the subject line of "traditional and contemporary worship services" and I have not limited my comments to simply dress. However, dress is a major component to the contemporary worship experience. I mentioned that in one seminar in which preachers were being taught about how to set up contemporary worship services, they were taught to dress down. "Be casual and wear street clothes to created the necessary climate for the contemporary worship so others will be relaxed," they instructed.

Rather than become too verbose in further reply to Randy's post, let me close by again asking Randy: Is it appropriate for a bare chested woman in the Philippines to be in the public assembly or should this woman be taught such attire (or absence thereof) is inappropriate?" Randy, here is your chance to be understood.

Don Martin to Reese Bobbit and the list:

First, thank you, Reese, for your comments relative to traditional and contemporary worship services. I do not recall exchanging with you before now. I do want to address a few matters that you mentioned in your public post to me.

Reese wrote:

I'm jumping in here because I believe that this can be a very profitable discussion in helping us all recognize our own preconceptions. You hit on some points where we have very fundamental differences, but they are differences of personality/culture rather than substance, so they can be overcome.

Don comments:

Reese, I do not believe that I am just discussing matters of simple cultural differences. I have conceded the fact of cultural idiosyncrasies. However, under the heading of traditional and contemporary worship services, I am addressing a mind-set that has pervaded denominationalism and has now become subtly influential in churches of Christ. I have pointed out that it has become so advanced in some denominations that these churches are now offering separate worship services. I have also attempted to explain what some of the components of the traditional (as I have used the term, 2 Thes. 2: 15) and contemporary worship services are. Regarding the contemporary "worship experience," I have pointed out how spontaneity and casualness are stressed as being absolutely essential to the sought relaxed worship atmosphere.

Reese wrote:

Two points here: 1. Preparation is good, but hardly worthy as a test of whether it's being treated as an important and reverent occasion. I will cite an example recently of an instance in which one brother had inadvertently read the wrong month's schedule and did not realize he was responsible for the Lord's Supper. We realized this right when he was supposed to be walking up there. So I grabbed my bible an gave a short talk on Jesus' example and sacrifice for us. Several people later mentioned that they found it edifying and helpful as they partook. The fact that I've gone to certain meetings at work under-prepared, or completely unprepared, does not mean they were not important, it simply means I had less time to prepare than I had anticipated or would have liked.

2. "Decent and appropriate attire" is the point we're discussing, at least in part. To write off flip-flops as inappropriate is, in logic parlance, begging the question. (Although, for the record, I certainly agree with you on the tight-fitting jeans).

Don comments:

Reese, many of the points you make are involving exceptions, such as the above. Let me say that I Corinthians 14: 33 and verse 40 are teaching order (see whole context). Lack of preparation results in disorder. I knew one member where I preached who repeatedly commented, "the service here is too stiff, we need to make some changes." When I asked what he had in mind, he replied: "Why not have more spontaneity, let someone get one who wants to and lead a song that has not been scheduled during the preaching." This brother was a proponent of the contemporary worship concept. I am not talking about exceptional things that happen, I am addressing the very structure or lack thereof of public worship.

Reese continued, first quoting me:

"I mentioned that another local church we visited had a member present who had on shorts (knee length) and his dress fit perfectly with the casual atmosphere that prevailed (the preacher had on a casual shirt and pants)."

Can you point me to "any" scripture which would classify this as inappropriate? Do you honestly think that one has to dress in a stuffy manner to please God? And this question, which I asked so forcefully as a rhetorical device not in itself but to point out different perspectives, gets to the heart of the topic at hand. What is "respectful" is a matter of personal perspective.

Don comments:

In every culture and society there is dress that is deemed appropriate for different occasions (cp. Matt. 22: 11-14). Blue jeans and tennis shoes may be appropriate for attending a base ball game but not for assembling to worship God, not in our society. More than the matter of dress, though, there is the often resident attitude involving such casual clothing.

Reese stated:

I know you're smart enough to understand that if I get a flat tire on my way home from the ballgame, the wise decision for me to make is to get to services on time rather than go home to change and be late or not come at all. I am showing God no disrespect by coming in shorts and a dirty T-shirt. In fact, I'm declaring to Him that He and His family are more important to me than my personal comfort and hygeine.

Don comments:

Again, the above is not the issue. I am talking about the contemporary worship service experience and the components thereof that create the whole.

Reese wrote:

Shorts? You're claiming an incompatibility between my 3-button polo shirts and extolling God?

Don answers:

Reese, I really do not understand the above. Again, though, I stress that dress is important, being one component in the public assembly (I Tim. 2: 9). The dress is to be decent, appropriate for the occasion, and lacking distraction (I Tim. 2: 9).

