“Sunday Best”

It was once more common to hear people, particularly within the Bible Belt, to refer to a minority portion of the clothing hanging in the closet as “Sunday best.” According to the McGraw-Hill Dictionary of American Idioms and Phrasal Verbs, “Sunday best” means, “one’s best clothing, which one would wear to church.” ¹ However, what would be one’s best? Naturally, this would be dependent, to a certain degree, upon socioeconomics. Obviously, a wealthy individual’s best would be more expensive and of a different quality than what a poorer man could call his best.

 Admittedly, this latter truth can lead to difficulty within the local church. James highlights this difficulty for us well.

My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. For if a man comes into your assembly with a gold ring and dressed in fine clothes, and there also comes in a poor man in dirty clothes, and you pay special attention to the one who is wearing the fine clothes, and say, “You sit here in a good place,” and you say to the poor man, “You stand over there, or sit down by my footstool,” have you not made distinctions among yourselves, and become judges with evil motives? Listen, my beloved brethren: did not God choose the poor of this world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom which He promised to those who love Him? But you have dishonored the poor man. Is it not the rich who oppress you and personally drag you into court? Do they not blaspheme the fair name by which you have been called?

If, however, you are fulfilling the royal law according to the Scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing well. But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors. For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all. For He who said, “Do not commit adultery,” also said, “Do not commit murder.” Now if you do not commit adultery, but do commit murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. So speak and so act as those who are to be judged by the law of liberty. For judgment will be merciless to one who has shown no mercy; mercy triumphs over judgment. (James 2:1-13 NASB)

Note what is actually being condemned within this passage, though. It is not the rich man’s clothing. It is, rather, the preferential treatment the rich man’s clothing caused him to receive. In the first century AD, it was commonly believed that one was wealthy because God was blessing him for his goodness. Yet, God “causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous” (Matthew 5:45 NASB). Indeed, He shows no partiality (cf. Romans 2:11). (A discussion of our perception of the fairness of this truth would only prove distracting here. Thus, it shall be given no further treatment.)

Jesus demonstrates in the story of the rich man and Lazarus (cf. Luke 16:19-31) that a righteous man could be so impoverished that he longed to be filled with what fell from the rich man’s table. Contrariwise, a rich man, who fared sumptuously, could, by his disobedience to God’s message, as presented by Moses and the prophets, be cast into torment.

The only time expensive clothing is spoken against within Scripture is on the occasion in which Paul wrote to Timothy informing him that it is immodest to wear such clothing as this to make yourself into a spectacle (cf. 1 Timothy 2:9). By the same token, however, Paul, in the same verse, equally condemns the braiding of hair, if it, too, draws undue attention to the one so coiffed. (Commentators have pointed out that it was the practice of women at this time to braid coins or other such baubles into their hair as a sign of status. Therefore, I am willing to admit that it may not be a simple matter of ornate hair arrangement.)

I cannot stress enough that it is not clothing or accessories that is condemned. It is the preferential treatment that one may be tempted to show towards another so attired, and the practice of using such goods to make others fawn over you. (In case you are unfamiliar with the idiom, “fawn over,” it means, basically, that you praise someone hoping that they will do something for you. It is true that some like to hold out the possibility of doing favors for others so that they may hold any actual favors performed against them later, when they are wishing for a quid pro quo.)

Would it be beneficial for church leadership to propose a dress code to prevent this? I’ve heard of de facto dress codes existing before. My grandfather, Harold Mitchell, was a cotton farmer in the Mississippi delta. A church he attended, while he was a young man, refused to allow men to participate in the services of the church if they were not wearing a tie. Grandfather wore his best to the church, as was the custom to which we have already alluded. However, because he was a young farmer, having no need to wear a tie in his everyday life, my grandfather did not own one. (Poor farmers don’t normally attend black tie events, after all.)

One could understand such prejudice against a farmer if, because of his laziness or contentiousness, he came to the services of the church, smelling of fertilizer, and covered by the soil of the earth. Yet, for simply lacking a fashion accessory, why discriminate against him? Lacking a tie should not have been a disqualification for an eager man willing to serve the Lord.

Familial feelings about this matter aside, such a dress code is ridiculous. It causes people to judge others by appearance, and God reminded Samuel that He doesn’t look at appearances, but one’s heart (cf. 1 Samuel 16:7). Truly, God has no need for Ralph Lauren or Tommy Hilfiger brands. He will accept you even in Round House overalls and a white Arrow shirt.

