Read Dressed up for Church?! (2024)

Table of Contents

• Introduction: Stand out in a crowd!
• 1. The new legalism
• 2. Outward or inward clothing?
• 3. Isn’t this contrary to class distinctions?
• 4. The Biblical case for dressing up
  • We are indeed commanded to dress up.
  • There are examples of those commands being fulfilled by priests and non-priests; Jews and Gentiles.
  • Dressing up shows respect for God and worship as we publicly covenant with Him.
• 5. So what do we wear?
  • No uniform Biblical dress code.
  • Culture doesn’t define the dress code.
  • Clothing should be appropriate for the occasion.
  • Clothing should be affordable.
  • Clothing should be aesthetically pleasing.
  • We should strive to give God our best in worship.
  • Clothing should be modest.
  • The distinction of formal worship.
  • The church historically took this position
• 6. Conclusion
• Dressing For Work
  • How to Dress for Success
• About the Author
• Notes

Introduction: Stand out in a crowd!

Wow! I feel like a radical bucking tradition! I visited a church sometime ago with my family and noticed that we got the same attention thatmen with piercings got ten years ago! Tattoos are so yesterday.

Let metell you a secret: if you want to stand out in a crowd, dress up forchurch. You’ll instantly satisfy your craving to be different, to buckconformity and to stand strong in the face of criticism. You may end upirritating a few people in the process by not fitting in, but isn’t thatthe point? The in-thing changes so rapidly today that you may not havenoticed that you are not with-it. Get with the program and dress upfor church!

1. The new legalism

That tongue-in-cheek introduction was intended to highlight the pressuremany people feel to conform to a standard of “non-conformity” and tolegalistically call dressing up for church legalism. Actually, I hadn’tintended to write an article on “dressing up,” but I thought that thissubject was sure to give the purveyors of the new grace and the newlegalism a spiritual wedgie. I can see them getting uncomfortablealready. What could be more legalistic than writing about a dress codefor church!?! But honestly, it’s not about the clothes. It’s a test tosee if I can make the “Scandalous Freedom” crowd get curiously testy,and to come up with rules why I should not have rules.

By the way, what is legalism? That term always gets me. It seems tobe a term that is thrown around as loosely as “Racist!”, “Nazi!”, and“Chauvinist!” The abortionist down the street calls me a legalist, butso does the nice Christian across town. In the last month they must havebeen listening to the same tapes.

The way some people talk, one would think that legalism is obedience tothe commandments of God! But Jesus calls this true love (John14:15,21,31; 15:10). So does Paul (Rom. 13:8-10; Gal. 5:14; 1 Tim. 1:5),James (James 2:8); John (1 Jn. 2:5; 5:2-3; 2 Jn. 6), Moses (Ex. 20:6;Deut. 5:10; 7:9; 11:1,13,22; 19:9; etc), Joshua (Josh. 22:5), Nehemiah(Neh. 1:5), and Daniel (Dan. 9:4).

Others say that legalism is conformity to the tiny details of the law.But by this definition, Jesus is a legalist, because He insisted thatbelievers in His kingdom who demote the tiniest details of the law willthemselves be demoted in His kingdom (Matt. 5:19). He had the sameconcern even when denouncing unbelievers. Far from denouncing thePharisees for their preoccupation with tithing herbs from the garden, Hedenounced them for neglecting the “weightier matters of the law.” Jesussaid of the tiny details, “These you ought to have done, withoutleaving the others undone” (Matt. 22:23). Anyone who said that abouttithing today would be called a legalist! Yet it is clear in thispassage that Christ was concerned about the weighty matters and thesmall matters of the law.

Another faulty definition of legalism is putting expectations uponothers to keep God’s commandments. These people are fine with yourprivate belief in something, but will say that you are a legalist ifyou try to convince them to believe or practice the same thing. But bythis definition, John, the apostle of love, is a legalist. After all,didn’t John say to others (and not just to himself), “He who says, ‘Iknow Him,’ and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truthis not in him” (1 John 2:4)? Doesn’t Paul say to his audience, “a bishopmust be blameless” (Tit. 1:7)? Practically every portion of theScripture puts expectations upon believers as to how they should think,talk, and live.

Others think that legalism is saying that grace enables us to keep thelaw,¹ or defining sin by the law rather than by the Spirit’sguidance,² or looking at man’s outward appearance rather than at theheart,³ or “neglecting the spirit of the law in order to avoidbreaking the letter of the law,”⁴ or a refusal to break “lesser” lawsin order to fulfill “higher” laws out of love,⁵ or seeing the absenceof any fruit as evidence of the lack of salvation.⁶ But none of thesedefinitions can be defended from the Bible. It appears that the term“legalism” has become a weapon that is as flexible as the term “racist”has become in some circles. Opponents are intimidated into silence withthe accusation of “Legalist!” As one wag put it, “Legalism is what onecalls any system which has them observe laws which they don’t agreewith, and a legalist is anyone who stands theologically to the right ofwhere you stand.”

In contrast, there are three Biblical forms of legalism:

1. Trying to earn justification before God through one’s own efforts at law-keeping rather than through faith in the perfect law keeping and atonement of Christ (Gal. 2:16; 5:4),
2. seeking to be sanctified in one’s own strength apart from grace (Gal. 3:1-5), and
3. adding new rules to the Bible.

It is the third definition of legalism that I have in mind when I speakof the “New Legalism.” Any time one accuses another of sin, he is indanger of legalism if he cannot back up his claim from the Word of God.Legalism is a sin. Therefore, to accuse me of legalism when I can backup my practice with the word of God is ironically engaging in legalism.It is giving a new standard of behavior (“Avoid this legalism.”) withoutthe warrant of Scripture. And it is a most insidious form of legalism,because it masquerades as grace.