Reese further stated:

A flippant attitude of disrespect is a problem. However diagnosing dress more casual than yours as a symptom of "a flippant attitude of disrespect" is akin to claiming that a cough is clear evidence of tuberculosis. It's just not justified. It's terribly presumptuous to assume that I care as much about what people wear as you do (or that I care as much about what I wear as you seem to).

Don remarks:

I have specifically mentioned dress in the assembly such as tight fitting blue jeans that the preacher's wife wore, knee length shorts wore by one of the male members in the assembly, and street cloths wore by the preacher. Reese, I must beg to differ with you, I do have serious problems with such dress. The specific dress is, collectively viewed, indecent and inappropriate for the occasion.

Reese and the list, it is evident from the posts thus far that great differences exists between some on this list and me. Some of these differences are so large that we can see why some churches are now offering two separate services, one traditional and one contemporary. I am not comfortable with the preacher in street clothes, his wife in tight fitting blue jeans and flip flops, and a male member in shorts (others also dressed extremely casually). In fact, this climate along with the attitudes producing it disturb me to the point that I could not continue to be a member of such a local church (after teaching and the teaching being rejected). After a similar fashion, many who have subscribed to the contemporary worship "experience" are just as miserable in a climate such as I have advocated. You see, the issue is just not over dress but attitudinal matters.

In closing, Reese quotes me and then adds:

"Yes, I believe public worship is sober and somber. I dress as if I am going to an important occasion: BECAUSE I AM."

Again, I agree, but to me dressing for an important occasion is not the same as dressing for something I don't want to attend but am expected to. It's a cultural difference and attempting to bind your culture (where that culture is not based on book, chapter, and verse) is foolish. (Particularly in this instance, where we are directly commanded not to base our acceptance of those in the assembly on what they wear -- which also happens to be the "only" scriptural guidance offered regarding this point)

Don concludes:

Reese and the list, the only thing that I have sought to bind is decent, appropriate, and clothing that does not distract from the seriousness of public worship (I Tim. 2: 9). This drive toward the casual and flippant must be challenged. I agree that it promotes a relaxed climate, but this climate also entails relaxation in matters such as Bible authority, etc.

Reese and the list, thank you for considering this matter of traditional and contemporary worship services.

Don Martin to Jack Evans and the list:

Jack, good to have you in the discussion relative to traditional and contemporary worship services. While we disagreed several years ago, I do appreciate and value your comments. I shall briefly reply to some of your comments. I especially appreciate the posts made by Steve Ranson and Doug Thomas last night. Some may not understand this, but I also appreciate the posts of those who are in disagreement with me. I thank them for their time and interest and willingness to state their position and convictions. This is the value of exchanges, we can compare teachings with the Bible.

Jack stated:

Don I participated in that discussion with several others. I seem to recall that you wound up doing somewhat more than that which you so proudly display, i.e., the blue denim Bible offer. I recall you going on errant memory and offering to buy ties for poor brethren who could not afford them as well, but there were no such brethren. Of course you did state that you certainly are extremely concerned about the offer and anyone needing assistance for purchasing such to worship God. In view of the good comment already made on concern for how this discussion will be handled, some of your offers Don have appeared to others as totally out of place and unnecessary. It's just that they still seem to be very vogue to you. You also admitted you knew absolutely nothing about the brethren for whom you made the offer, nor could you say you judge them as unworthy before God in their worship.

Don comments:

Jack, I will be up-front and tell you that I do not recall all said three years ago. I do recall stating that I had offered to purchase appropriate clothing for those who did not have it. In fact, at the very time of the exchange, I baptized a woman who did not even own a decent dress and my wife and I purchased her some clothing to wear to service. I am not sure what you mean, Jack, in the above. I do also recall saying that money is not usually the issue and that my posts were not really concerning money but attitude. Doug Thomas said it very eloquently when he mentioned the attitude of giving and doing our best in service to God instead of down sizing.

Jack writes:

Moreover, Don, you added to your thesaurus by changing the subject heading to suit your conjecture, "Will Not Wear Dress Clothes." So your prior posts, Don, of a certainty carried somewhat of a "personal" or "what Don likes" attribute with them. Which really doesn't count for a whole lot when it comes to brethren who still worship in spirit and in truth elsewhere from where "Don" worships. So brother, while you take delight in tossing up before your brethren your great blue denim Bible offer it really isn't much to toss up.