Why, then, should we even concern ourselves with the type of clothing at all, and insist that people wear their best?

I wouldn’t counsel you to wear your best for my personal benefit. When I assemble  with the church, it is to worship and study, not view a fashion show. However, I am going to wear my best because I want to demonstrate reverence to God. I am coming into His presence with the rest of the church, which we have previously seen comprises His household.

Let us make this more carnal. Suppose, you are invited to a dinner hosted by the President of the United States. If that were not amazing enough, this dinner will be attended by the heads of State of other countries, including the Queen of England. How would you dress? Why would you dress that way? It is true that you would not want to embarrass yourself. However, you would likewise want to show your respect to the authority and station of him who had invited you, as well as to those whose company you would keep. If we can show such honor to men, why is it difficult to show it to God.

At this point, it may surprise you to learn that I used to be more sympathetic to the casual dress crowd. What changed me? What psychological process goes into dressing better for the services of the church? These questions, as well as obvious exceptions to the principle, will be delved into next time.

One man. Two styles of dress.

  WORKS CITED

¹ “Sunday best.” McGraw-Hill Dictionary of American Idioms and Phrasal Verbs. 2002. The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. 1 Apr. 2015 http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/Sunday+best

Clothes Show Off the Heart

After a long day, the first thing many of us do is rather clichéd. We “slip into something more comfortable.” Ah, but comfortable for whom? Naturally, we seek our own comfort. Now that we have fulfilled our duties to others, we can focus attention back on to the self. As such, we remove our suits or our cumbersome coveralls, and put on seasonally-appropriate lounge wear. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this.

Yet, what happens when it is time to reemerge from our man caves or female grottoes? With an altered mindset, focusing outward once more, our clothing is likewise altered to reflect this change, unless we are just taking a quick trip down to the convenience store, and, even then, we hope that no one, whose opinion matters to us, sees us in our sweatpants. Why do we make these changes? Why are we made uncomfortable in our comfy-clothes at the thought of someone “without the proper clearance” catching us at less than our best?

Everyone, to one degree or another, is body-conscious, and relatively few are the ones who truly care nothing about such things as their own nudity or fashion. For example, even the one who has no qualms with frequenting a nude beach would not want a fellow nude-beachgoer seeing him or her taking a shower in the privacy of his or her home. The reason for this is that he or she seeks to have control over his or her own body image. Each of us wants to control how much and what exactly others see of us.

So, what is about wearing those sweatpants? It is not the sweatpants. If you wanted to waste your money, you could spend over $30 on a pair of sweatpants just because it has been marked by the logo of a renowned clothing manufacturer. (To be fair, such sweatpants do look nicer and more durable than even my “premium” big-box store Hanes sweatpants. No, that is not intended as an insult to Hanes, either.) What we are self-conscious about is the message that our sweatpants conveys about us. In that sense, then, clothing can be more revealing than the unclad body, because it reveals what is going on in the mind.

Mores do change. However, convention dictates, and for good reason, that when we are going out, especially to an event, we will forgo selfish interest, and conform ourselves to the socially-accepted (and, hopefully, moral) standard. I will digress for just a moment to say, disdainfully, that too many now flounce their apathy at gatherings like funerals. One’s grandmother has died, and he or she comes to the funeral service bedecked in holey denim and cartoon-character tees. This is not a matter of snobbery. It is, rather, about the statement that the offender makes to others that he or she cared so little about the relationship that he or she had with the deceased or the family and friends of the deceased that he or she could not be bothered to put on something more appropriate. Do not misunderstand. I am not saying that Armani equals appropriate.

Casual clothing is all about us, which is great when we are sequestered in our aforementioned man caves and female grottoes. Yet, this is not what a symphonic concert, funeral, wedding, church service, etc. is about. Men, do you think a woman would allow you to stand at the altar on you wedding day wearing what she has seen you wearing while relaxing on a day off? Would you really want to take the chance of offending her by creating such a spectacle on her big day? It is a special occasion, and the attire must reflect this.