For example, one person insisted that any concern about clothing inchurch is legalism and that “those who are concerned about their outwardappearance are bordering on vanity, and I thought that was a sin.” Isure wish Paul knew that before he started throwing around emotionalterms like “dishonor” and “shameful” in his discussion of outwardappearance! (See 1 Cor. 11:1-16). C’mon Paul! What’s the bigdeal if a woman shaves her head to get attention (v. 5)! Why can’t a manwear a baseball cap to church (vv. 4,7)?! Let’s give a little grace,man! Let’s stop using language like “ought” (v. 10) and “ought not” (v.7) when it comes to church dress styles!

Of course, we know that people don’t want to argue with Paul like this,so they either ignore him or make his sayings cultural norms (andtherefore anachronistic for today). But wait! I thought the “RadicalFreedom” group was against cultural norms. I thought they felt it theirsacred duty to buck any legalism in the interests of everyone’s freedom.

Hmmm. If we say that Paul is imposing a Biblical norm, we are introuble. And if we say he was imposing a cultural norm, we are introuble. After all, Paul himself bucked cultural norms and insisted withChrist (see Matt. 15:1-9) “that you may learn in us not to think beyondwhat is written” (1 Cor. 4:6). So this puts us in a dilemma. Hmmm. Maybewe could interpret Paul as saying that “if anyone seems to becontentious, we have no such custom [as following the customs that Ijust gave to you], nor do the churches of God” (v. 16). Yes, that’s thesolution. Be contentious over everything we think is legalistic inchurch, and Paul will let me get away with it.

Of course, who verbalizes any of this? Instead, they make people feelguilty without doing any Biblical exegesis. They tell us, “I detest theidea of a ‘dress code’ for church with a passion,” little realizingthat they have set a new dress code. They say, “The only commands inthe Bible about dress code are to dress down.”⁷

Aha! Now we are getting somewhere. Finally we can have a Biblical debateinstead of a shouting match. So where does the Bible tell us to dressdown in church? Well, [they might say] James says somewhere that aman in fine clothes shouldn’t look down his nose at a man in casualclothes. I don’t think so. It says that the church shouldn’t ignore the“poor man in filthy clothes, and… pay attention to the one wearing thefine clothes” (2:2-3). But [they might say] the point is that I amwearing ratty Jeans and a t-shirt so that a poor man won’t feeluncomfortable amongst all of these suits and ties. Ah. That is nobleof you. But wouldn’t it be much more noble to follow James’ advice andbuy the poor man some other clothes rather than making him sit in hisfilth, relative “nakedness” and shame (see 2:15-16)? Now don’t startjudging me! [they might reply] I’m not. I’m just trying to find outthe Biblical basis for dressing down.

I’m already so sick of that argument. It seems really stupid todebate. Since there isn’t a biblical command to dress up to church,shouldn’t it be based on your personal conviction?⁸ Well, that’sthe point of this book, isn’t it? To determine if the Bible is at allconcerned about the outward appearance of His people in church. I’mwilling to dress down if that’s what the Bible commands, and I’m willingto stop talking about the subject if that’s what the Bible commands. Infact, I’m all into liberty. I love the “perfect law of liberty” (James1:25; 2:12). But before we discuss the bounds of liberty, there are moremyths that need to be exploded.

2. Outward or inward clothing?

One myth is that there is no relationship between the outward man andthe inward heart of a Christian. This is the most frequent objectionthat I hear: “I am of the opinion that God looks at your heart and notthe clothes you wear.”⁹ If they mean by such a statement thatclothes do not make the person, I agree. If they mean that clothes areutterly unimportant, all I have to do is put them into a debate withso-called “Evangelical Nudists” like Elton Robb and they will change theirtune.

A person’s outward appearance communicates (and often miscommunicates)very loudly. In fact, this disjunction between the inward and theoutward is what leads to many marriage squabbles. This is why I havefelt it necessary to train my children in the Biblical practice of bodylanguage.¹⁰ If our body language conveys disinterest, it does notmatter how much we protest to the contrary, people will think we aredisinterested. Our body must be disciplined to communicate consistentlywith our verbal communication. The same is true of clothing. It would betacky to go to a wedding in “mourning apparel” (2 Sam. 14:2), just as itwould be inappropriate to go to a construction job in a tuxedo. Don’t get me wrong: I am not advocating wearing tuxedos to church.That too would miscommunicate our intentions. My point is that just asthere is body language that communicates (and miscommunicates), thereare clothing issues that communicate (or miscommunicate).

When a woman is “dressed like a prostitute” (Prov. 7:10), don’t besurprised when men misunderstand and treat her like a prostitute. Ourclothing is important according to the Bible. And in this book I want toat least get people to think about what it would mean to “worship theLord in holy attire” (1 Chron. 16:29).

But doesn’t what you have just said contradict 1 Peter 3:3-4? Petercommands us, “Do not let your adorning be external—the braiding of hair,the wearing of gold, or the putting on of clothing— but let youradorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beautyof a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God’s sight is veryprecious.”(ESV) Isn’t that a command to dress down?

Not really. Think of it this way: If we take that as a command to dressdown, then Peter’s admonition would be to “dress down” all the way tothe skin. Read it again: “Don’t let your adorning be external” (ESV).Elton Robb interprets this to mean that Peter is mandating nudity. Orwhat about the second part? “Don’t let your adorning be … the putting onof clothing…” If you take this as a command to dress down, then you needto go all the way. But Peter’s point is not that the inward replacesthe outward. I think that the New King James captures the meaning wellwhen it says, “Do not let your adornment be merely outward…” Peter’spoint is that we are failing if we dress up outwardly but fail to dressup inwardly. It is hypocritical to wear a “garment of praise” (Isaiah61:3) if our hearts have anger and bitterness. It is hypocritical to“worship the Lord in holy attire” (Psalm 29:2) that is “properly dressedfor the occasion,”¹¹ but to be inwardly ugly before the Lord. I agreethat many who are dressed up may be hypocritical. But the remedy forhypocrisy is not nudity, but rather to have an inward spirit clothed to matchthe outward.

But 1 Samuel 16:7 commands us not to look at the outward appearance,but rather to look at the heart. It says, “Do not look at his appearanceor at his physical stature, because I have refused him. For the LORDdoes not see as man sees; for man looks at the outward appearance, butthe LORD looks at the heart.” It’s the heart issue that is important,not the clothes.

