of worship leading, self-promotion, and being an artist

Zac HicksPersonal Stories & Testimonies, Worship Theology & Thought7 Comments

Here’s a candid moment for you.  I continue to wrestle with a tension (that will never go away), which I have experienced from day one of establishing an online presence in preparation for the release of The Glad Sound.
My goal for this album and any future ones (Lord-willing) is much less about promoting my own music and much more about being part of a movement with an agenda.  The hymns movement is a grass roots campaign to influence modern worship to regain much of what it has lost—historical rootedness in the biblical depths of ancient hymns.  And I believe God is behind this.  As I read the Scriptures, I know God desires to be worshiped in reverence and awe.  To Him is due the loftiest of thoughts, praises, and admiration. I believe the hymns movement is a necessary piece of the puzzle of modern worship. This is where my heart bleeds, and it is THE reason I’ve produced this record.  If I did not think God cared about this movement and the positive impact it would have on His worship, I wouldn’t have wasted my time doing this.
It has been made abundantly clear to me, given the culture I live in, that to achieve these goals, I must “market myself” in a sea of loud voices.  This means I must promote myself and continually place my personality, thoughts, and ideas before people.  I need to talk about this “great thing” that I’m doing.  I need to take pictures.  I need to encourage others (individuals, corporations with audiences and media outlets) that who I am and what I’m doing should be appreciated, talked about, and shared with others.  I need to convince people that I’m unique and worth people’s time.  Need…need…need.   “Need” should be in quotes.
At the same time, I’m a follower of Jesus.  And He teaches, “Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it” (Matthew 10:39).  The apostle John reports a similar but even more poignant statement: “The man who loves his life will lose it, while the man who hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life” (John 12:25).  Elsewhere, Jesus said: “If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me” (Mark 8:34).  One of the most glorious passages of Scripture (which my 4-year old has nearly memorized!), says:
“Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness.  And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself…” (Philippians 2:1-11).
How does modern self-promotion and marketing meld with Christian self-denial?  There’s a tension here.  And it’s the classic “in the world, not of the world” tension.  Some would say this is a contradiction: one cannot promote oneself and yet heed Christ’s command to deny oneself.  I think it’s less black and white.  Promoting oneself is not wrong by necessity.  Paul promotes himself (2 Corinthians 12:11…I’m aware that he simultaneously says “I am nothing”).  But his self-promotion in that and other instances is for a greater purpose, be it to illustrate a theological point or to set himself up as an example of godly behavior so that others might have a tangible reference point.  Ultimately, as with many other issues, this comes down to the heart.  What is the motive behind the self-promotion?
I think these things, for honest Christ-followers, start out pretty innocent but that the heart, gone unchecked, reaches an idolatry tipping point, when all the self-promotion goes to one’s head (really, goes to one’s heart).  I find myself having to frequently heed the Spirit’s whispers, “Be careful here, Zac.”  So, yes, instances like last night where I’m walking around downtown Denver with my friend, posing for shots for my “artist portfolio,” do (and should) make me feel a bit uncomfortable.  And I think the discomfort is a divine grace, a heart-check.
For all you Christian artists, business people, authors, and anyone else who, out of cultural necessity, promote yourselves so that God’s kingdom objectives might be achieved, my encouragement is to tread forward, but tread forward as one would traverse a pathway littered with broken glass.  Move forward in prayer.  Move forward with a team of people from whom you invite regular input, questions, and checks and balances.
I don’t think the tension will ever go away.  God help us if it does.

lincoln brewster’s “today is the day” needs theological precision

Zac HicksWorship Theology & Thought10 Comments

Lincoln Brewster’s popular song “Today is the Day” seems like a flash in a pan.  I think its popularity has peaked (KLOVE plays seem to have lessened).  I have no doubt that churches are using it.  Brewster writes accessible, singable melodies and has a gift for crafting texts which are accessible and easy to remember.  He has given new vitality to a passage that is well-worn in Christian worship–Psalm 118:24 (though check out the TNIV’s translational decision about this passage, which, if correct, means that this passage is saying something different than what we’ve thought).  The song seems to be putting lyrical feet to “trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding…,” and that is always a welcome reflection in worship and the broader Christian life.  However, the first verse is theologically troubling:
I’m reaching my hand to Yours
Believing there’s so much more
Knowing that all You have in store for me is good
Is good