We referenced depression previously in this series, and noted that it can be identified by observing what the depressed person is wearing. It would be a stretch to equate dishevelment with depression on every occasion. However, it may still reflect a negative emotional state. Permit me to offer an observation about myself at this juncture. I am chronically ill and legally labelled as disabled. It is extremely easy for me to wallow in my own malaise. I only have so much energy. Thus, I must budget this energy, and choose which activities will receive withdrawals from it. (Thanks to Christine Miserandino, some of us who are chronically ill, refer to those units of energy in our reserve as “spoons.” It is not uncommon to hear my sister, who has lupus, or myself to say, “I don’t know if I have enough ‘spoons’ to do that.”)

I can get away with being in my pajamas in the afternoon on those days when I only have enough energy to take care of the physical necessities. I have noticed, though, that because this is something that I am justified in doing on some occasions, that it is too easy for me to rationalize my laziness on those days when I actually have more energy. I can only surmise that a similar process of justification is taking place within the mind of the habitually causal-dressed individual. What is good for self at home, one’s comfort and enjoyment, becomes what it sought even outside the home, regardless the occasion.

So, Sunday comes along. I will be attending the services of the church. However, I think I will go, dressed in something only marginally better than what you would see me wearing around my house. “That is fine,” I tell myself, “after all, God always sees me, even when I’m naked.” With the selfishness of my heart fully displayed by my apparel, I assemble with the church, participate, and go home. Today, however, the preacher was boring. The music did not excite me. I kept thinking about where I would be going out to eat lunch after church services were over. Rinse. Lather. Repeat. This becomes my attire for and feelings about nearly every assembly of the church.

Maybe the church should just surrender its outdated, formal thinking, and consider having a more casual service with the latest technological gadgets and contemporary music? That makes sense, right? The church would certainly being doing more to make me feel…at home. Wait. Am I supposed to feel at home when assembled with the church? I should feel comfortable and welcome. These people assembling with me, after all, are my brothers and sisters in Christ. Honestly, these folks are commanded to love me even if I am unlovable! Yet, I should not seek to come to the services of the church in a manner that allows me to be the same person I am in the privacy of my home.

I do not mean that one should be a hypocrite. I mean that one needs to forget about him or herself when one assembles with the church. After all, it is not our house that we are entering, when we enter the church building for the express purpose of Bible study and worship. On those occasions, we are coming into God’s house. Yes, I know that Acts 17:24 clearly states that God does not dwell in edifices constructed by men. Even so, the church is the household of God (cf. 1 Timothy 3:15). So, regardless of where we choose to assemble, even if inside no structure, but exposed to the elements, we are meeting in God’s house. This means that my primary obligation is to obey Him into Who’s house I have come, and extend fellowship and love to all of His assembled children and guests.

In 1 Timothy 3:15, Paul reminds Timothy that there was a way for people to conduct themselves in the household of God? Could this likewise indicate that there is a certain way that we ought to dress when we enter that same house. Should church have a dress code? We will look at this idea in our next installment of Clothed with Christ.

Wrapped in Emotion

As we have seen previously, the placement of clothes upon the human body communicated a message. It was a message that was intended to communicate a message to the subconscious mind, to remind us of how we had fallen. It was likewise a message to spur us on towards obeisance to the One Who clothed us. Whether we realize it or not, we retain that message within our psyche today. It is, if you will, the voice inside, even the most uninhibited, that tells her to scramble for a covering, should one whom she has not invited, enters into her most personal space.

Therefore, since we have established the possibility of clothing communicating a psychological message to us, let us now also examine the opposite; namely, our clothing can communicate a psychological message about ourselves to others. The most obvious example of this in the Bible is probably instances in which one’s clothing demonstrated his or her grief. (It is interesting to note that it was not until the 20^th century in the United States that people, women in particular, dropped the practice of wearing mourning apparel for a culturally-dictated prolonged period of time. Today, of course, we only think about wearing such clothes on the day of the funeral or memorial.)

In 2 Samuel 12, we are shown what happened to the child conceived in the woman, Bathsheba, the wife of another, whom King David had sinfully impregnated, and taken to be his own wife. As a punishment, God determined that the child would die, since his birth would be a reproach to God. David demonstrates his grief, as you would expect. His depressed mental state is seen in his fasting, and expression of emotion so intense that it left him prostrate on the ground (cf. 2 Samuel 12:16). Despite his attendants pleading, David would not move from where he had collapsed, nor would he eat (cf. 2 Samuel 12:17). David remained inconsolable for seven days, at which time he learned that, despite his ardent contrition, the child had passed (cf. 2 Samuel 12:18-19).