Don comments:

Jack, I am sorry but I am not really grasping the import of the above. I agree I have personal tastes, but I cannot bind these own others. What I am binding in the matter of dress (I do not want this discussion limited to dress) is dress that is appropriate for the occasion, decent, and does not attract or distract attention. I believe this is taught in I Timothy 2: 9. This is what I am binding. The examples that I have mentioned, the preacher's wife in the assembly in tight fitting blue jeans and flip flops, the man in knee length shorts, and the preacher in street clothes, I do believe constitute inappropriate attire. In some cases, there may not be a bad attitude toward the contemporary type worship service about which I am posting, it may be lack of teaching.

Jack continued:

Don this is what concerns me about your posts on dress. First you come off with something boastful such as the blue denim bible offer (just mentioned), and that along with statements like "the blue jeans in the pulpit boys." Our brethren, Don, who admitted wearing blue jeans while teaching are not boys, they are servants of God. And from what I can tell many are doing a fine job of preaching "where" you are not preaching.

Don answers:

Jack, my friend, it appears that you are allowing personal feelings and perhaps pride to move you. My posts have pertained to the traditional and contemporary worship services. Jack, I must differ with you in this matter (I believe this is the only area that I recall a disagreement between us). Those who push the blue jeans in the pulpit to influence the casual, I do view them as the "blue jeans in the pulpit boys." I really do not think they are mature, I suppose I am saying.

Jack wrote:

You seek to justify yourself with the foregoing safe position, "As I have always included, I am not binding a universal dress code that does not consider cultures, etc. " But, Don, it does appear to me that you contradict yourself with the later statement following, "It is a sorry reflection on an eldership that allows men to wait on the Lord's table in blue jeans and such casual wear."

Don comments:

Jack, you may have a good point. I thought, without checking, that the above comment was made in the climate of the culture in America. I do know that I have expressed the realization of different cultures. I must admit, this may confuse some, that one could be appropriately dressed for the serving of the Lord's Supper in the Philippines in a shirt without a tie, if I understand their dress wear (I sure hope Randy Watson does not think I just said the bare chested woman in the Philippines would be appropriate behind the Lord's table :).

Jack, what I am saying, in the main, is the contemporary worship movement is wrong! Now, one component is to dress down to create a casual climate. Jack, if you and I must differ on this, then so be it. I am not talking about a poor person who wears the best they have. As I have said, I really cannot fully relate to this, even. One can purchase clothing at garage sales, the Thrift Store, etc. I truly believe that in most cases the real problem is attitude, and this is, to me, the real issue!

Thanks again for your comments and efforts to reason with me. I know I am bull headed, but I do believe I am capable of changing if I believe I am wrong, I had better be.

Don Martin to Randy Watson and the list:

Randy and the list, I want it perfectly understood that I have nothing personally against Randy. I do believe that Randy was wrong three years ago and I have urged him to repent and retract his statement about the bare chested woman in the Philippines.

Randy wrote:

Randy Watson here with greetings to the list.

I thank all the participants of this thread. Don must feel he is being attacked maliciously because he feels it appropriate to wear a suit and tie to worship. I have no problem with the way he wants to feel or dress. I did challenge Don to not judge the hearts and motives of brethren he does not know who do not dress as immaculately has him.

Don answers:

Randy, I do not become upset because I do not personally take things. The quest is the examination of teaching to arrive at the truth. Yes, I do have convictions in the matter of dress. I believe the dress should be appropriate for the occasion, decent, and not attracting or distracting attention (I Tim. 2: 9). There are a number of particulars involved in the practical application of this issue that we have not addressed.

Randy writes:

I tried to bring James 2:1-4 into the discussion a few years ago, but Don would not get off a comment that really bothered him. And for some reason, everytime he communicates with me he brings up the subject we are about to discuss.

Don replies:

I would like to see us later engage in an exegetical study of James 2: 1-6. However, there continues to be a pressing matter. Regarding this, Randy wrote:

"In that exchange a few years ago, I suggested that my spanish brethren in foreign countries went to services barefoot, and in their everyday work clothes. Don said that was totally inappropriate. I charged him THEN with judging motives and it was wrong to do so".

Don replies:

Randy, I am sorry but I do not recall the above as you mention it. I have repeatedly acknowledged the matter of cultural and circumstantial considerations.

Randy wrote:

I even went so far as to reproduce a discussion with a preacher that made several trips to the Philippines. That of course brought on the charge which is still misrepresented (and sometimes out of context).

Don wrote:

Here is what I said you advocated during the previous discussion: "Randy Watson said that it is appropriate in the assembly for a bare chested woman in the Philippines to worship God." Randy, this is what you said. You maintained that such a bare chested woman publicly worshipping God is not in conflict with the stated principles resident in I Timothy 2: 9.