Wow! That is a stretch! The text says just the opposite. It is clear from the text that only God can know the heart(apart from divine revelation). And it is just as clear that man canonly see the outward appearance (apart from divine revelation). Samuelwas trying to interpret God’s choice (something invisible) based onoutward visible criteria, but God looks at the heart. It doesn’t matterhow pure the heart motive may be, the outward will always be what menjudge by. It is the only thing that men can see. Of course, this textis a great one in showing that we can make mistakes in judging byoutward criteria. Thus, though Jesus commands us to judge by the outwardcriteria of fruits (Matt. 7:16,20), we must never be dogmatic, becausewe can misjudge a person. However, Christ’s point is that the outwardwill eventually manifest what is happening on the inside (Matt. 7:16,20;Matt. 12:33-37; 15:18-19; Luke 6:43-45).

Thus, when someone looks sad outwardly, we ought to assume that he issad until he tells us otherwise. Likewise, when our child says “Yes,”but does it with a scowl, we ought not to be satisfied that there isgenuine submission.

3. Isn’t this contrary to class distinctions?

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

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

• “Men’s clothing” and “women’s clothing” (Deut. 22:5). Godclearly makes distinctions between the sexes on the matter ofclothing. I would hope that we would still value this distinction!Especially since God says that cross dressing is “an abomination tothe LORD your God.”
• “Priestly garments” (Lev. 21:10; Ezra 2:69) or “garments forpriests” (Neh. 7:70,72). These were special garments for use in thetemple 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 priestswore 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, andpurple. Interestingly, David’s wife, Michal, was upset with Davidfor dressing down from royal garments into non-royal worship clothes(see 2 Samuel 6:14,16,20 and 1 Chron. 15:27). These non-royalworship clothes were composed of “a robe of fine linen” and “a linenephod” (1 Chron. 15:27). Though this was still somewhat costlyclothing that not all might be able to afford, Michal was upset thathe didn’t keep his royal dignity. But what she wanted him to dowould be as inappropriate as wearing a tuxedo to church today. Itwould be pretentious. And David’s goal for going to church was notdignity before men, but honoring the Lord (v. 22). David did nothave a problem with class distinctions in clothing for otheroccasions. It is the context that is important. For worship hechose stylish, but non-royal garments.
• Different robes for the queen (Esther 5:1) and the king’s virgindaughters (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; Luke16:19; Matt. 22:11,12).
• The clothing of scribes (Ezra 9:3,5; Ezek. 9:2-3) who could beeither Levitical teachers (1 Chron. 15:27; 2 Chron. 5:12; 34:13) ornon-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 aswhite clothes for feasting (Eccl. 9:8; Is. 61:3).
• Likewise, Scripture mandates a distinction between “modestapparel” (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 NearEast (1923), Biblical Archaeologist, XXIV, 1961, 119-128, andBenzinger, Hebraische Archaologie, 1927, 72-89, for numerouspictures of the variations in clothing between a charioteer, a king,a soldier, a nobleman, noblewoman, a prince, a slave, warrior, adiplomatic envoy, etc.

All of these things indicate that there is a time and a place for avariety of clothing. What has ironically happened in the church is thatit has adopted the socialistic revolution against dress codes andagainst class distinctions. Levi Strauss recently spoke of the almostmandated super-casual dress code that has developed and said that it is“the most significant apparel trend of the century.” But make no mistakeabout it: the world has imposed a new dress code that has the potentialof 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 youstick out so bad you suddenly revisit the awkward feelings ofadolescence. Except for Easter. Then it’s okay.”

4. The Biblical case for dressing up

Can a biblical case be made for dressing up for church? Let me take astab at it. I’m sure there will be some who will disagree. I will stillbe friends with them. Hopefully they will still be friends with me. Mymain point in writing this book is to clear away some of theillegitimate arguments and get people to make decisions based upon theBible alone.

We are indeed commanded to dress up.

My thesis is that God wants us to honor Him in the way we dress forchurch. There are several commands in the Bible to dress differently forchurch, and, more specifically, to dress up for public worship. In Isaiah52:1, God calls the New Covenant Church¹² to “awake” (v. 1a), to “puton your beautiful garments” (v. 1b), and to purify the church (v. 1c).All three admonitions describe ways to honor the greatness of God inworship. In 1 Timothy 2:8-9 Paul tells us what is “proper” in worship inrelation to posture (v. 8), clothing (v. 9), and speech (v. 10). Threetimes the Scripture calls us to “worship the Lord in holy attire.” Eachtime it is connected to the formal worship of God in the corporategathering of the saints. In context, the first two references areaddressed to “the families of the peoples” (1 Chron. 16:28; Psalm 96:7)and “all the earth” (1 Chron. 16:30; Psalm 96:9). This shows that thecommand for different clothing was not intended for the priests, butapplied to the Gentiles for all time. In context, the third reference isgiven to the angels of heaven (Psalm 29:1) and shows that the reason isnot simply one of modesty, but one of honor for the Lord. The reverenceof the earthly worship is patterned after the reverence of the heavenlyworship. The commands for holy attire are:

“Give to the LORD the glory due His name; bring anoffering, and come before Him. Oh, worship the LORD in holy attire!”

1 Chron. 16:29

“Oh, worship the LORD in holy attire! Tremble beforeHim, all the earth.”

Psalms 96:9

“Give unto the LORD the glory due to His name; Worshipthe LORD in holy attire.”

Psalms 29:2

Granted, the New King James translates this as “worship the Lord in thebeauty of holiness,” following the tradition of the King James. But asone commentary said, “Suggestive as this rendering is, it can hardly beright; and the true sense is that given in the R.V. margin, ‘in holyarray.’ “¹³ However, if you want to take away my ball, I won’t go homethat easily. There are more arguments that will be offered later.

