Welcome to the MHB Podcast. This is Michael Baun. And welcome to my twenty fourth episode. Tonight I want to go over some reasons why pastors should wear a suit and tie – and why they should not wear a suit and tie. So you might be thinking that I’m sending mixed messages here. But what I’m really saying is that motive determines legitimacy when it comes to how you present yourself.
For example, imagine that you are sitting in your house and you hear a knock at the door. You look outside and you see a police officer standing on your porch. You open the door and the officer shows you his badge, explains why he is there, and politely asks you to identify a local missing person. You tell him you don’t know the person, and he thanks you for your cooperation and wishes you a good evening. In this example, the officer’s uniform and badge represent authority and protection. You feel a sense of respect and safety.
Now let’s say you are sitting in your house and you hear the same knock at the door. You look outside and standing there is a police officer – same as before. So you open your door and the first thing the officer says is that he would like to come inside. You ask to see his badge and he declines. Then you ask him why he’s at your house and he says “Because I’m a cop. I can do what I want.” Then he steps forward and tries to squeeze past you into your house. In this instance, the officer’s uniform represents deception and threat. You feel uneasy and scared – and you certainly do not respect him.
How is it that the same guy wearing the same uniform could inspire such different feelings? Because it was his conduct and his speech that commanded the feelings – not the uniform. However, in both scenarios the uniform did not simply become irrelevant, either. It became a symbol. In the first scenario, the officer’s conduct inspired a sense of respect, authority, and safety. Then the uniform became a symbol of respect, authority and safety. In the second scenario, the officer’s conduct inspired a sense of fear, deception, and fraudulence. Then the uniform became a symbol of fear, deception, and fraudulence.
So as you can see, in both scenarios the officer’s uniform became a symbol representing his character. I would argue that the same is true for pastors or any other thought leader. If a man of good character and integrity wears a suit when he speaks to a congregation, the suit becomes a symbol that adds a layer of effectiveness to his character. The problem is, this symbol works just as well in both directions. And since so many fraudulent pastors have taken to presenting themselves in fine suits, it has become common for church people to associate the suit with fraudulence.
But does this mean that the good men should allow the bad men to corner the market on the effectiveness of this symbol? Absolutely not. In fact, I would say that we have a mandate to do otherwise. How can we feel justified knowing that the nefarious pastors are using this symbolism to lead people astray while we just avoid it all together. That would be like police officers deciding they should stop wearing uniforms because there are criminals who impersonate police officers. The fact is, the uniform of a police officer must command respect, authority, and safety. The world becomes a better place when it does. In the same sense, pastors who avoid suits solely because of bad men are allowing these bad men to dictate their own actions.
So, I’m saying that wearing a suit and tie adds a layer of effectiveness to a pastors work because it becomes a symbol of the conduct and character of that pastor. But how do we know that this makes the pastor more effective? It turns out you can back this idea with Scripture 1 Corinthians 9:19-23 says:
Even though I am a free man with no master, I have become a slave to all people to bring many to Christ. When I was with the Jews, I lived like a Jew to bring the Jews to Christ. When I was with those who follow the Jewish law, I too lived under that law. Even though I am not subject to the law, I did this so I could bring to Christ those who are under the law. When I am with the Gentiles who do not follow the Jewish law, I too live apart from that law so I can bring them to Christ. But I do not ignore the law of God; I obey the law of Christ.
When I am with those who are weak, I share their weakness, for I want to bring the weak to Christ. Yes, I try to find common ground with everyone, doing everything I can to save some. I do everything to share the Good News and share in its blessings.
What Paul is saying here is that he wants to create a set of circumstances that maximize his chances of bringing people to Christ. By far, the best argument against wearing a suit is that it might construct a barrier between yourself and the person you are trying to reach. This is what Paul meant when he said that he shared in the weakness of those he evangelized. If reaching people made up the entirety of the Gospel, my position that leaders should wear suits would collapse on this point. But the Gospel is more than simply telling people about Christ. We are called to reach people so that not only will they know about Christ, they will trust in him as well. Knowing about Christ isn’t enough. Even the demons know about him.
So what does it mean to trust Christ? It means to believe him that he is telling us the truth about how to live and how to go to heaven when we die. It is to believe that following Christ is the best possible mode of being. How do we get people to that point? It turns out there are two ways of doing this.