Please note that I DID NOT SAY that you affirmed that it is appropriate for a bare chested woman in the typical assembly in America to worship God. I carefully and fully represented your qualification of "in the Philippines." Now, please tell the list and me exactly how I misrepresented you.

Randy comments:

First that second paragraph is not what you presented in our discussion last time. My words were "that it was not inappropriate for the woman in the Philippines, but it most certainly would be here in the States". There is a difference between "not inappropriate" and "appropriate" and Don chooses his words carefully to view things in the light best suited to his ways.

Don answers:

Randy, we are finally discovering why you have claimed misrepresentation. You said "that it was not inappropriate for the woman in the Philippines, but it most certainly would be here in the States".

Randy, I am confused (not the first time). You have claimed that I have misrepresented you because I said you stated that the bare chested woman in the assembly in the Philippines was appropriate when you really said such a woman is not inappropriate. Now we have it, finally! I now understand or do I? (continued in the next post.)

Don Martin to Randy Watson and the List:

I thank all who have participated in this exchange regarding the traditional and contemporary worship services. We have, though, become somewhat bogged down by only considering the matter of dress in the assembly. I ended my last post by saying:

Randy, we are finally discovering why you have claimed misrepresentation. You said "that it was not inappropriate for the woman in the Philippines, but it most certainly would be here in the States".

Randy, I am confused (not the first time). You have claimed that I have misrepresented you because I said you stated that the bare chested woman in the assembly in the Philippines was appropriate when you really said such a woman is not "inappropriate." Now we have it, finally! I now understand or do I?

Don comments:

Randy and the list, I am grieved when I am charged with misrepresentation. I do not want to misrepresent anybody! If one must "win" an argument by misrepresentation, one is in bad shape. However, I, if I may speak candidly, view your above explanation of misrepresentation as very lacking.

You said above that the bare chested woman worshipping in the assembly "was not inappropriate." Randy, if such is not "inappropriate," would it not be "appropriate?" You have accused me of making a play on words, is not the above a classic example? All this time I am wondered what you meant by the charge of misrepresentation.

Randy, in all seriousness, I continue to be very disturbed that you think a bare chested woman in the Philippines is not "inappropriate." Cultural differences in dress do not negate matters of decency. If a woman worshipping in the assembly in the Philippines naked from the waist up is not "inappropriate," would not a woman worshipping in the assembly nude from the waist down in a culture where this is done not be "inappropriate?" If not, why not, Randy?

Randy, you have a responsibility to answer these questions on the list. The list and I shall await your reply. Randy, I would certainly think more of you if you simply said you should not have said what you did.

Don Martin to Randy Watson and the list:

I bid all a good weekend. I have just spent a couple hours visiting the …..(name of list) archives pertaining to "bare chested women" in the Philippines" (very boring). I was especially interested in reviewing some of the statements Randy Watson made relative to women in the Philippines in public worship being nude from the waist up. Randy applied almost total nudity to women and men. He refereed to men in Africa with nothing but "a cloth around their private parts." When I
pressed Randy, he penned the following comparing American dress with African:

Randy Watson, April 16, 2000, digest 1367

"Now, please do not think that if a group chooses to come to services wearing bathing suits, that I would approve. I would not, and neither should any other. Yet some of our African brothers come to services in just such attire. They do not have the problem with this type of dress. So you see, each culture and local congregation deems for itself what is appropriate."

Neither would a congregation in Colorado have the right to tell my brethren in …. how to dress in July. (If you have ever been along the gulf coast in July and felt the humidity, you would understand.)

Don further states:

Randy believes as some others that each church in its prevailing culture decides what is decent and appropriate attire. I have agreed with this premise in respect to the endemic definition for dress wear (appropriate dress). However, in the past and present I (Randy has still not recanted) strongly maintain that decency is decency, regardless of the culture. For instance, a woman (especially in general) nude from the waist up is not only inappropriately dressed, but she is indecently clothed as well (I Tim. 2: 9). The African male with only the loin cloth around his private parts is also both inappropriately and indecently dressed (Ibid.).

In our exchange a couple years ago, Randy took sharp issue with me and made serious charges. I especially challenged Randy then and now because Randy's teaching is a clear case of situation ethics. Let me again repeat: decency is decency regardless of the culture, conversely, indecency is indecency regardless of the culture.

Is Randy going to step up to the plate and defend his teaching, repent of his teaching, or simply try to sneak out of it by ignoring my posts?

Randy has now said that I have misrepresented him when I said that he stated, "A bare chested woman in the assembly in the Philippines is appropriate" when he said his statement was, "A bare chested woman in the assembly in the Philippines is not inappropriate." There is no mistaking Randy's teaching. He has unquestionably taught on …. That almost total nudity (loin cloth) is acceptable, even in public worship: providing the associated culture accepts it.