Nevertheless, if this translation is correct,¹⁴ it means that we mustbe “properly dressed for the occasion” of worship (NET marginal note onPsalm 29:2). Since the word “holy” means “to be set apart,” this is acall to have special clothing for church that is different.¹⁵ Ifthis is what God is calling for, then we would expect to see Biblicalexamples of people who dressed differently for worship. And this isexactly what we find.

There are examples of those commands being fulfilled by priests and non-priests; Jews and Gentiles.

2 Samuel 12:20 says, “So David arose from the ground, washed andanointed himself, and changed his clothes; and he went into the house ofthe LORD and worshiped.” No grunge styles for David! Instead, we seeDavid concerned with good grooming and proper hygiene (“washed andanointed himself”) and proper clothing (“and changed his clothes”). Norwas this unique to his era. When Jacob was commanded by God to worship,Jacob told his family, “be clean, and change your garments: and let usarise, and go up to Bethel; and I will make there an altar unto God”(Gen. 35:2-3). Fortunately his family hadn’t learned the trick ofcalling this legalism. So Jacob’s family followed the same pattern:concern with good grooming and hygiene (“be clean”) and dressingappropriately for worship (“change your garments”). So God’s concern isnot simply with respectful clothing, but also with respectful groomingand hygiene.

Nowhere in the Bible can we find a casual approach to God. Even when Godmet Moses in his work clothes, out in the wilderness, God still mandateda difference: “Take your sandals off your feet, for the place where youstand is holy ground.” (Ex. 3:5). When God met the children of Israelto speak to them, God told Moses, “Go to the people and consecrate themtoday and tomorrow, and let them wash their clothes. And let them beready…” (Ex. 19:10-11). Over and over the priests are told to wash theirclothes and to put on special clothes for worship (Numb. 8:21; 19:7; Ex.28:2,4; 29:29; 31:10; 35:19,21; etc.).

What is interesting about these instructions is that God mandatedpriestly garments for going into the holy place, but non-priestlygarments when they ministered before the people (see Ezek. 42:14;44:19). So there were holy (i.e., special) clothes that all believingJews and Gentiles (including priests) wore in the temple and there wereholy (i.e., special) garments that the priests alone could wear whenthey were behind the curtain in God’s presence. Just as there weredegrees of holiness in the temple based on proximity to God, there weredegrees of holiness in clothing, with the clothing worn into the holy ofholies being worn only once a year (Lev. 16:1-34; Ex. 28-29). So thereare several examples of laymen and priests who dressed up for church.

Dressing up shows respect for God and worship as we publicly covenant with Him.

The third reason why we should dress up for church is that it showsrespect for God and for God’s place of worship. God says to those whoworship Him, “if I am a master, where is My respect?” (Mal. 1:6 NASB).It is not enough to say that we respect Him in our hearts. God wantsrespect shown. Though the priests protested, “In what way have wedespised your name?” (v. 6), God was able to demonstrate specificoutward actions (vv. 7-14) and body language (v. 13) that showeddisrespect for Him in worship. They were not bringing Him their best inworship (v. 8).

Of course, I wouldn’t be surprised if someone says, “But that’s for theOld Testament!” OK, OK. I don’t want to get into a long treatise on therelevance of the Old Testament. It would be beyond the bounds of thislittle book. But before you go off and become a New TestamentChristian, remember four things:

1. The only Bible that the New Testament church had for several yearswas the Old Testament (Acts 17:2,11; etc).
2. These Old Testament Scriptures were not only “profitable,” but weresufficient to make the man of God “complete, thoroughly equipped forevery good work” (2 Tim. 3:15-17).
3. Paul claims that everything he taught could be proved from the OldTestament (Acts 26:22; 2 Tim. 3:16).
4. He also claimed that all the Old Testament “examples… were writtenfor our admonition, upon whom the ends of the ages have come” (1 Cor.10:11).

So let’s not throw out three quarters of the Bible!

In any case, even if those four points weren’t true, verse 11 prophesiesthat the Gentiles in the New Covenant would do a better job than thoseJews were doing. A good question to ask is, “Why do I wear my best forthe governor of my state (see v. 8), but not for God?” Another goodquestion is, “Why do I put on my best dress for a special dinner, but Iwon’t do it for Sunday worship?” What we wear shows what we think of aplace or situation or person.

Elsewhere God commands us, “you shall keep my Sabbaths and reverence Mysanctuary” (Lev. 19:30; 26:2). How did people honor the Sabbath in theBible? By setting it apart. This is the meaning of the term “sanctified”(Gen. 2:3; Neh. 13:22). It was treated as different from other days. Thesame was true of the sanctuary where people met for worship on theSabbath. The sanctuary itself was “sanctified” (2 Chron. 30:8) ortreated with respect. To sanctify and to reverence are interchangeable.

There were various ways that people treated the time of worship in aspecial way and showed respect for God. We have already shown how Davidand Jacob engaged in special hygiene, grooming, and different clotheswhen they went to worship (2 Samuel 12:20; Gen. 35:2-3). We have alsoseen how priests washed and put on special clothes when they sought toserve the Lord (Numb. 8:21; 19:7; Ex. 28:2,4; 29:29; 31:10; 35:19,21).It was a sign of respect for God’s greatness.

These garments had the additional purpose of being “for glory and forbeauty” (Ex. 28:2). God is not an ascetic. He delights in beauty and Heis honored when we present our best to Him. Psalm 45 describes Jesus andHis church, and shows the church as being clothed beautifully (vv.13-14). The narrator says, “So the King will greatly desire your beauty;because He is your Lord, worship Him” (v. 11). There is a mutual respectbetween husband and bride. The bride worships her divine Husband and thehusband greatly desires her beauty. She worships Him because He isworthy. But she worships His beauty, not by dressing down, but bydressing in her best. In the Old Testament temple we find worship beingdignified by beauty.