It’s a simplification at best, and a distortion at worst, of a popular and powerful passage of Scripture:
“And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose” (Romans 8:28).
Cutting to the chase, the thrust of this passage is quite different than Brewster has construed it.  To the contrary, not all that God has in store for us is good.  God just promises to work good in all things (be they good or bad).  This is a huge misunderstanding of this passage which has led to prosperity gospel thinking, crippling the church by stripping it of a theology of suffering.  Jesus prayed for the church,
“My prayer is not that you take them out of the world but that you protect them from the evil one” (John 17:15).
This and other countless passages let us know that trial and tribulation is something the church WILL experience (we’re not going to be removed from the world and its suffering).  And trial and tribulation are NOT good.  Yet Romans 8 reveals that God can and does use them in the lives of His people for good ends.
Trying to be fair to Brewster, I can think that perhaps Brewster has this in mind as he writes this verse.  “All you have in store for me is good,” perhaps, is looking at the end after the trials.  However, this is so touchy and potentially damaging when misunderstood that it’s not good to leave things fuzzy on this issue.  So I land a bit harder on Brewster than on “Mighty to Save” because the collateral damage is potentially much more devastating.  What would a new Christian do, upon believing this, with future trials?  I fear they would despair in their faith, believing God to be a liar.
So my plea to my brother and colleague, Lincoln Brewster, is: Please rewrite this section. Please use it as a teaching point for the church.  Maybe run new potential songs by some pastors/teachers/theologians you trust to give honest feedback about the content before you publish and record.
Given that my attempts at gaining permissions from major labels like Integrity’s Hosanna! (Brewster’s label and administrator) for lyric changes have all been denied, it doesn’t appear I can use this song in our church.  I’m nervous about the misinterpretations that it could yield and, as a teacher (which all worship leaders are, whether they acknowledge it or not) being held accountable for giving bad food to God’s sheep (James 3:1).
Worship leaders, I humbly urge you to think critically about using this popular song in your worship services.

urban worship…my philosophy goes out the window

Zac HicksWorship Style6 Comments

So I’m sitting here at General Assembly (our denomination’s national meeting…our largest gathering of churches), and I’ve chosen to sing in the ad hoc choir gathered to help lead worship.  The thematic focus of GA this year is urban ministry…God’s love for the city, justice, etc.  I’ve met a wonderful worship pastor, Russell Thompson, who leads music at City of Refuge Church in Houston, TX.  He’s directing our choir, and doing a fabulous job guiding us in God-honoring, modern black gospel style worship (think Israel Houghton).  The dude has a fabulous voice and is a humble, more-than-able worship leader.  I hope he and I stay connected over the years.  I need his gifts and perspective informing me, my calling, and context.
I’m an analytical person, so even as I participate and dive in head first to rousing gospel singing, American Idol-style vocal licks, and pop-style, straight toned, belty singing, I’m sifting all of this through my worship philosophy grid.
My findings (and I’m broad-brushing gospel-style worship based on this and a few other similar experiences…so there will be some holes):
Positive Feedback

  • the music of the modern black gospel genre is more sophisticated than typical mainstream modern evangelical pop/rock worship–melodic and harmonic structures are more complex (more chord inversions, more quick passing chords, more added tones to chords, expansion beyond major and minor into half-diminished and diminished chords, trills and grace notes built into the main melody)
  • the rhythm of the genre requires a greater skill level than typical mainstream evangelical pop/rock worship–I’ve played with enough pianists to know that to do what the pianist did today requires a totally different skill-set from typical pop or classical training
  • the expression is unabashed…”worship with abandon”

Constructive Criticism (through my grid)

  • you complain about 7-11 songs…these are more like 70-111 songs
  • many classically oriented singers will find these songs not just temporarily unsingable (until they learn them), but permanently unsingable (the syncopation is too perpetual, too demanding; the vocal style is too free, not dictated enough)
  • the theology is very simple (I prefer to use “simple” rather than “shallow,” though I know some of my cohorts would call it that)–it’s gospel-based, experience-based, immediate, not terribly profound
  • strong committal, triumphalistic texts (“I can do this, I will do [such and such a righteous act], I’m going to live [in such and such a pious way]”; this is the very notion I criticized in verse two of “Mighty to Save” [read about it])