At this point in the narrative, King David does something to defy convention. He gets up, washes himself, and changes his clothing, before going to worship God (cf. 2 Samuel 12:20). I suppose one might easily understand why David would want to strip himself of clothing soiled by prolonged wear. Such clothing is not pleasant. It is stained with bodily oils and fluids, and emits the telltale musk of its protracted use. Some might argue that he did this also because of decorum. He was the king, and was about to appear publicly. However, the true, underlying reason is stated in the text.

The servants of the king ask him why he seems to shake off his child’s passing so easily after having grieved so fervently. King David replies,

While the child was still alive, I fasted and wept; for I said, “Who knows, the Lord may be gracious to me, that the child may live.” But now he has died; why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I will go to him, but he will not return to me. (2 Samuel 12:22-23 NASB)

Do you perceive the change in King David’s emotional state from that which he had previously demonstrated while his child lay dying? Indeed, it had changed. He understood he must move forward with hope. Thus, he was now acting accordingly. Not only could this be seen in King David’s behavior, but it could likewise be seen in the fact that he has changed into apparel reflecting his new psychological state.

This is something that each of us does every day without giving it a conscious thought. We select apparel that reflects our mood du jour. As such, we actually wrap ourselves in our emotion. Perhaps, we might rightly identify our clothing, therefore, as a part of the nonverbal communication in which we engage.

What messages are we conveying to others? We will discuss this matter further in our next installment.

Unidentified girl in mourning dress holding framed photograph of her father as a cavalryman with sword and Hardee hat. c. 1861-1870. Photograph. Lib. of Cong., Washington, D.C. Lib. of Cong. Web. 30 March 2014.

“Scripture taken from the NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE®, Copyright © 1960,1962,1963,1968,1971,1972,1973,1975,1977,1995 by The Lockman Foundation. Used by permission.”

Awe-some!

It should come as no surprise whenever more evidence is produced that reaffirms the tenets of Scripture. Yet, here is academia expressing surprise over her discovery that positive emotions contribute to better health.

Long, long ago, the most foolish wise man who ever lived, Solomon, observed, “A joyful heart is good medicine, But a broken spirit dries up the bones” (Proverbs 17:22 NASB). Jesus, likewise, in His day, noted those attributes that foster joy (cf. Matthew 5:3-12; Acts 20:25), and proclaimed the futility of worry (cf. Matthew 6:25ff; Luke 12:22-34).

To distill the essence of this latest study, allow us to say simply that awe is a most beneficial emotion to our health, surpassing even happiness in one key respect. The participants of the study had their saliva tested for interleukin-6, a molecule producing destructive inflammation in the body, whenever they answered questionnaires about their typical emotional constitution, and the extent to which they had recently experienced joy, love, pride, awe, amusement, contentment, and compassion. The more awe experienced by the study participant, the lower the level of interleukin-6.

Upon reading this finding, we could not help but be reminded of the words of “How Great Thou Art.”

O Lord my God, When I in awesome wonder, Consider all the worlds Thy Hands have made; I see the stars, I hear the rolling thunder, Thy power throughout the universe displayed.

For the child of God, life ought to be filled with awe. Awe for the majesty of creation. Awe for inexplicable nature of Divine providence. Awe for the “omni” characteristics of God: omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence. Awe for the long-suffering and benevolence of God.

No wonder the apostle Paul advised Christians,

Be anxious for nothing, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God. And the peace of God, which surpasses all comprehension, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus.Finally, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute, if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, dwell on these things (Philippians 4:6-8 NASB).

 WORKS CONSULTED

Reynolds, Gretchen. “An Upbeat Emotion That’s Surprisingly Good for You.” The New York Times: Well. The New York Times Company, 26 Mar. 2015. Web. 27 Mar. 2015.

“Enclothed Cognition” Series Update

The Purpose of Clothing

What Do Clothes Signify?

What Do Clothes Signify?

The psychological message God imparted to Adam and Even when he dressed them was twofold.  First, they felt shame realizing they had defied God’s moral authority. Second, they understood that they must adhere to the moral standard given to them by God. Though we are still not going to delve into the issue of modesty, as it pertains to clothing, it will prove beneficial to understand the differences between Adam and Eve’s attempt to clothe themselves and the dressing they received from God.