Is this any different than what we do when we take someone out for aspecial evening at a fancy restaurant, or when we meet with a dignitary?We instinctively recognize that special events require special clothing.And we feel different when we are dressed up. It sets the tone for whatwe are doing. This is one of the reasons why “Dress for Success” bookshave been able to demonstrate a tangible difference in the receptionemployers give to interviewees who dress up and those who do not. Evenunconsciously, people feel more respected by those who dress up. It isclear that Jesus dressed up for the last Passover because the garment Hewore was a costly seamless robe that was only worn for special occasions(John 19:23). It was definitely not casual wear.¹⁶

5. So what do we wear?

So what are you suggesting, Phil? If you want to take the Bibleliterally, you’d better look like a dork and dress up in a tunic and arobe! Isn’t that what they wore in the Bible?!

Given the fact that you can find congregants in Hawaii wearing theirSpeedo bathing suits to worship (shudder), going back to Biblical robesmight be appealing after all. But that’s not where this book is heading.I don’t believe the Bible sets a specificdress code for worship. Instead, it gives us guidelines for how we canhonor the Lord in any culture.

No uniform Biblical dress code.

First of all, the Bible makes clear that there was not a uniform dresscode. Believers in some cultures wore “trousers” and “coats” in theirday to day affairs (Dan. 3:21), while other cultures wore tunics (Matt.5:40) or robes (1 Sam. 24:4). So the reductio ad absurdum argument(that we will be forced to wear robes) really does not apply. Earlier inthis book I listed more than a dozen styles of clothing mentioned in theBible. Likewise, one person’s best clothing will be quite different fromanother’s. A poor woman’s “best garment” (Ruth 3:3) might be quitedifferent from a wealthy person’s appropriate attire, but the fact thatthey were dressed up for a special occasion would still not be lost onthose who looked on.

When Frontline Fellowship gave boots to the evangelists who had to walkmany miles in Sudan, they continued to walk barefoot and put the bootson for church. Dr. Peter Hammond had a hard time convincing them thatthese were intended to protect their feet. But their hearts were right.They wanted to honor God, and reserved their best clothing for thatevent.

Dressing up for a special occasion in one culture might mean putting on“the best robe” and putting “a ring on his hand” (Luke 15:22), whileanother culture might wear different clothes that were equally“beautiful” (Josh. 7:21). Christ wore the latest style of clothing whenHe attended His last Passover (John 19:23), but not everyone couldafford to wear such clothes. The point is that the Bible does notmandate one style of clothing for church.

Culture doesn’t define the dress code.

However, a balancing principle is that the secular culture should not bedeterminative of what Christians wear. After all, Zephaniah 1:8 condemnsto judgment those who were in bondage to a worldly dress code. God said,“I will punish the princes and the king’s children, and all such as areclothed with foreign apparel.” This means that the Bible, not culture,is normative on what clothing is proper for day-to-day life and whatclothing is “proper” for worship (1 Tim. 2:9). Where the Bible givesleeway, we have leeway. Where it gives guidelines, we should honor thoseguidelines. Where it calls for reformation of our clothing, we mustthink through how to honor those mandates. Paul clearly bucked cultureand wanted reformation of clothing (1 Tim. 2:9; 1 Cor. 11:1-16¹⁷).Isaiah 52:1 speaks of a Reformation so radical in the future thatunbelieving (“uncircumcised”) influences will be completely removed fromthe church, and the church will put on “beautiful garments” that arepleasing to God. As Calvin says, Isaiah is predicting “the removal ofcorruptions, and the restoration of the worship of God” within thechurch.¹⁸ Part of that reformation was precisely the need to “puton your beautiful garments, O Jerusalem.” Notice that this reformationis not a call to put on robes. It is simply a call to dress up forworship. It parallels the call in 1 Chronicles 16:29 to “worship theLORD in holy attire!” While the word “beautiful” may be subjective tosome degree, the word “holy” indicates that the Bible at leastdifferentiates it from other clothing.

Clothing should be appropriate for the occasion.

A third principle we find in Scripture is that clothing should beappropriate for the occasion (what 1 Tim. 2:9 speaks of as “proper”). Asone wag put it, “If it really doesn’t matter what you wear to church, whydon’t you go there in a bathing suit or in a towel once in a while?While we’re on it, why don’t you go to a co*cktail party wearing asimilar outfit or a pajama?” Would you not think it a bit odd ifyour mechanic rented a tuxedo to change the oil in your car? Would younot think it strange if the best man at your wedding insisted on wearinghis smelly Orkin bug suit? It puzzles me that those who think the formertwo situations are odd do not think it’s odd for someone to wear sweatsto a worship service.

The Bible repeatedly shows sensitivity to circ*mstances when it comes toclothing. “John the Baptist had the calling of a desert prophet, and hedressed accordingly (Matt. 11:8). He did not wear the soft clothing offirst-century politicians. Jesus altered His dress in order to wash thedisciples’ feet (John 13:4, 12). Simon Peter took off his outer garmentin order to fish (John 21:7).”¹⁹ A woman is likely to wear somethingdifferent while gardening or painting than when going to church. Scripture is full of such distinctions. It also speaks of uniforms that varied by occupation. There were “priestly garments” (Lev.21:10), “royal garments” (Esther 8:15), teachers’ clothes (Ezra 9:3,5),warrior’s clothing (Ezek. 23:12), wedding clothes (Matt. 22:11,12), etc.One hundred years ago, anyone could instantly distinguish a person’soccupation by the clothing they wore. That is very difficult today. While a tuxedo may be very appropriate at a wedding, this principle andthe next one would tend to rule it out as being ostentatious for church.One needs to think about what would be the most appropriate clothing tocome before God at the public event of worship.

Clothing should be affordable.

A fourth principle is that the clothing should be affordable and notostentatious. In connection with worship (see the context of verses1-12), Paul says, “I desire… that the women adorn themselves in modestapparel, with propriety and moderation, not with braided hair or gold orpearls or costly clothing, but which is proper for women professinggodliness…” (1 Tim. 2:8-9). Paul was writing against the popularpractice of making elaborate braids interlaced with gold and pearls. AsHendriksen commented, “Braids, in those days, often representedfortunes.”²⁰ “Pliny complains of the vast sums spent on ornamentationand various satirists comment on the hours spent in dressing the hair ofwomen.”²¹ Obviously ostentatiousness is inappropriate at any time,but it is important to realize that God is not speaking against costlyattire in all circ*mstances. For example, God speaks allegorically ofhow he dressed his daughter Israel:

I clothed you in embroidered cloth and gave you sandals of badger skin;I clothed you with fine linen and covered you with silk. I adorned youwith ornaments, put bracelets on your wrists, and a chain on your neck.And I put a jewel in your nose, earrings in your ears, and a beautifulcrown on your head. Thus you were adorned with gold and silver, and yourclothing was of fine linen, silk, and embroidered cloth… You wereexceedingly beautiful, and succeeded to royalty. Your fame went outamong the nations because of your beauty, for it was perfect through Mysplendor which I had bestowed on you.