I continue to wait for Randy to reply. My desire is that Randy will say that he went too far in his efforts to accuse me of binding a universal dress code of tie and suit (which I have never done). (Randy dropped out of the exchange.)

Don Martin to David Reed and the list:

I have been attempting to prompt Randy Watson to act responsibly and answer how he can teach that women and men in the Philippines and Africa can be nude from the waist up and have on only a loin cloth in public worship and such be acceptable. I have accused Randy of teaching situation ethics.

Now David Reed writes:

Can you please quote us the scripture that states that it is immodest for a woman to go bare breasted?

Don answers:

Here is the scripture: "In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pears, or costly array" (I Tim. 2: 9).

This verse applies to people in the first century and to all people today, whether in Africa, the Philippines or America. Men and women being nude from the waist up and only having on a loin cloth in public worship (any where else in public) is not decent. Imagine the Lord's people coming together in the assembly nude from the waist up and only possessing a loin cloth and then calling such decent and modest.

David, it appears that where you and Randy Watson err is in thinking that just because a culture may not view a matter as immodest and indecent, then such is not immodest and indecent. There are still peoples today in some cultures that go entirely nude in public. According to you and Randy, such is acceptable and people like me who would attempt to teach them to cover themselves, just as God did with Adam and Eve, are wrong (Gen. 3: 21). (The "loin clothes" were not enough, God made them "coats of skin, and clothed them," cp. 3: 7).

Let us not limit these matters to modest and decent dress. How about cultures where brutality, fornication, and stealing are not unfavorably looked upon? David, according to the reasoning of you and Randy, these brutal, fornicating, and stealing people are not really brutal, fornicators, and thieves. If not, why not?

David wrote:

I dare say that in most places in America it would be culturally inappropriate and most likely illegal for a woman to expose her bare breasts in public when not nursing, but American culture does not apply to the whole world, and we must be careful to not confuse our Western culture and laws with the word of God.

Don comments:

David further wrote that applying I Timothy 2: 9 to women and men in the Philippines and Africa (frame of reference) who are bare chested and only wearing a loin cloth in public worship is simply "applying our Western opinions of immodesty and attempting to teach those opinions as church doctrine."

Hear David's exact words:

I have heard from a South African missionary that it is difficult to deal with other cultures when we apply our Western opinions of immodesty and attempt to teach those opinions as church doctrine.

Don continues:

In the previous exchange that Randy Watson and I had, Randy asked me what would I do if I were preaching in the Philippines and there were bare chested women in the audience. My reply was I would preach to them just as I would to all. If these nude above the waist women professed to be Christians, I would have to teach them I Timothy 2: 9 (what David calls "opinions as church doctrine").

David, Randy, and all who are following this exchange, these are serious matters. Again, I repeat, matters of morality and decency know no cultural boundaries. Matters of what constitutes appropriate dress wear, yes, but not matters of decency.

I have known of "missionaries" who have gone to other counties and have allowed those whom they taught to continue in fornication, adultery, brutality, and theft because such was part of their culture. Such is a shame and disgrace! These "missionaries" have used the same rationale as David and Randy.

Let me emphasize that I am not misrepresenting David in the least. In like fashion, I have not misrepresented Randy Watson. I have no vendetta against either David or Randy. However, they are wrong and this error must be pointed out and challenged. Again, we wait for Randy Watson to answer.

In closing, attending only have on a loin-cloth would be contemporary worship in Africa.

Don Martin to the list:

During the course of a week, I have been posting on traditional and contemporary worship services. I have defined "traditional" in keeping with 2 Thessalonians 2: 15 and 36 (that which has been handed down from inspiration) and "contemporary" as that which is currently in vogue. I have attempted to mentioned some of the components comprising each type worship service. I have pointed out how a number of religions have developed such differences in attitude among their members that they now have to offer two separate worship services, the traditional (in keeping with what they have done in the past) and the contemporary. I have asked how long it would be before we see the same two services offered in churches of Christ. Even on this list, we have witnessed an antithetical understanding of public worship. One preacher said of me words to the effect, "You and I are of two different cultures and I do not want anything to do with your culture."

I have endeavored to show, with much welcomed interruption, how the contemporary worship "experience" is opposed to New Testament principles. I have presented what I believe to be the truth relative to Ephesians 5: 19 and Colossians 3: 16, only to have some preachers argue on this list that they disagree with my understanding of the grammar in these verses and that they
do not believe that the language of the verses preclude choirs, solos, and quartets (they did express disapproval with simple entertainment). I have shown that one of the tenets of the contemporary worship mind-set is dressing down (casual and street clothing). I have incurred the strong disapprobation of a number on this list in this vein, also.

