Defining Modesty
I started a very similar topic previously, but now I’m coming back with what I think are substantial arguments. I want to see if you gents can destroy my argument, or add to it.
It’s a very … despised position I’m taking, and potentially a dangerous one (regarding sin); however, I’d rather bring truth to light than stay and allow others to stay in pop Christendom’s shadow. So, I’m highly interested in getting critique.
Essentially, I argue that the only reasonably-clear requirement from scripture is that we cover our genitals.
The file I attached is a first, rough draft; it’s a preliminary argument, but hopefully I can refine it (or toss it entirely) through discourse here.
I warmly welcome arguments from both sides
Please comment!
Re: “Essentially, I argue that the only reasonably-clear requirement from scripture is that we cover our genitals.”
What I learned decades ago: “If only you and one other believe the Bible teaches X … you both are most probably wrong!”
By the way there was one other who adopted your view: Eldridge Cleaver, the black radical to evangelical convert once embraced by conservative, fundamentalist religious groups, including the Campus Crusade for Christ and the Rev. Jerry Falwell. [Never by me!]. Post-conversion, Cleaver invented the penis pant!
His view: “Clothing is an extension of the fig leaf — it put our sex inside our bodies,” Cleaver told Newsweek in 1975. “My pants put sex back where it should be.”
[Jim]Re: “Essentially, I argue that the only reasonably-clear requirement from scripture is that we cover our genitals.”
What I learned decades ago: “If only you and one other believe the Bible teaches X … you both are most probably wrong!”
By the way there was one other who adopted your view: Eldridge Cleaver, the black radical to evangelical convert once embraced by conservative, fundamentalist religious groups, including the Campus Crusade for Christ and the Rev. Jerry Falwell. [Never by me!]. Post-conversion, Cleaver invented the penis pant!
I’m supposed to assume it’s wrong because it’s rare? I suppose we should condemn Martin Luther, then.
I would rather have a founded answer either way - for or against my view, than be left wondering. But for that, I need scripture/logical argument.
Also, I wouldn’t support his view.
I’ll respond sometime soon. Don’t lose hope.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
So Adam and Eve made aprons to cover their nakedness, but God made them coats. There’s nothing in the text to lead me to believe that the coats were just to protect them from the elements. I think the Law of First Mention comes into play here, and if God prefers a coat to an apron, I think that should give us a major clue as to what needs covering.
[Susan R]So Adam and Eve made aprons to cover their nakedness, but God made them coats. There’s nothing in the text to lead me to believe that the coats were just to protect them from the elements. I think the Law of First Mention comes into play here, and if God prefers a coat to an apron, I think that should give us a major clue as to what needs covering.
Does the same apply to men; are topless men at the pool sinning? My greatest difficulty is applying an unequal standard between the genders.
Or women in bikinis? They’re wearing far less than a coat. Open back one-piece swimsuit?
Looking at it better: It seems I’ve misused that text. First, “were” naked could simply refer to their knowledge - not an implication that they no longer are naked. This is almost certainly true in light of 3:7 (aprons) being before 3:10 (still naked).
And that God made tunics fits will with my argument about the thigh; tunics appear to have reached *to* the thigh. Based on this, and that priests were to wear coverings *to* the thigh, we can say that showing most of the leg is not sin. The top may be, however.
One objection, still: it seems to not be a matter of sin, but of shame. A small distinction, but an important one. It was still only Adam, Eve, and God. We won’t say a married/commited couple (they were) shouldn’t be naked together, and God is always present. How do you deal with this? It reminds me of long hair.
To answer your question about men baring their chest—yes, I think they are naked. Just because we are accustomed to it doesn’t mean it’s ok.
I also think “to the thigh” doesn’t mean the top of the thigh, but covering the thigh, because the thigh ends at the knee. And you are defining “tunic” with our current fashions. If you look up “Greek tunic”, for instance, you will see that it usually goes to the knee, and sometimes the ankle.
Nakedness is a shame, which is why it is sin, but God isn’t stupid—of course we are naked in order to shower, or have relations with our spouse, or bear children. If your house catches on fire and you run out of it in boxer shorts, I think God will give you a pass.