So here’s the issue.  Why is it that I am strangely ambivalent about my constructive criticisms in this instance?  Why is it that I feel my worship grid doesn’t (and shouldn’t) apply here?  Why is my philosophy going out the window?
All I can think is that there’s a liberality of God’s Spirit based on context.  I have to think that if I came into City of Refuge Church in Houston and led a worship service transplanted directly from my suburban Denver church, the people would not engage with God but feel quite hindered in their worship of Him.  I may be leading out of my philosophical ideals (and some would applaud me for such “integrity”), but I’m losing the people.  Now (the voice of the idealist pops up), should we be people-driven?  Of course not.  Worship is God-centered and God-directed (that’s the center of my Philosophy Statement).  But I also spent a good portion of my previous position in a church leading worship almost totally out of my ideals, and the result was a decaying of the general spirit of worship (an observable “hardening” among some) and a pharisaical attitude about worship among our worshiping community (this wasn’t total, but I witnessed it as a growing force).  The lesson I learned there was that a good worship leader stands in that gray area between ideals and reality.  I’m sure that has something to do with a little thing called original sin and its effects on both the world/society globally and the person individually.
I don’t think everyone’s going to agree with me on this.  But if you’re going to be totally on the ideals-driven side, I wonder if you’ve had a consistent worship-leading position in a church. If so, I wonder how long.  I also wonder what the overall aura, “vibe,” or spirit is of your worshiping community.
But my reflection here is really unfinished, because it seems odd to me (it itches) that I’m comfortable throwing out (really, ignoring) some of my ideals so readily when worship happens in the urban context.  However, though I’m relatively young, I’ve been around the block and talked to enough wise people to have realized that unresolved tension is that place where truth abides.  Hmm….

why it’s sweet to wear robes in worship

Zac HicksWorship Style, Worship Theology & Thought2 Comments

Our church is a hybrid of “high church” and “low church” practices.  Our services have both a liturgical feel and a “free church” feel.  For these reasons, we tend to have a hodgepodge of people with a diversity of backgrounds in and out of the Christian church.  We get asked by some who aren’t from high church traditions why we pastors wear robes.  Here are 5 brief reasons:

1) It highlights the office of the pastor while de-emphasizing the person. A simple robe covers much of the person, helping to conceal that which distinguishes his or her personality. It reminds us that we lovingly submit ourselves, not so much to the person and their personality, but to the role they have been called to by God—pastor.

2) It fights against us viewing the pastor as a “CEO” figure. In American culture, a suit and tie are the “uniform” of business professionals, lawyers, etc. A robe de-emphasizes any cultural “uniform” and reminds us that the pastoral office described in the Bible is in many ways different from our society’s concept of a business leader.

3) It reminds us that, when they preach, they bring to us the very Word of God, as opposed to the thoughts and opinions of one person. Scripture is God’s unique, unparalleled revelation of Himself to us. It is like no other book.

4) It reminds us that we are clothed in Christ’s righteousness. The pastor, wearing a piece of clothing that both covers over and is distinct from their own clothing, offers to us a symbol of how we approach God in worship, “clothed with Christ” (Galatians 3:27)—it is His righteousness that makes us acceptable to God.

5) Wearing robes is part of our heritage. As Christians, it is part of our ancient Israelite heritage. The priests wore robes to distinguish their office (Exodus 28). It is also a part of my Reformed/Presbyterian heritage (robe-wearing is also a part of other Christian traditions as well). From the time of John Calvin, Reformed pastors would don the garb of a Renaissance scholar (a black robe called the “Genevan robe”) to legitimize their credentials as someone who was studied and learned in the Scriptures. This was important during a time when the Catholic church would have accused the churches of the Reformation of being unbiblical in their Christian expression.

the christian calendar for modern worship?

Zac HicksConvergence of Old and New in Worship, Worship Theology & Thought5 Comments

Let me talk about the Christian calendar, and then discuss how worship leaders in modern settings can utilize it without compromising what makes modern worship so beautiful.
Why use it
Not every church follows the church year, also called the “liturgical cycle.”  Why does our church spend time doing so, observing seasons such as Advent, Epiphany, Lent, Easter, and Pentecost?  For one thing, it links us to practices of Christ’s church which are very ancient.  We know that primitive forms of the church calendar were emerging as early as A.D. 57.  Secondly, observing a uniquely Christian calendar reminds us that we are a peculiar people set against a world that doesn’t necessarily follow “God’s time.”  The January-December / Sunday-Saturday calendar we follow ultimately has roots in the pagan Roman empire, and the use of a Christian calendar within the church reminds us that all our time and living revolves not around what the larger world has to offer, but around Christ Himself.  Notice that all the seasons symbolically center around Christ.  Advent refers to Christ’s advent on earth.  Lent refers to Christ’s time of fasting and humiliation.  Pentecost refers to the outpouring of Christ’s Spirit on all kinds of people.  In Christ spin all the gears of time, and we acknowledge that when we worship through a Christian calendar.