First, you could assume that the people you must reach are living in a vacuum where they are not being influenced by the world or by their culture. They have no worldview and so they are completely open to any approach you bring to them. That sounds silly, but there are actually people like this. Usually, people who are going through a horrible tragedy where their world has fallen apart are in this category. That’s why you’ll hear pastors say that funerals are good opportunities to reach people for Christ. Today, many pastors conduct themselves as if the people they are trying to reach are living in this vacuum state. This tends to confine their effectiveness to that section of people who are downtrodden or in a bad spot in life.
I’m not saying that the dispossessed do not need to be reached. But we simply cannot ignore the fact that there is a vast number of nonbelievers who are caught up in the religion of secularism. These people see the world through the standards of the world. These are the same standards that our own congregations are exposed to when they are not in the church. These worldly standards require that you wear a suit and tie when you are going to have either a.) an important conversation, or b.) a conversation with important people. The Bible did not set this standard. Humanity did. So is the standard right? No it’s not. Christ did not wear a suit and tie during his ministry. But Paul did not try to emulate the superficial characteristics of the people who walked with Christ. He emulated the superficial characteristics of each given culture where he was sharing the Gospel.
This is why we must do the same. In our culture, a suit and tie means that we are having an important conversation with important people. That’s the west. If I traveled to Pakistan to reach people there, I would dress myself in the respectable clothing of that culture. Within the cloistered church, a suit and tie has become the mark of a wolf in sheep’s clothing. But in the outside world, it remains the mark of someone who is doing something important.
Knowing this, I would present two fundamental reasons why it is a good idea for pastors to wear a suit and tie. First, we are trying to share the Gospel with people who are outside of the church. Nonbelievers are living in the world and thereby using the world’s standards. They are much more likely to take the Gospel seriously if you are dressed in a way that relates the serious nature of the Gospel. Again, this is not Biblical mandate, but the truth is that nonbelievers are trained by secularism to think this way. If we are going to reach them, we have to meet them in the worldview they are currently living in.
Second, our own congregations are being expected to live in this world as well. It’s easy enough for the laity to disassociate their culture on Sunday mornings inside of the church. But asking them to do this every other day outside of the church is to require a level of Christian maturity that most believers in the west do not have. In this case, we must prioritize what it is we are training Christians to do or not to do. Congregations have a tendency to focus on superficial problems so that they can avoid addressing the real ones. I’m willing to sacrifice a modest attire if it motivates them to get off the pews and get active on the real issues. In my opinion, we should present ourselves to the congregation the same way that an effective leader outside of the church would present himself. Both believers and nonbelievers – anyone who lives in the west – are already walking around with the symbolism of a suit and tie denoting something important. Why not take advantage of that when emphasizing the importance of the Gospel?
From my view, this is no different than Paul adapting himself to the cultural expectations of the people he was reaching. And dressing nice is not simply a fad. I’m not saying we should become chameleons to all the latest trends. A suit and tie has transcended the cultural fads of the west. This presentation has timeless style that carries multi-generational appeal.
So the next big question is this: If Paul was adapting himself to his audience, then shouldn’t we be dressing down to our congregation? Here’s my claim: how a person dresses him or herself is not an accurate representation of how they think an important person should dress. In other words, they aren’t dressing up for church because they no longer believe church is all that important. This is the core of the problem. Church members are not taking the title of Christian with any degree of seriousness anymore. Some members won’t even give up an hour of their time on Sunday morning. When I first started going to church, I wore sweatpants and a tank top. If I were going somewhere important, like a job interview, I would have worn a suit and tie. Church members and nonbelievers, anyone in the west, is trained from birth to see this type of uniform as the mark of importance.
And so I’m left with this question: As a church leader, if I don’t present myself as if what I’m doing in the church is important, how can I expect anyone else to believe that it is?
If you find this content valuable, feel free to share it and to use it in your own studies. If you’d like to support this podcast, you can do so at www.patreon.com/michaelhbaun. There is a link in the description. Your generosity goes a long way to promoting the growth of this enterprise and the cause of free speech. Thank you all for joining me this evening, and I will see you in the next episode.
The MHB Podcast 