The way I look at this is—I’m not trying to see what I can get away with. When we go swimming, we don’t go to the beach or public pool. My kids, including my dd, wear a swim shirt and shorts. It’s not necessary to be half-naked to swim, or mow the yard, or play sports.
I think the underlying theme here is that God is not exactly fond of our flesh. There is no place in Scripture where our flesh is described as a good thing. It’s corrupted, and in the end, it’s going to all burn away.
[Susan R]To answer your question about men baring their chest—yes, I think they are naked. Just because we are accustomed to it doesn’t mean it’s ok.
I also think “to the thigh” doesn’t mean the top of the thigh, but covering the thigh, because the thigh ends at the knee. And you are defining “tunic” with our current fashions. If you look up “Greek tunic”, for instance, you will see that it usually goes to the knee, and sometimes the ankle.
Nakedness is a shame, which is why it is sin, but God isn’t stupid—of course we are naked in order to shower, or have relations with our spouse, or bear children. If your house catches on fire and you run out of it in boxer shorts, I think God will give you a pass.
The way I look at this is—I’m not trying to see what I can get away with. When we go swimming, we don’t go to the beach or public pool. My kids, including my dd, wear a swim shirt and shorts. It’s not necessary to be half-naked to swim, or mow the yard, or play sports.
I think the underlying theme here is that God is not exactly fond of our flesh. There is no place in Scripture where our flesh is described as a good thing. It’s corrupted, and in the end, it’s going to all burn away.
Yes, I agree that being common doesn’t make it right; I wanted to see your view for comparison.
Would you say this is fair?
It seems to me that in general we’re intended to be modest; we (should) feel shame if we’re not clothed sufficiently.
However, we’ll wear less depending on the task at hand. The bible seems to condone girding the loins to fight. I think we could apply the same principle to someone running as a sport. I think you agree with that based on you wearing shorts to go swimming. You’re conservative, you’re well-dressed for the task - but you’re less dressed than you generally demand.
Side issue again: It’s a shame for men to have long hair, but the vow of the Nazarene commanded it. So, how can we say shame = sin?
Thanks!
We are not less dressed when we go swimming—swim trunks that reach the knee. If less dressed means I’m not wearing hose and heels, then yeah—I’m less dressed. :/
I don’t think one can take a special circumstance like the Nazarite vow and apply it as a doctrine for all people at all times. For example, none of us are strapping our kids to an altar hoping for a voice from God to tell us not to sacrifice them.
I also think culture is a factor. Modesty is not just about covering up skin, but not calling attention to oneself, observing propriety. So don’t wear a tux to a basketball game, and don’t wear ragged jeans and flip-flops to a funeral, don’t wear a Rolex to serve food at a soup kitchen.
Also, think about what you are saying with your appearance—if it’s “Hey, look at me!” then it’s not modest.
[Susan R]We are not less dressed when we go swimming—swim trunks that reach the knee. If less dressed means I’m not wearing hose and heels, then yeah—I’m less dressed. :/
I don’t think one can take a special circumstance like the Nazarite vow and apply it as a doctrine for all people at all times. For example, none of us are strapping our kids to an altar hoping for a voice from God to tell us not to sacrifice them.
I also think culture is a factor. Modesty is not just about covering up skin, but not calling attention to oneself, observing propriety. So don’t wear a tux to a basketball game, and don’t wear ragged jeans and flip-flops to a funeral, don’t wear a Rolex to serve food at a soup kitchen.
Also, think about what you are saying with your appearance—if it’s “Hey, look at me!” then it’s not modest.
I’d like to point out, a number of people have used your argument to argue precisely the opposite: that if everyone at the beach is topless and you’re wearing a shirt and long shorts, you’re not being modest because you’re standing out.
As far as I believe you meant it, I agree about being modest - that’s basically meaning of 1Ti 3; though the idea there seems to be extravagance rather than appearing poor (i.e. the poor in the midst of the church aren’t being immodest.) However, the modesty I’m trying to learn about relates to how much flesh is showing. Perhaps I misunderstood and you intended it that way, but it doesn’t seem so?