How it can be used in modern worship
You don’t have to be a “liturgical” church to incorporate and observe the Christian calendar.  You don’t have to change your service’s structure to walk through the church seasons (though some change might help!).  First, I’d suggest just becoming educated about the Christian calendar.  The least expensive, most accessible, and generally reliable way to start is wikipedia.  They have a decent article on the liturgical year which will branch you to other articles that help you understand the big picture and the smaller aspects of each season.  Second, once you become aware of the year, cater your song selections (or at least some of them) to the season.  Songs on the Spirit during Pentecost.  Songs of repentance during Lent.  Eschatological songs during Advent or Epiphany.  Third, use your technology to color the ambience of that season.  Each liturgical season has its color.  Maybe you can have a graphic designer create slide backdrops with those colors and dream up icons or thematic symbols to accompany those visuals.  

Hopefully some of these suggestions can break the ice.  But sky’s the limit when it comes to creative ways to help your people–even in modern worship settings–embrace the church year.  And trust me, when modern worshipers with very little liturgical roots grab onto the church year, they CAN’T GET ENOUGH.  It’s balm for the soul (only a slight exaggeration).  Our postmodern milieu cries out for roots.  The Christian calendar can be a start at providing that.
Grace & peace.

Album Review of Tear Down the Walls / Across the Earth by Hillsong United

Zac HicksAlbum Reviews3 Comments

hillsong-unitedHillsong United, Across the Earth: Tear Down the Walls (May 2009)

It’s been a pleasure to buy a copy of United’s latest work.  I’ve been processing it, listening to it in my car, and dialoguing with a few friends about it.  I’ve been looking on United’s site and reading some posts to get some context for its creation.  Thank you, Hillsong United, for another beautiful offering to our Father in heaven.

I would like to review the album with some positive comments and then some constructive feedback.  Hopefully it will bless the Church and worship leaders to be discerning about the songs they utilize in their worship services.

Positive Feedback:

What I love, more than anything else about Hillsong and Hillsong United recordings is their attempt to aurally capture the corporate worship setting.  The lead vocals are always very tucked, and one hears easily the swell of many voices (whether choir or congregation) coupled with lots of verb to give it that “in-house” feel (I know many of them are actually in-house and the reverb is actual house acoustics).  I also appreciate that they have an arsenal of different lead singers, helping play down the notion of a “celebrity frontman.”  Not every church has the resources to have multiple worship leaders and lead singers, but it’s a blessing when they do.

The musical production is outstanding.  It’s the unique, “signature” Hillsong sound, with creative electric guitar and synth work.  The electric guitar/synth line (at least that’s what I think it is) on the opening track has that beautiful tension of familiarity and uniqueness (oh, so enjoyable).

The album title is creative in its double-entendre, and therefore it’s a powerful umbrella to encapsulate a powerful album.

The best song on the album: “Desert Song.”  As a person who, even at a young age, has had to endure some heavy suffering, I have a tender spot in my heart for any song whose theme is, basically, “even when God has ordained suffering for me, yet I will praise Him.”  “Desert Song” does this.  More than that, “Desert Song” has a unique, yet singable melody and chord structure, and has a nice flow and movement.  We will be using “Desert Song” at our church.

Another great song: “Soon.”  The church needs more songs that focus on the eschaton.  We get so caught up in the now, and yet Christ’s resurrection and down payment of the Holy Spirit has sealed for us a future that we need to be continually aware of.  “Soon” does this.  Among modern worship songs, it is rare in its second-coming focus.  It’s a sweet, beautiful song.

(It’s interesting that the two songs I most like are sung by Brooke Fraser.  I can’t find who wrote these songs [come on Hillsong, don’t make it this hard], but my hunch is that she wrote these two.  Why?  She wrote “Hosanna,” which is full of biblical allusion and theological reflection.  And these two song seem to come from a similar mind.  In general, I find Fraser’s writing a cut above the other Hillsong lyricists.)