The bottom line is, it matters not the prevailing culture, God's people are going to reverently assemble and subserviently observe God's appointments, offering homage that is, first, pleasing to Him (Jn. 4: 24). Simple and sincere songs of praise, which are reciprocally and concurrently offered by all and decency and appropriate attire are to characterize our worship to God. We should not be interested in "developing the casual climate" for the contemporary worship service, but simply worshipping God as he has taught.

The issue has not been about males universally wearing a suit and tie, the issue has been about solemnity, dignity, and order in worship. Those who teach how to set up a contemporary worship service explain that before they can effect such a climate, they must first create a casual atmosphere. As I have stated, street cloths and language are prerequisites to the overall condition.

Not only has my posting prompted the idea that Ephesians 5: 19 and Colossians 3: 16 do not preclude choirs, solos, and quartets in the assembly, but that an above the waist nude woman and a male only wearing a loin cloth may acceptably attend the public worship in the respective culture of the Philippines and Africa, without conflicting with the decent attire taught in I Timothy 2: 9. I have been repeatedly accused of binding western culture and the opinions of men by saying that the bare chested woman and man having on only a loin cloth need to be taught proper
clothing.

Brethren, the stage is set and the time is ripe for more of the contemporary worship to be put in place in churches of Christ. I mentioned that I recently attended two non-institutional churches where the preacher's wife had on tight fitting blue jeans and flip flops, the preacher wore street cloths, and one male member had on knee length shorts (the remainder where dressed very casually). The preacher's wife apologized to my wife and me because my wife had on a dress and dress shoes and I had on a sport coat and tie. She felt we were out of place and too dressed up.

Tim Wages, who also is located in the Denver, Co. area, wrote the following comparing where he is a member and were I preach:

"If in the congregation where Don is an elder and preacher blue jeans and tennis shoes are a distraction, then it is perfectly acceptable for that congregation to ask that people wear something other than blue jeans and tennis shoes when they attend assemblies there. If you are in the Denver area, you don't have a coat and tie to wear, and you are looking for a place to worship, you can come to the congregation where I am a deacon, where Don's opinions have no weight whatsoever, where blue jeans, tennis shoes, knee-length shorts, t-shirts, sandals and other non-distracting clothing are NOT taken as a sign that you have no respect for God."

Don comments:

We have visitors who dress immodestly and indecently. We had a woman in shorts (the kind Tim and Smoky Hill welcome, according to Tim) a few months ago. We tried to make her feel comfortable, but based on the respectful (yes, respectful) way the members were dressed, I know she felt uncomfortable. We even have had men in women's attire (transvestites) in attendance. We have had drunks, drug heads, and all sorts of people in the audience. We want all these people to hear the gospel and change. However, we do not intend to change Holly Street to make these people feel "part of the group."

We believe if you want a ball game experience, you need to go to a ball game, not the public worship of the church. Eat hot dogs and pop corn and enjoy the frivolous and casual climate at the base ball stadium. When we assemble around the Lord's table, however, to partake of the elements, it is a very serious, sober, and solemn event (I Cor. 11: 23ff.). We believe people need to change to make their lives harmonize with the gospel, not the reverse. We are not, frankly, interested in being the largest church in the State of Colorado (as some have claimed for Smoky Hill), but a God fearing and worshipping people. We have turned down many people because of their determination to bring in their ungodly attitudes, only to see them accepted by other churches in the area which have a number fixation.

Don Martin to the list:

I have shared the grammar of Ephesians 5: 19 and Colossians 3: 16 with you, the reflexive pronouns and the numerous participles. The conclusion that I have presented to you is that these verses are graphically teaching congregational singing: singing one to another (reciprocal action) and singing concurrently one to another. In other words, each is to be "in the process" of reciprocating. I have suggested to you that I do not know how grammar and syntax could more forcefully teach congregational singing even to the point of precluding the actual circumstance for choirs, solos, and quartets (I have also admitted that we could engage in hair splitting as to absolute, to the split second simultaneous reciprocity). I have, in addition, shared the following quotations with you:

"Now all of you together become a choir so that being harmoniously in concord and receiving the key note from God in unison you may sing with one voice through Jesus Christ to the Father" (Igatius, ca. 110 A.D., Early Christians Speak, pg. 149).