Ezek. 16:10-13

If costly clothing is wrong in all circ*mstances, this would not havebeen an effective allegory. God was indicating that spending money onexpensive clothing for his daughter was a good thing. Why? Because hewas a King who had plenty of money. Abraham had plenty of discretionaryfunds to spend on fine clothing. But in the church, God wants no displayof wealth and splendor to overawe the people. This is why David dresseddown for worship (2 Sam. 6:14,16,22; 12:20). He wasn’t coming to worshipas a king, but as a member of the church. What he wore to church wouldhave been equivalent to a modern business suit, or at least dress slacksand dress shirt. So there is a place for dressing down after all. Churchis not the place for $2000 Versace dresses or $25,000 Brioni or Kitonsuits. God wants “moderation” rather than costliness in worship (2 Tim.2:9).

Clothing should be aesthetically pleasing.

The fifth principle is that our clothing should be as aestheticallypleasing as possible. Of course, we need to keep in mind the limits ofprinciple #4, but God still calls the New Covenant people to “put onyour beautiful garments” (Isa. 52:1). The Bible does not specify suitand tie, but it does specify that our clothing should be beautiful. Sothis principle balances the previous one and does not allow us to dressdown too far.

While James commands the church to welcome the poor man into theassembly (James 2) and to be willing to feed and clothe such a poorperson (James 2:14-18), it does not call the wealthy to remove their“fine apparel” (2:2). Nor does it call the whole church to dress in the“filthy clothes” of the poor man so that he feels welcome. The churchwould be taken far more seriously by the poor if we were generous likeJames commands, rather than condescendingly trying to make them feelwelcome.

We should strive to give God our best in worship.

The sixth principle is that we are to make an effort to give our bestto God in worship (Numb. 18:12,29,30; etc). Worship is many times calleda “sacrifice,” and even the various parts of the worship service arecalled sacrifices. For example, Scripture speaks of the “sacrifices ofthanksgiving” (Ps. 107:22; 116:17), the “sacrifices of joy” (Ps. 27:6),the “sacrifices of praise” (Jer. 17:26; Heb. 13:15), the “sacrifices ofour lips” (Hos. 14:2), the “sacrifices of righteousness” (Deut. 33:19;Psa. 4:5) and the “sacrifices of… a broken and a contrite heart” (Psa.51:17). This means that comfort is not the highest priority. Sacrificesare difficult to make. Yet comfort is one of the frequent arguments thatpeople make against dressing up for church. As one person worded it,“these men and women have no respect for the individual’s right to becomfortable.” Has comfort now become a right?

Apparently. One pastor listed a “bill of rights for worship.” Right #5was, “Every person has a right to be comfortable during the service.”But is it really a right, or is Kent Brandenburg correct when he says,“Casual is part of the lovers of their own selves movement, where ourcomfort trumps everything”?²² Where has the “sacrifice” gone fromworship? Do we bring lame and sick sacrifices (Mal. 1:8,13)? Our focusshould be on giving to the Lord our best, or as the Psalmist worded it,“give to the LORD the glory due His name; bring an offering, and comebefore Him. Oh, worship the LORD in holy attire!” This passage calls usto sacrificially give God glory, offerings and even our clothing as asweet smelling aroma. It is not comfort, but God’s glory that should beuppermost in our minds.

Clothing should be modest.

The seventh principle is that our clothing should be modest. Paulmandates that “women adorn themselves in modest apparel” (1 Tim. 2:9)when they come to worship (see verses 1-12 for the connection toworship). Of course, modesty is a mandate for all public life,²³ andScripture expects us to be able to tell the difference between “modestapparel” (1 Tim. 2:9) and being “dressed like a prostitute” (Prov.7:10). However, modesty is especially important for worship. One womansadly relates her experience in this arena: “I know for a fact that myhusband and many other men stumble more when they are at church than atany other time.”²⁴

The distinction of formal worship.

The eighth principle is that our clothing should be consistent with thereverence and respect for God called for in formal worship. We arecalled to worship God “acceptably with reverence and godly fear. For ourGod is a consuming fire” (Heb. 12:28). There are many people whostrongly resist this notion, and insist that public worship should be nodifferent than private worship. Thus, informality is seen not only indress, but also in speech and in every other aspect of the meeting.Rather than taking 1 Corinthians 14:26 as a rebuke, they take it as amandate and prescribe a meeting where each person can talk andinformally minister.²⁵

Some of these modern worship services have become so informal that thedistinction between worship and non-worship becomes blurred. Of course,this is seen as a good thing. One writer said:

“This practice [of having special clothing for church] is highlymetaphoric. The changing of clothes tangibly expresses the changing ofexpectations that occurs shortly after the last ‘Amen’ of a churchservice. Not only do we take off our church clothes, we also disrobefrom what we have felt, learned, and experienced. Our change of clothinghighlights the disconnection between the church world and the realworld: they are two totally different realms, to the point that we needto don different uniforms in order to participate in each.”²⁶ The writer says this ought not to be. All of life is sacred.

Well that sounds good, but the reality is that God wants our worshipdifferent (or as He words it “sanctified”). Throughout the Old and NewTestaments there is not only a profound difference between worship andthe rest of life, but there is also a profound difference between formalworship and private worship. By analogy you could liken it to thesituation of the king’s child. He can climb up into his father’s lap athome any time he pleases. But during the king’s formal ceremonies, thechild needs to dress properly, stand when it is time to stand, and sitwhen it is time to sit. He (along with all the people) must followprotocol during the king’s public ceremony days. The same is true ofpublic worship.