Adam and Eve at first employed the use of chagowr¹ to conceal their nakedness (cf. Genesis 3:7). This Hebrew word translates as “loincloth.” Oxford Dictionary defines a loincloth as “A single piece of cloth wrapped round the hips, typically worn by men in some hot countries as their only garment.”² In other words, their primary concern seemed to be the concealment of their genitalia. There is no indication that mother Eve, as popularly depicted in art, made herself a leaf-bikini. There is no doubt, however, that their “fabric” of choice had been the leaves of a fig tree. This is indicated by the use of the Hebrew word, teenah, which means, “fig tree.”³ God, on the other hand, used a kethoneth⁴ to cover them (cf. Genesis 3:21). This Hebrew word has the English equivalent of either “coat” or “tunic.” Again, consulting Oxford Dictionary, we find that a tunic has historically been a garment “reaching to the knees.”⁵ Thus, God covered His children more fully than they had done.

Let us not lose sight of the fact that we are looking at this from a psychological standpoint. Again, we say that this action was intended to imply reliance upon God for moral authority.  Not only had Adam and Eve made a poor wardrobe choice, when they sought to cover themselves, but they needed God’s assistance to become dressed properly. Perhaps, we are correct to assume that with the use of the Hebrew word, labash or labesh^6,, that God only figuratively clothed them. In other words, He supplied the garments, but Adam and Eve put them on. Yet, the literal meaning of the word is to “put on.” Remember, Adam and Eve had no experience with clothing, especially, as the text bears out, clothing that God desired His creation to wear. Is it really a stretch, then, to believe that God may have dressed His children as a mother would dress her baby today?

Can you remember the first time you successfully dressed yourself? Personally, I don’t remember the exact age when I first managed to dress myself. However, I can recall feeling an enormous sense of pride in being able to accomplish something that all of those big people in my life could do. Contrariwise, it hurt my feelings if my mother had to grab the bottom of my shirt and pull it over my head so that she could then place it on me correctly.

Satan had promised liberty. Yet, here is God, in addition to punishing them for their actions, having to do something for them that they presumed they could do for themselves, putting on clothing. Professor Nancy Pine referenced Alison Lurie’s book, The Language of Clothes, in her own Kindle Single, Mind What You Wear: The Psychology of Fashion, to describe how clothing can strip one of his or her sartorial identity. (Allow me to briefly define “sartorial identity.” This basically refers to the self-image we have crafted through our clothing choices. We use this to help shape our identity.) Pine was speaking specifically regarding the description Lurie had provided about the hospital gown to demonstrate how it could alter one’s mental state when he or she had to be, essentially, dressed by another. Pine states, partially from Lurie:

…this leaves the patient ‘struck dumb’ and therefore powerless, without a voice. By the mere act of being forced into a shapeless, pale, flimsy garment that gapes at the back or fastens like a baby’s gown, the hospital patient is “transformed into a half-naked, helpless, inarticulate creature that cannot even dress itself. In some chic hospitals and examining rooms, the traditional infantile garment is very pale blue, suggesting trust and docility as well as helpless innocence”.⁷

 I realize that the comparison is not precise, since God was actually putting more clothing on them than they had placed upon themselves. I also understand that Adam and Eve were not necessarily able to craft a complete sartorial identity for themselves in the short time they had to cover up their shame when they heard the sound of God in the Garden of Eden. Nevertheless, the act of having to be clothed by God could only have been humbling to the man who had possessed the intellect to name all the animals of God’s creation (cf. Genesis 2:19-20).

Now, he and his wife were cast out of Eden, and much of their skin was covered by the fur of an animal that one presumes God had to slaughter in order to properly dress him. After the novelty of this covering faded, and Adam and Eve began to craft their own clothes, they may have become desensitized to the initial twofold lesson God sought to instill in them. However, in the meantime, they were reminded of their sin and God’s moral authority every time they donned clothing.

In covering their nakedness, Adam and Eve remembered the moment they first felt shame. In seeing one another naked after the Fall, their emotions would become mixed. On the one hand, they would suddenly be filled with a strange longing (i.e., lust) for each other. (Certainly, they had never felt it before, despite having been naked around one another in the Garden of Eden.) On the other hand, this same moment would have invited the previously unknown feeling of embarrassment.

This is the moment that body consciousness was born, and people began to be concerned about their physical appearance. How does my helpmeet perceive me? Though one aspect of this, marital intimacy born from shared nakedness, is positive and holy, created by God, the overall message remains mostly negative. Adam and Eve realized that they must continue to wear clothing, or else allow the feeling of shame, resultant from their loss of innocence, be renewed.