Constructive Criticism:

An overall observation of much of United’s material, across their many wonderful albums, is that their lyrics tend to be disjointed (logical coherence is one of my criteria for choosing worship songs…see my article on criteria).  From line to line, I sometimes have a hard time making the immediate logical connection.  I understand that some songs are intentionally “impressionistic” (such is the case with the hymn on our album, “Light After Darkness,” by Frances Ridley Havergal), but when it happens for much of the material, I have to pause and ask the question of how healthy it is for churches to speak to God with such hiccupped communication.  For instance, here’s verse 2 of “Freedom is Here:”

And everything comes alive

In my life as we lift You higher
Let Your freedom arise

In our lives as we lift You up

Sing it out

Sing it out

Your freedom is here

One CAN discern logical connection with all these phrases, but it’s just a bit haphazard and stream-of-consciousness.  Historically, that type of writing hasn’t made for strong and lasting worship songs.

Another overall observation of Hillsong United (and this may be more of an underlying theological difference between Assembly of God / Charistmatic theology and my convictions) is that they tend to be triumphalistic in their lyrics.   For instance in “More than Anything”:

Because I’ve seen Your light
You bring my world to life
I’m coming after Your love

I’m not shaken
I’m not letting go

As I’ve said about “Mighty to Save,” I just can’t in good conscience before God sing the Pre Chorus lyrics sincerely.  Because I know, no matter HOW far I’m down the journey of sanctification, I still have times where I AM shaken.  I still do have times where I slip and DO let go.  I can’t claim that kind of triumph.  It should be my ideal, but I can’t sing them honestly.

In general, Hillsong United could stand to have more biblical depth (with exception being the writing of Fraser, as noted above).  There’s nothing wrong with experiential lyrics, but United often teeters on being experiential to a fault, to the neglect of other things.  Thinking of worship from a congregational nourishment perspective, I wonder how nourished the United congregations are.  I know they’re inspired and even transformed by fresh waves of the Spirit, but are they nourished?  Is the intellectual side of their faith being nurtured?  Are their heads engaged AS MUCH AS their hearts? 

(I Head Revolution…I Brain Revolution…that would be a cool graphic)


isaac watts: pioneer of “contemporary worship”

Zac HicksHistory of Worship and Church Music2 Comments

Isaac Watts (1674-1748): English pastor, author, teacher, and one of the greatest hymn-writers of all time.  Many do not know that Watts was a polarizing figure in his day because of the startling changes he was introducing to Protestant worship.  After the Reformation through to Watts’ time, congregations almost exclusively sang Psalmody—hymns whose texts were exactly or closely derived from those of the biblical Psalms.  Young Watts found these “traditional” services dry and spiritually devoid, and one day (so the legend goes) he returned from worship complaining about the poor quality of the hymns.  His father responded, probably wanting just to keep him quiet, “Give us something better, young man.”  Watts’ whole life, as it turns out, seems to be a response to that initial challenge by his father.  The Church experienced a rebirth as the “contemporary” hymns of Watts and others who followed flooded parishes with theologically rich, highly emotive, powerfully engaging songs of worship.  Through Watts and others, the Holy Spirit breathed fresh life into the worship of Christ’s church, not taking away from the glorious heritage of biblical Psalmody, but adding to it a rich dimension of “hymns and spiritual songs.”  It is ironic, then, that traditional worship is often pegged as boring, dry, or even lifeless, when it is heir to some of the most exciting revolutions in church music history!

in defense of “7-11 songs”

Zac HicksWorship Theology & Thought2 Comments

Modern worship is often criticized for its plethora of what are labeled “7-11 songs” (songs which have seven words, sung eleven times).  The criticism is that it is pointless, even stupefying, to say the same thing over and over again.  But before all such songs are dismissed wholesale, let’s not throw the baby out with the bathwater. 
First, the heavenly beings themselves incessantly chant “Holy, Holy, Holy…” over and over and over again before the throne of God (Revelation 4:8).  (We might call that an “infinity-infinity song.”)  
Second, the Psalms themselves contain repetitions and refrains (cf. Psalms 8 & 136). 
Third, the church has engaged in this practice since her inception (think of the repeated Kyrie Eleison [“Lord, Have Mercy”]). 
Fourth, often times such “7-11 songs” are direct quotes of or strong allusions to Scripture, and when we are instructed to meditate on God’s Word (Psalm 1:2), what better way than singing and repetition? 
There are of course ways where the repetition can be taken too far (and modern worship is guilty of this), but let’s remember that repetition is a biblical and historical church practice.