People have lost the concept of what it means to worship God “withreverence and godly fear… [knowing that] our God is a consuming fire”(Heb. 12:28-29). In context, Hebrews is telling us that when we come topublic worship we “have come to Mount Zion and the city of the livingGod, the heavenly Jerusalem, to an innumerable company of angels, to thegeneral assembly and church of the firstborn who are registered inheaven, to God the Judge of all, to the spirits of just men madeperfect…” (vv. 22-23). It is an awesome heavenly assembly that we arejoining in worship. Is this really a context for sweat pants, or bathingsuits?

Revelation also describes our worship as being caught up into heaven andbeing blended with the worship of heaven (see for example Rev. 8:1-6;4:1-5:14; 7:9-17; etc.) It is hard to imagine the awesome reverence thatthe saints in heaven have for worship without realizing that it callsfor us to have the same reverence. Can we really say that theclothing described as appropriate for worship in heaven does notinstruct our own clothing in some way? The worshippers of heaven aredescribed as wearing the himation (4:4; 16:15) and the stole (6:11;7:9; 13:14), all washed (7:14) and kept ready (16:15). These weregarments of formal wear. All of this description of heavenly worship isdesigned to impress upon the reader that when we come to corporateworship, it is truly different.

The place of worship is called coming “before the Lord” (Ex. 23:17;Deut. 26:10; 1 Sam. 1:19; Psalm 95:6; etc.) and coming into His“presence” (Psalm 31:20; Zeph. 1:7). God wants us to be deliberate andintentional in our coming to worship. He gave us a “day of preparation”(Matt. 26:62; Mark 15:42; etc.) in which we could get ready for theSabbath. This implies that there is plenty to think about in order tomake the Sabbath special. Jerry Wragg has written wisely on thissubject, so let me quote him at length.

Still… the issue of formality is not to be discarded without carefulconsideration. Formal attire (whatever cultural norms exist) stillserves the purpose of drawing important distinctions. We all draw a linesomewhere (groomed hair, hygiene, etc.). We “dress up” for all kinds ofoccasions in society, and to neglect such distinctions does still send astrong message of either carelessness or disregard. For example, if youshow up to a wedding or funeral without carefully considering yourattire, you will most certainly communicate to others that the occasionwasn’t important enough to be thoughtful. For weddings, careless attirewill perhaps convey disinterest for the beauty of the context, or evenlack of proper concern for the bride and groom. At a funeral, casualwear (beach wear, etc.) may send the message that a family’s sorrowisn’t very important to you.

These same “non-verbal” modes of communication can be seen in a varietyof other very important contexts as well (Milestone events, officialceremonies, job interviews, even a 1st date). It’s not that these commonconcerns determine an individual’s precise clothing selections (becauseeach culture has differences), but they maintain some distinction sothat we can generally communicate a difference between the “everydaygoods” and those reserved for “special occasions”. In the church, thequestion isn’t “what particular fashion pleases God?”, but rather “willa casual attire unnecessarily communicate that the occasion was notimportant enough for me to carefully consider how I look”? Ifcasual-looking attire is all someone has, they can at least wear thebest of their clothes so as not to send a general message ofcarelessness regarding the worship of God’s people. If we discard allformality in the corporate gathering of God’s people, soon we may not beable to make a clear distinction between our corporate worship andshopping at the grocery store.

Some may complain that there should be no distinction between the Lord’sDay worship and grocery shopping, but none of us want our worshipservices reduced to a business environment, exchanging goods andservices for money. Moreover, it is clear to most (possibly all) thatnot all casual elements of life would be appropriate at the worshipgathering of God’s people. For instance, sleeping (no jokes hereplease), lounging, sports & games, entertainment & leisure, would be outof place at a time of serious prayer, study, praise, giving, andministry. The point is there are some axiomatic formal elements to ourworship that we don’t question, so we should be careful not to jump onthe God-doesn’t-care-what-I-wear wagon without understanding theimplications. Suits vs. shorts is not the issue… but rather have Ihumbly and thoughtfully considered the overall context and what my dressmight communicate?²⁷

The church historically took this position

The final reason why I think we should dress up for church is that thechurch in history has always done so. We should be suspicious of anyteaching that is novel in the history of interpretation.

Though this is not a conclusive reason, it is important to consider. Theearly church made a point of dressing up, and “one of the chargesleveled by the Emperor Julian the Apostate against the Christians wasthat they dressed in special clothes to worship God!”²⁸ “Originallythese special clothes were simply conservative Roman apparel of highquality…”²⁹ People reserved their best clothing for church. St.Gregory of Nazianzus says that in his day (375-400 A.D.) there was “nodifference between clerical and lay dress.”³⁰ “What turned thisclothing into a special liturgical vesture was mere conservatism. Whenthe dress of the layman finally changed in the sixth and seventhcenturies to the new barbarian fashions, the clergy as the lastrepresentatives of the old civilized tradition retained the oldcivilized costume.”³¹ So even though clerical garments were a laterdevelopment, dressing up for church was not.

It is ironic that in his attempt to make all of life sacred, he is willing to bring the secular into worship. In the very next paragraph this author continues (rather consistently) to say:

The reason why secular music is needed in worship is that itbridges two worlds that should not be separated in the firstplace. By letting the secular seep into the sanctuary, we alsoallow the sacred to spill out of the church - out of the 11:00hour, beyond the walls, into relationships and situations otherthan those we experience at church. Put another way, if you hearDire Straits while at church, you’re more likely to hear God whilein your car, at work, or cleaning the house. What you’ve done isto break down the walls that separate the compartments of ourlives. By letting the world in, you let God out.

But this is nonsense. Demolishing distinctions doesn’t elevate the rest of life; it lowers worship. This is always the way it works. When people reject the Sabbath by saying that God has “desacralized” time and has now made every day sacred, we don’t find a setting apart (“sacred”) of every day. Instead, we find that the Sabbath is secularized.