"From the apostolic age singing was always a part of divine service, in which the whole body of the Church joined together; and it was the decay of this practice that first brought the order of singers into the Church. The council of Laodicea (canon 15) prohibited singing by the congregation; but this was a temporary provision, designed only to restore and revive the ancient psalmody. We find that in after-ages the people enjoyed their ancient privilege of singing all together" (John M'Clintock and James Strong, Cyclopedia of biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, Vol. 9, pg. 776).

Professor Donald Hustad who was formerly Director of the Sacred Music Department at the Moody Bible Institute wrote the following:

"The early worship music of the Christian church was completely congregational, so far as we can tell. However, following the spread of Christianity throughout the western world, the increasing power and sophistication of the church was accompanied by the development of trained
choirs and music leaders. Church history records that about the fifth century congregational singing was largely eliminated in Christian worship, and the music was given to choirs." (Jubilate!, pg. 46, referenced in Singing and New Testament Worship, by Dave Miller, pg. 3).

Over the weekend, I received a number of invitations from churches having special functions in my area. I thought I would share some of them with you under the heading of "contemporary worship services."

The Columbine Church of Christ (about two miles from my house) Is having a special effort. Robert Lee, the preacher, will be speaking on, "What is your Life?" In the brochure, it states, "solos welcome" and "bring your quartet or singing group." The Eastside Church of Christ in Colorado Springs also has invited us to attend "a weekend of worship." On the designated Saturday at 8 am they will have, "Complimentary continental breakfast." At "10: 30 am...Breakout Sessions." At "1: 30...Assembly, New Music." At "2: 30...Breakout Sessions." At "3: 45...Sweet Spirit (female vocal group)."  (To read more about the type music authorized, click on,"Choirs, Solos, and Vocal Bands in Worship."

The kicker for me is between "7 - 9 pm...'How Do We Know When Our Worship Has Been Good - Jack Reese.'"

I had wanted us to really look at what is happening in more Churches of Christ under the caption of contemporary worship, but it seems we cannot get past bare chested women and men with only a loin cloth in the Philippines and Africa.

Concerned reader, you and I are living in a sad but interesting age. As an amateur historian, I am having a field day!

Don Martin to the list:

My present plans are to have two more posts (one more after this one) on traditional and contemporary worship. I do want to address James 2: 1-10, though (this post). Some use James 2: 1-10 as proof that dirty and filthy clothes being worn to the public worship are of no spiritual consequence. In fact, it is a sin if we "look down" on such filthy attire and count it as unsuitable and inappropriate on the part of the members in general, we are told. Here is the text:

"1: My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons.
2: 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;
3: And ye have respect to him that weareth the gay 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:
4: Are ye not then partial in yourselves, and are become judges of evil thoughts?
5: Hearken, my beloved brethren, Hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he hath promised to them that love him?
6: But ye have despised the poor. Do not rich men oppress you, and draw you before the judgment seats?
7: Do not they blaspheme that worthy name by the which ye are called?
8: If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well:
9: But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors.
10: For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all."

Don comments:

First, the words translated "goodly" and "vile" are lampra and ruparos, respectively. The clothing is antithetical or used in contrast. "Vile" clothing is, "filthy, dirty...shabby clothing" (Vine) and "goodly apparel" would be comparatively clean and expensive (there is some manuscript difference). One man is "rich" (vs. 6) and the other is "poor" (vs. 3). What is the paramount lesson James is teaching?

The lesson is succinctly stated in verse nine, "respect of persons." This respect of persons (just because one is rich and one is poor) is shown in shameful preferential treatment (vs. 3). Is the attention and focus on the clothing, as such? No. The clothing is simply indicative of the financial status of each of the two people.

Some have understood that James is meaning to teach that the "filthy, dirty, and shabby clothing" is being promoted as spiritually advantageous over the expensive and clean clothing. They tell us that this is what Paul is saying when he used the word "modest" in I Timothy 2: 9. Hence, it is wrong to wear clean and expensive clothing to public worship, according to this rationale. However, clean and expensive clothing(lampra) is often the clothing of angels (cp. Rev. 15: 6). Besides, kosmious ("modest") in I Timothy 2: 9 means well-arranged and orderly, not inexpensive. "But how about the, "gold, pearls, and coslty array" of I Timothy 2: 9? Such is wrong when it is the emphasis, excessive, and is distracting from the worship service (is it wrong to wear a gold wedding ring?).

James, I suggest, is not seeking to promote filthy, dirty, and shabby clothing, no more than he is demoting comparatively expensive (expensive compared to the "vile" clothing, cp. Prov. 31: 22). To glean such from the text is to miss the whole point. Again, the point is respect of persons. "Does not judging others by their dress constitute respect of persons?," one asks. How far do we carry this line of reasoning? How about the "attire of a harlot" and the man who was improperly dressed at the wedding feast? (Prov. 7: 10, Matt. 22: 11.)