The next time you are standing nude (or in your underwear), deciding what you will wear, take a moment and think about why you will be wearing it. What do your clothes signify? Even today, because we have allowed our conscience to be trained by God, we feel shame regarding our nakedness. Though we understand that our nakedness, itself, is certainly not sin, it remains something we will only share freely with our spouse, the one whom we trust will be accepting of our nakedness, and will not take advantage of our moment of vulnerability.

In the future, when faced with the self-consciousness about your body, and the shame you know you’d feel if a stranger saw you naked, remember God’s twofold lesson. Know that the shame you would feel results from the consequences of our first parents’ sin. Understand, also, that the very act of putting on clothing serves as a constant reminder that God has moral authority over you.

Taking a cue from the apostle John (cf. 1 John 4:19), allow me to conclude this section by simply stating, “We dress, because He first dressed us.”

WORKS CITED:

¹ “2290. Chagowr.” Bible Hub. Biblos.com, n.d. Web. 26 Mar. 2015. <http://biblehub.com/hebrew/2290.htm&gt;.

² “Loincloth.”Oxford Dictionaries. Oxford University Press, n.d. Web. 26 March 2015. <http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/loincloth&gt;.

³ “8384. teenah. ” Bible Hub. Biblos.com, n.d. Web. 26 Mar. 2015. <http://biblehub.com/hebrew/8384.htm&gt;.

⁴ “3801. kethoneth or kuttoneth.” Bible Hub. Biblos.com, n.d. Web. 26 Mar. 2015. <http://biblehub.com/hebrew/3801.htm&gt;

⁵ “Tunic.”Oxford Dictionaries. Oxford University Press, n.d. Web. 26 March 2015. <http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/tunic&gt;

⁶ “3847. labash or labesh.” Bible Hub. Biblos.com, n.d. Web. 26 Mar. 2015. <http://biblehub.com/hebrew/3847.htm&gt;

⁷ Pine, Professor Karen J. (2014-05-13). Mind What You Wear: The Psychology of Fashion (Kindle Locations 242-245). . Kindle Edition.

The Purpose of Clothing

Nakedness. This is the natural state our being. As Job observed after being stricken with supernatural adversity, “Naked I came from my mother’s womb, And naked I shall return there. The LORD gave and the LORD has taken away. Blessed be the name of the LORD” (Job 1:21 NASB). If nakedness is natural, however, why do we now wear clothes?

Nakedness is a sign of purity and innocence. Certainly, there can be no purer human being than a newborn infant. Despite the belief of Calvinists, humanity is not born bearing the guilt of Adam’s sin. Indeed, as the prophet Ezekiel reminds us, “The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son’s iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself” (Ezekiel 18:20 NASB).  Thus, a naked child, emerging from his mother’s womb is like our primordial parents, Adam and Eve, before the Fall. That is, “the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed” (Genesis 2:25 NASB).

A baby has no shame about being naked because he has yet to arrive at the age of accountability when he will begin to know the difference between what is morally right and wrong. Once opened to these truths, the natural reaction of a naked person is to hide him or herself whenever it is perceived that another person, with whom they do not share the requisite intimacy, is present. Note the reaction of the inaugural pair following their transgression, when their innocence was stripped from them. Their first action was to fashion coverings for their bodies (cf. Genesis 3:7). Furthermore, when they heard the sound of God walking through the Garden in the cool of the day, they hid themselves from Him (cf. Genesis 3:8).

God asked where His children were (cf. Genesis 3:9). He asked, not because He did not know, but to cause Adam and Eve to ponder that question themselves from the vantage of the new knowledge they had received from their consumption of the forbidden fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. In other words, He wanted them to evaluate their situation spiritually. Adam spoke first, and told God that he had hidden himself when he had heard the sound of God in the garden because he was naked (cf. Genesis 3:10). God replied, “Who told you that you were naked?” (Genesis 3:11 NASB)

After Adam and Eve received their Divine punishment, they were re-clothed by God in animal skin garments (cf. Genesis 3:21). We will discuss the reason for having to re-clothe them more fully later as we discuss the topic of modesty. Common sense tells us that as humanity was being expelled from paradise, he was soon going to become subject to the rigors of the environment of a cursed world (cf. Genesis 3:17). As such, he would need protection from such things as weather, insects, and briars.  Is it possible, though, that clothing may have been intended to serve another psychological purpose?