6. Conclusion

What is the conclusion of the whole matter? If you were hoping that Iwould insist on suits and ties for men and dresses for women, you willbe disappointed. Though our family has chosen to dress in this fashion,we should not be most concerned about a specific dress code, brand, orstyle. Rather, it is knowing how to honor God with your clothing inworship. Since the Bible acknowledges different kinds of clothing, thereis no problem with different ways of dressing up. On the other hand,don’t be slavish followers of worldly fashion (Zeph. 1:8), or insist onone-upmanship in your wardrobe (1 Tim. 2:9). We have seen that there isa place for dressing down if our weekly garb draws too much attention toour wealth or prestigious position (2 Sam. 6:14,16,20; 1 Chron. 15:27).On the other hand there is a place for bucking culture if the culture isnot sensitive to the principles found in the Bible (1 Cor. 4:6; 1 Tim.2:9; etc.).

Try to think about ways in which your clothing can show that you treatthe Lord’s Day and church as being a special occasion (1 Chron. 16:29 –“holy attire” = attire that is set apart). Change your clothes, wash up,and make an effort at decent hygiene and grooming (Gen. 35:2-3; 2 Sam.12:20; Ex. 19:10-11). Try to show respect for God and for the formaloccasion of meeting with your king (Mal. 1:6-8; Lev. 19:30; 26:2). Whilethere is no need to spend lots of money on your clothing (1 Tim. 2:9),try to make your clothing as attractive as possible (Isaiah 52:1),remembering that God not only delights in quality worship, but alsodelights in “beauty” (Psalm 45:11,13-14) and has given clothes “forglory and for beauty” (Ex. 28:2). If you are poor, pull out your bestsweater and shirt and your best slacks or dress (see by way of analogy,Ruth 3:3; Luke 15:22). Plan for worship, and don’t just throw onsomething convenient at the last minute (Mal. 1:8-14). Instead, treatGod with at least the respect that you would show if you had anopportunity to go to a banquet with the Governor of your state (v. 8).

Be modest in your clothing (1 Tim. 2:9). Jesus said, “I counsel you tobuy of Me white raiment, that you may be covered, and that the shame ofyour nakedness not appear.” (Rev. 3:18). Though Christ was obviouslyspeaking metaphorically, the metaphor has power precisely because of theimportance of modesty in worship.

Finally, have a sense of humor about disagreements. I don’t expectto convince everyone with this book, and I am willing to accept peoplewithin the church who disagree with my viewpoint. I am quite willing tobe corrected on anything that I have written, if the correctors arewilling to reason from the Bible. While I give you the privilege todisagree with my interpretations, I would urge you to use the Bible, thewhole Bible, and nothing but the Bible.

Dressing For Work

All one has to do is read a few non-Christian essays discussing whatdress styles communicate and it becomes clear that “the children of thisworld are more astute… than are the children of light” (Luke 16:8). Weneed wisdom in dressing for every occasion, not just church.

The following excerpt from The Department of Employment and EconomicDevelopment for Minnesota illustrates the importance of thinking aboutissues of dress for every occasion.

How to Dress for Success³²

Published by the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development

Dress and Grooming for Job Success

Many of us object to being judged for employment based on how we look.We prefer to be hired because of our skills and abilities, not becauseof our dress and grooming. But like it or not, appearance is important.

Employers hire people they believe will “fit” into their organization.Skills, experience and qualifications are important, but so are dressand grooming. Your appearance expresses motivation and professionalism.Dress as though you want the job, as though you already have the job. Avisit to the company may help you decide the appropriate clothing toselect for your interview. A good standard is to dress a step above howthe best-dressed person dresses for a similar job. When in doubt, err onthe conservative side.

Your appearance is a statement of who you are. Your clothing andgrooming should create the image that will help you get the job offer.

First Impressions

Most of us have heard the expression, “A picture is worth a thousandwords.” Remember this when preparing to meet with a prospectiveemployer. The picture you create will greatly influence your chances ofbeing hired. Most employers form a first impression during the firstseven seconds of a meeting. Not much is said in this short time; earlyjudgment is based strictly on appearance. Furthermore, studies revealthat employers consistently ask the question, “Does the individual lookright for the job?”

Clothing

There are no absolute rules regarding dress. Your selection will varybased on your occupation, location and preference. A business suit for aconstruction job or overalls for an office job would not be appropriatedress. The goal is to look the part, to have your appearance beconsistent with your occupation. Neat, clean work clothes would besuitable for assembly, production or warehouse positions. Sales andoffice positions require business clothes. A conservative suit would bethe recommended style for professional and managerial positions.

Common sense and good taste are the best guides in selecting clothingfor the interview. Avoid faddish styles and loud colors. Jewelry shouldbe conservative and kept to a minimum. Clothing should fit comfortably.A basic rule is to dress one step above what you would wear on the job.You want the employer to focus on your skills, not your clothes. Theclothes you wear affect all your attitude and confidence levels. Whenpeople take the time to dress for success, they tend to feel good aboutthemselves. Image alone will not win the job offer, but it will go along way in building respect.

Grooming

Personal grooming is just as important as what you wear. You may selectthe right clothes, but neglecting personal hygiene can ruin the imageyou wish to present. Review the following grooming checklist beforemeeting with an employer.

About the Author

Christians have great liberty, great freedom, in Christ. How does thisfreedom extend to what we wear to church? Does God care? Is there properattire for public worship? As with all areas of life, the Bible is ourguide and provides an answer to the culture wars of church fashion.Using the Bible’s blueprints we can walk the line between legalism andabusing our freedom.

Founder and President of Biblical Blueprints, Phillip Kayser has degrees in education, theology, and philosophy. Ordained in 1987, he pastors Dominion Covenant Church, a Bible-believing Presbyterian (CPC) church in Omaha, Nebraska. He also serves as Professor of Ethics at Whitefield Theological Seminary and on the board of the Pickering Foundation of Biblical Preservation. He and his wife Kathy have 5 children and 17 grandchildren.

Notes