Many years ago, I wondered why soldiers wore uniforms when stepping out of their barracks. I was like, surely, when a soldier wants to step out of the barracks, he probably wants to be free of the sense of responsibility that comes from being a soldier (although I know in some climes that I will not name, it’s a sense of benefit so as to rip people off, but it’s too early to throw shades. Let’s just stick with the ideal). I quickly realised that the reason I thought they should not wear it is the exact reason why they should.
Uniforms serve several purposes, all of which are directed towards putting on autopilot the sense of responsibility a soldier should always feel for the safety of civilians and the nation. Soldiers are not trained to ‘not feel the pressure,’ they are trained to always be ready; an impending invasion doesn’t check with you and your readiness before it strikes.
Uniforms help others quickly unveil the identity of the soldier, and to a large extent, identification helps to instil fear and ward off impending evil or helps to instil safety in the hearts of the ones they are supposed to protect. For the uniformed person, the uniform also serves as a constant reminder of who he is and what he represents whenever he steps out of the barracks. Perhaps a more important function of the uniform is how it strengthens or weakens the strength of perception and reputation of the institution it represents. No matter what I have heard about an institution, when I see a 'representative' acting in a way contrary to what I think I know and I see this repeatedly, it weakens the reputation of that institution in my mind’s eye. Most of us can quickly name institutions in Nigeria whose mission on paper is so beautifully and honourably scripted, but the portrayal of that mission by its representatives falls grossly shy of what is written.
One of the misconceptions in the body is the bordered concept of church, i.e., church is a geographical location, bordered walls, within specific times, and only with a group of similar people. So you’ll hear terms like, Oh, I can’t wear this to church, but I can wear it out. Or, hush, don’t use such vulgar words in church, but of course, those words can be used ‘outside’ church. There’s a compulsion to put on best behaviour when we are ‘in church’ because we ought to be ‘on guard.’ The consequence of this is the misidentification and misrepresentation of the church and, for the most part, the laxity of Christians.

In a conversation that ensued between Jesus and the Samaritan woman in John 4, we see a distinct comparison of the viewpoint on church. The Samaritan woman asked Jesus to clarify the real location of worship; is it a mountain (which was by the way located in Samaria out of the borders of Jerusalem), or is it the city of Jerusalem?
Jesus’ first response to the question was a lack of knowledge. A bordered concept of church is a Samaritan concept of church and a sign of a missing gap in knowledge.

This is because God is not located in one place, God is Spirit and to truly worship God, His worshippers must also adopt that same posture; Spirit and Truth. One thought-provoking point to draw out here is the Samaritan woman’s first consideration of locational worship outside the boundaries of Jerusalem (a discourse for another day).
Jesus was saying that when we start to segregate places of ‘Christian’ behaviour in our attempt to hallow God, it’s in those very moments we express deep ignorance of the same Person we profess to hallow and to worship.

We realise that in God tearing the veil in two and rending it from top to bottom, He was saying that His location is no longer in bordered places. What we know about the Spirit is that He is borderless; God is all-seeing, all-knowing, and all-being. He can be anywhere at any time and everywhere at every time.

Ver todos los episodios