I’m not the least bit interested in considering the idea that someone can go to a topless/nude beached fully clothed and others will consider them immodest, because I’m allergic to insanity. Achoo.
I understand you want to discuss modesty just in terms of exposed skin, but there are some concepts IMO that can’t be dissected like a frog in Science class. Modesty can’t JUST be about covering skin, it’s also about attitude, intent, motives, as well as context. When the Bible talks specifically about modesty, it doesn’t just describe how much or how little one should wear, but about priorities, about who and what we worship. Furthermore, when describing modesty Paul and Peter both talk about using self-control, adorning ourselves with gentleness and good works. Why didn’t they talk about how not to expose one’s legs or back or chest, and instead told us to clothe ourselves in humility?
I think it’s because they knew that when one’s heart is in the right place, the modesty thing will follow.
We know that some passages in Scripture are prescriptive, while others are descriptive, so one must be very, VERY careful about taking descriptive, metaphoric, and poetic passages and trying to derive doctrine from them. Especially if you are trying to create a ruler to define who is and isn’t ‘naked’.
So I challenge: at the least, would it not be acceptable for a man or woman to expose flesh for the purpose of attracting a mate, so long as the genitals are not exposed?
Gesundheit.
I wasn’t defending their view, but informing you of its existence.
Regarding the last part of your response, another poster was right; I should have stuck to books etc. rather than posting here. I’m out.
[J Johnson]Why would you feel the need to leave? You’ve been presenting your positions and your questions quite well. Whenever you have a position, some people are going to agree, and some will question you before agreeing, and some will be skeptical and tell you why they could not agree, and some people will see your position as too far out to even consider. You can listen to what you want to listen to, answer what you want to answer, and ignore the rest, but you shouldn’t feel that you need to leave. I’ve enjoyed reading the discussions you’ve been involved in.Regarding the last part of your response, another poster was right; I should have stuck to books etc. rather than posting here. I’m out.
[Kevin Miller]J Johnson wrote:
Regarding the last part of your response, another poster was right; I should have stuck to books etc. rather than posting here. I’m out.
Why would you feel the need to leave? You’ve been presenting your positions and your questions quite well. Whenever you have a position, some people are going to agree, and some will question you before agreeing, and some will be skeptical and tell you why they could not agree, and some people will see your position as too far out to even consider. You can listen to what you want to listen to, answer what you want to answer, and ignore the rest, but you shouldn’t feel that you need to leave. I’ve enjoyed reading the discussions you’ve been involved in.
That’s all fine, but ‘some people’ applies only when there’s more than one other person involved in the debate. ;) I went somewhere else to ask my question. This other person has … peculiar ideas, such as: that it’s wrong to entertain yourself with sexual fantasies about your wife.
Anyway, where I’ve decided to stand for now is to take the scripture, our heart, and culture into account. Scripture doesn’t specifically define modesty, but we know a minimum from it. It seems that we’re intended largely to get our standard from our heart, since it’s not defined in scripture. We also take culture into account - we need to be a light; regardless of whatever absolute standard may be mentioned in scripture, if the culture thinks it’s evil - we won’t be a light. I think I can say Susan’s comment from 1Ti 3 is largely or entirely the same as my comment on being a light.
So, I fall about where the culture does, for my business - avoid doing photography that might be considered scandalous. Topless shots are definitely out. I think I’d be willing to do fitness shots (shorts, sports bra) but I’m conflicted on whether bikini pictures would be okay (as a photographer making money, not as a wearer; it’s less my job to monitor what other people wear than what I or my would-be wife wear … Also, I don’t believe Rom 14 would apply here - definitely not technically, and by argument - not even the heart of the passage.) If I had a wife, I’d not be too strict in my leading - i.e., I wouldn’t say shorts are wrong when running, but I’d advise to dress to be an example to others for Christ. This isn’t definitive - and that’s because I can’t find a definitive answer. It’ll have to be up to her heart, and mine - so far as I advise.
Anyway, not looking for any more debate - but posting where I decided to place myself, to make clear I don’t hold to my previous proposition - even though I took an indirect route toward my more conservative stand.
Discussion