It appears from the text of James 2 that the men, both the rich and the poor, were visitors. A present day application: If there should come into our assembly a rich and poor man and we offer preferential treatment to the rich and shamefully treat the poor, we are sinning by having respect of persons.

Is the text promoting filthy, dirty, and shabby clothing and condemning comparative clean and expensive clothing? To so understand the text is to place a meaning on the words that were obviously not intended. A point: Since the man in the filthy, dirty, and shabby clothing stood out as different, it is apparent that such was not the norm in the assembly. To be consistent, we would have to say the same about the opposite clothing, at least from the perspective of the expensive (main point of comparison, "rich").

We should welcome all to our assembly, the rich and the poor. We should treat all with dignity and view them as an opportunity to show our genuine interest and equitable treatment. In various places where I have preached, we have had all sorts of people come in off the street, dressed in all manner of styles. We have attempted to make these people feel welcome. This is the simple lesson of James 2: 1-10! The passage should not be used to promote a flippant, casual, and relaxed climate by dressing down. Such is manifestly foreign to the intent of the teaching of James.

Don Martin to the list:

I want to again thank all who have participated in the discussion of traditional and contemporary worship services. We can certainly see even from the differences on this list how that a growing number of churches are opting for two separate worship services, one featuring the traditional and the other contemporary.

As evidenced in various posts, there is such an attitudinal difference, even to the point of women appearing in the worship assembly nude from the waist up and men wearing only a loin cloth in the Philippines and Africa. I think Tim's post probably presented one of the clearest contrasts when he wrote:

"If in the congregation where Don is an elder and preacher blue jeans and tennis shoes are a distraction, then it is perfectly acceptable for that congregation to ask that people wear something other than blue jeans and tennis shoes when they attend assemblies there. If you are in the Denver area, you don't have a coat and tie to wear, and you are looking for a place to worship, you can come to the congregation where I am a deacon, where Don's opinions have no weight whatsoever, where blue jeans, tennis shoes, knee-length shorts, t-shirts, sandals and other non-distracting clothing are NOT taken as a sign that you have no respect for God."

Don comments:

The issue is not really over cloths but attitude, reverence, and propriety. The difference is not if a preacher can preach in blue jeans, but the general climate that is needed for the contemporary worship experience, this has been the essence of this exchange. As I have shared with you, the proponents of the contemporary worship anterior to effecting changes in the singing, preaching, Lord's Supper, etc., must first effect a change in the climate. This change is largely accomplished by "dressing down." The clothing makes one of the loudest statements and sends one of the strongest messages, hence, the attire must be of a certain type. The clothing must not say: we are in the presence of the august God, assembled for a solemn occasion; but we are here for a good, relaxed, and self-satisfying time.

To this end, I have not said, "it is a sin to wear blue jeans to public worship services." I understand there can be exceptional situations. However, the clothes we wear, whether it is a decency issue or propriety matter, do make a statement (cp. Matt. 22: 11). After a similar fashion, I have not accused all who casually dress for public worship of knowingly being proponents of the contemporary worship trend (I have also admitted that there are acceptable cultural influences as to what constitute dress wear, etc.). Nonetheless, such attire does create the requisite atmosphere and, whether we want to admit it or not, such clothing does send a relaxed message that can be used by those knowingly promoting the contemporary worship matter.

The two things that have surfaced in this exchange that to me are the most disturbing are the attitudes that clothing does not matter and that there are cultural differences involving decency and modesty that must be accepted. In the latter, situation ethics has clearly and unashamedly been advocated. Yes, God is interested in our hearts, but our dress and general demeanor reflect our heart (cp. Matt. 7: 15ff.).

Members of various churches on this list and elders especially need to be aware of the "cultural thinking" that characterizes some. The apparent thinking that a preacher can be in an area in which the culture may be a loin cloth and he should simply accept such lack of attire as culture, without teaching the people to cloth themselves (I Tim. 2: 9). As I have shown, in some cultures lying, brutality, and total nudity are accepted. The gospel is supposed to change sinners; we are not to allow cultures to change the gospel! I say you need to be aware because the preacher you are supporting in some foreign field may believe as some on this list have taught: culture makes a matter of indecency and immodesty a case of modesty and decency.

Again, I thank all, even those of you with whom I have disagreed. In fact, I thank you the most, because you have provided the means of our comparing and studying our differences. We all have an opportunity to learn from such exchanges. For the most part, I believe that all participants have properly conducted themselves in the expressing of their differences. Thank you for a good exchange.