restless reformer

I’m sure the suggestion would be utterly appalling to Ingrid of Slice of Laodicea. But I think she needs a good lesson in deconstruction. Read the following (HT to iMonk):

When I hear of churches comprised of Christians with mohawks, body piercings, and worship music that sounds like a rehearsal for hell, I am concerned. Before we are Christians, we are all a mess, whether it shows on the outside or not. Nobody can criticize the unregenerate for observing pagan practices of tattoos, multiple piercings, and bizarre hairstyles and immodest or extreme clothing. With the rejection of God comes the rejection of moderation, modesty, etc. But what about after a person is converted? Should they continue to walk around looking like Satan’s own? Should there not be a transformation of appearance in those who have been converted by the power of God? If I dress like a goth with black eyeliner and black lipstick, wear black trench coats, etc., would you not wonder what was going on in my heart? Would not Jesus remove the desire to dress in extreme fashions that scream of alienation, hatred and evil? I say a resounding yes! If a woman is a prostitute, would there not be an immediate desire to cover her body when Jesus comes to reside in her? I am troubled by the idea that because it is “Seattle” or “New York” or any other urban area that somehow spiritual maturity and growth in this area is no longer expected. Our dress is not neutral. Goths and prostitutes dress in specific ways because they are sending a message. When I dress in the morning I send a message, whether I intend to or not. My children know that when I wear office attire, I have business to attend to that day outside the home. My clothing sends a message. If I show up at a wedding wearing jeans and a t-shirt, I am sending a message. Likewise, if after conversion, I dress like a pagan who has never met Christ, I am sending a message that meeting Jesus Christ has no practical effect on my life, that the moral anarchy of the world is still in my heart. People will frequently cite Hudson Taylor’s wearing the garb of the nation where he worked as an excuse to wear blue mohawks to minister to today’s youth. We are living in a country that still has certain norms. Blue mohawks, mercifully, are not the norm here. Hudson Taylor was simply acknowledging that he was working with the Chinese. His attire didn’t scream rebellion and hate and despair, it was simply Chinese. I doubt highly that his wife would have dressed like a Chinese prostitute to carry out her work there. If Jesus came to save us out of these lifestyles of sin, why would we want to dress that way to carry such a message? New believers need good discipleship and teaching after they are saved. If our pastors and church leaders patronize these people by attempting to look and sound like the world, how can spiritual growth and maturity take place? These are some of the issues that come to mind after watching Mark Driscoll’s video. I remember the maniac of Gadera in the Scriptures. He didn’t keep wearing the chains and rags he had on when he was demonically possessed. When Jesus came, he was transformed and he was clothed and clean and in his right mind. You cannot encounter Jesus and still remain as you were and I would think that would include your appearance to the world.

Where to begin? I guess we can just put it simply: Where is the list in Scripture of how we can and cannot dress? Commands concerning modesty can be found, but how does a mohawk communicate modesty or immodesty?

She’s concerned about clothing that communicates rebellion. But how does a mohawk or black lipstick communicate rebellion against Scripture when no command in Scripture dictates that one not wear a mohawk or black lipstick?

The parallels between mohawks, clothing worn by prostitutes, and the chains of the Garasene demoniac is plainly absurd.

The problem lies here: Ingrid is unaware of her own prejudices and presuppositions about what is “normal.” Listen: if mohawks, tattoos, and goth clothing represent rebellion against Scripture, show me where (and let’s please avoid that one out-of-context reference to the tattoos, m’kay?). If you can’t show me where (and you can’t, so don’t bother), then we must conclude that the rebellion is against Ingrid’s own preferences and conclusions about what is “normal.” And Ingrid’s normalcy becomes the standard for everyone, with the approval of God stamped on it.

Plainly put, if a blue mohawk represents rebellion against bad authority, what exactly is the problem? Didn’t Jesus “rebel” against bad, legalistic “authority” in Israel?

“We are living in a country that still has norms.” Right. White, middle class, prejudiced norms.

“Blue mohawks, mercifully, are not the norm here.” “Mercifully”? Why? Where is the biblical prohibition of a blue mohawk? The prejudice in this statement is manifest.  The real irony is that if blue mohawks were the norm, Ingrid would be saying, “Short, neat hair, mercifully, is not the norm here.”

And furthermore, the parallel to Hudson Taylor is absurd. Hudson Taylor dressed like the Chinese to win them over, and we can of course dress like Americans to communicate the gospel, just so long as we only dress like the “normal” ones. And “normal” = Ingrid.

To hell with the abnormal ones (literally). We’ll just stick to dressing like and evangelizing the normal Americans, who, surprisingly (even though they are unbelievers), dress just like us.

Clothing does send a message. Ingrid just needs her prejudices deconstructed in order to better hear what message other people are sending, rather than just concluding that notIngrid = notNormal.

I can feel a new “Fred the Fundamentalist” episode coming on…