In the 2000s, psychology has focused more on the role of clothing. In 2012, cognitive psychologists, Hajo Adams and Adam Galinksy of Northwestern University, coined the term, “enclothed cognition.” They explain that enclothed cognition describes “the systematic influence that clothes have on the wearer’s psychological processes.”¹ Was God sending His creation a psychological message when He clothed them? If so, what was it? What can the field of enclothed cognition contribute to a Christian’s life and service? These are the questions that we shall seek to answer as we pursue the subject, Clothed with Christ: Enclothed Cognition & Christianity.

WORKS CITED:

¹ Adam, H., & Galinsky, A.D., Enclothed cognition, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology (2012), doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2012.02.008

“Scripture taken from the NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE®, Copyright © 1960,1962,1963,1968,1971,1972,1973,1975,1977,1995 by The Lockman Foundation. Used by permission.”

Upcoming Attractions!

National Puppy Day

Here’s a holiday we can all get behind: National Puppy Day! Founded in 2006 by Colleen Paige, National Puppy Day seeks to educate people about the “horrors of puppy mills” and to “save orphaned puppies.”¹ Moreover, National Puppy Day celebrates the loyalty and nobility of these lovable creatures who have left an indelible mark on the heart of humanity.

WORKS CITED

¹“About National Puppy Day.” National Puppy Day. Colleen Paige OmniMedia, n.d. Web. 23 Mar. 2015. <http://www.nationalpuppyday.com/#!about/c1se&gt;.

International Happiness Day

Today (March 20), has been proclaimed as “International Happiness Day” by the UN. It sounds wonderful, doesn’t it? The only problem is that people often define happiness incorrectly. Indeed, even the people responsible for defining our words for us have the same difficulty. Why? It is because that English is a living, dynamic language whose words change meanings. Observe the Oxford Dictionary’s notes concerning the origin of the word, “happy:”

Before the 14th century you could be glad but not happy. The word is from hap ‘fortune, chance’, which entered English a century or more earlier and which is no longer used in everyday English, except in hapless (Late Middle English) meaning ‘unfortunate’, its development happen (Late Middle English) and perhaps. To be happy was at first to be favoured by fortune—but came to refer to feelings of pleasure in the early 16th century. ¹

Thus, the concept of happiness began as that which was completely contingent on external circumstances. If favored by fortune, one was happy. The real problem with this, of course, is that the nature of humanity is to seek his own fortune. To impart happiness, he or she would have to become more mindful of the desires, hopes, and aspirations of others. We do not wish to deny the philanthropic potentiality of people. Such an impulse does exist. However, individuals typically have to be graphically reminded of that need in others before he or she will respond compassionately.

There is noting intrinsically wrong with desiring our own pleasure and satisfaction. Truly, we are commanded to love neighbors as we do ourselves (cf. Romans 13:8-10). Thus, if we did not desire such happiness for ourselves, we would not seek to impart it to others. However, it does take a more spiritually mature person to have an outlook that looks without before looking within. Paul advised Christians in ancient Philippi to not look out only for themselves, but to be mindful of the interests of others (Philippians 2:4). Following this statement, Paul reminds the Philippians that such is possible only if one does as Christ did, and empty himself of that which would prevent him of assuming the role of a servant (cf. Philippians 2:5ff).

Again, this is not a behavior people naturally adopt. Therefore, an intergovernmental organization (i.e. the UN) is compelled to issue a proclamation encouraging people to set aside one day in which he or she assists others to become “favored by fortune.” It would be far better for us, should we want to feel gladness, to be filled with joy. Joy wells up from within and finds expression in our daily life. It is no surprise, then, that the Bible encourages its adherents to be full of joy instead of being happy (cf. John 15:10-12; Philippians 4:4).

Nevertheless, look around today and every day. See if you cannot become a blessing to another. As the Hebrews writer stated:

¹²Therefore, strengthen the hands that are weak and the knees that are feeble, ¹³and make straight paths for your feet, so that the limb which is lame may not be put out of joint, but rather be healed.¹⁴ Pursue peace with all men, and the sanctification without which no one will see the Lord.

WORKS CITED:

¹“Happy.” OED Online. Oxford University Press, n.d. Web. 20 Mar. 2015. <http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/happy&gt;.