“mighty to save” needs theological precision

Zac HicksWorship Theology & Thought21 Comments

“Mighty to Save” is now a well-worn mainstay in most evangelical churches of modern worship styles.  It’s appeared repeatedly on CCLI’s top lists.  And why not?  It’s got all the trappings of a great worship song…singability, a resurrection-oriented chorus with stirring melodic rise, accessible chord progressions, driving rhythm to match the song’s simlutaneous intimacy and explosion.  We use it in our church on a regular basis, and it’s obvious that it’s a favorite among our people (worship leaders know what I’m talking about when a song really gels with your community…it lights up the room).
However, at Creek, we’ve chosen to amend the second verse, for reasons of theological precision.  The second half of that verse originally reads:
I give my life to follow
Everything I believe in
Now I surrender

We’ve changed it to:
I’d given my life to follow
Everything I’d believed in
But now I surrender

It’s a subtle change…present tense to past tense (the pluperfect, to be precise).  And some of you will no doubt think we’re being nit-picky here, but here’s the rub for me with the original text.  It’s a bit too triumphant and boastful for my taste, given that we’re worshiping before a God who sees all–especially all the ways that we, even as blood-bought Jesus-followers, don’t give our lives to follow Him.  Even more, “everything I believe in,” apart from God’s prior work to give me faith (faith is an extrinsic gift, according to Ephesians 2), is anti-God, anti-Jesus, faithless, and destitute.  If I truly “give my life to follow everything I believe in,” I have to be honest that I’d head down the wrong road (think of the mantra of the book of Judges: “everyone did what was right in their own eyes”…scary).  I don’t think the statement, as it stands, is theologically wrong (which is why I use the term “imprecise”).  Many sing it genuinely as a kind of ideal to commit to, even knowing (like me) that they can’t really live up to it.  It just strikes me as too triumphant for me to sing with an honest heart.
So our emendation toward the past tense makes verse 2 more confessional, more humble, more needy–and before Yahweh’s presence, that’s the side I want to err on.  It exposes weakness as opposed to boasts strength.  It says, “I don’t have the power…I need Yours, Lord.”
Worship leaders, if some of the songs you use cause some “theological itchiness,” don’t be afraid to amend the words.  Hymn-writers have been doing it for years with the nifty little tag “alt.” (short for “altered”).  And when congregation members ask why you hacked to pieces their favorite worship song, give them a humble reply, and use it as a pastoral-educational moment to infuse some biblical thought into life.

sundays: dress up vs. dress down

Zac HicksWorship Theology & ThoughtLeave a Comment

For many, this is an old hat.  It seems like worshipers have gone their separate ways on such matters as musical style, use of screens, and Sunday dress.  But for me in my context (where I serve a congregation that worships in both traditional and modern ways), this is a present reality that I have to combat as a pastor who is constantly fighting the “two churches within a church” battle.  So here’s some brief, broad-brush, philosophical/theological reflection on Sunday dress.  (And my saying “broad brush” is a plea for you all not to nail me with your exceptions, as I’m aware that generalizations are met with not a small amount of counter-evidence.  So hear me out.)
#1: Those who defend a “Sunday best” position do so on solid theological ground.  The basic idea is that God is worthy of the best we have to offer…hence our best clothes–ties, dresses, suits, heels, polish, shine, and starch.  “God’s best” in worship is biblical (just think of the luxury of the OT temple and tabernacle, or ponder the implications of the Shema).
#2: (which may come as a surprise) Those who defend casual dress do so on solid theological ground.  Those who hold to #1 often fail to realize that many times (of course not all the time), those who dress casually do so because they value something in particular when it comes to relating to God…and guess what: it’s biblical, too.  It’s a little thing called authenticity.  Perhaps #2-ers are reacting against the down side of years of #1-ness.  That downside is that people can end up in ruts of putting on a show, flashing their best, trying to make themselves look good on Sunday when their home is a mess, their sin is rampant, and their life is in shambles.  Now it’s obvious that #2 also can have down sides–sloppy dress can get into one’s psyche and usher a person into an overly casual approach to Almighty God.
So can #1’s and #2’s never worship under the same roof?  I sure hope not!  Both sides have great reasons, and perhaps the rub between the two is less a matter of good theology vs. bad theology and more of a matter of what one’s upbringing and life’s journey has shaped what their primary values are when it comes to worship and clothing.  The grace-point here for each camp is to acknowledge that the other side has some decent reasons and then apply Paul’s love axiom (1 Corinthians 13) to one situation where it properly belongs.
Jesus, with Thy church abide.
Be her Savior, Lord, and guide,
While on earth her faith is tried.

May she ONE in doctrine be,
ONE in truth and charity,
Winning all to faith in Thee.

We beseech Thee, hear us.