The Heart of Modesty

I applaud walking away from the stance that modesty is somehow about preventing men from lusting; writing as a man, good luck with that if you try, as I’ve seen people flirt successfully in cleanroom bunny suits and burqas. That noted, what in Scripture prevents a woman from drawing attention to herself through clothing choices?

It is first of all an extraordinarily nebulous standard. For example, would we say that it’s permissible, perhaps, for a woman to have a natural hourglass shape, but that it would be wrong for a woman to influence that shape through undergarments like corsets, spanx, girdles, or “control top” hose? Or would it be the case that the woman who has that shape naturally would be obligated to hide it? What about the woman with a classically beautiful face, versus the woman who “paints the barn when it needs painting”? Are certain colors going to be off limits because they catch the eye?

And if we say that there is some nebulous points where a woman ought not enhance her appearance, how do we reconcile that with God’s interest in, and beautification of, Israel described in Isaiah 16? How do we reconcile that with the fact that no less than the Holy Spirit describes Rachel, Sarah, and Rebecca as “yaffe”—beautiful? How do we reconcile that with the presence of Lydia, the dealer of purple, in the early church, and the noble wife of Proverbs 31?

Don’t get me wrong—I think there is a Biblical case for a certain modesty, but I don’t know that it’s the one Miss Hicks presents. While 1 Peter 3:3-4 tells us that a woman’s beauty ought not consist in her outward adornment, at the same time we’ve got to admit that God elsewhere commends women (and presumably men) who dress themselves attractively, and describes God Himself as dressing His Church beautifully. One might even translate 1 Peter 3:3-4 this way; be as beautiful, physically, as you want, but if that’s the only beauty you’ve got, you have higher priorities than hair, makeup, and clothes to attend to.

The next book on my reading list is “Misreading Scripture with Western Eyes”. This comment on the book is one of the reasons I’m getting it:

”When Western readers hear Paul exhorting women to “dress modestly,” we automatically think in terms of sexual modesty. But most women in that culture would never wear racy clothing. The context suggests that Paul is likely more concerned about economic modesty—that Christian women not flaunt their wealth through expensive clothes, braided hair and gold jewelry.”

[Ron Bean]

The next book on my reading list is “Misreading Scripture with Western Eyes”. This comment on the book is one of the reasons I’m getting it:

”When Western readers hear Paul exhorting women to “dress modestly,” we automatically think in terms of sexual modesty. But most women in that culture would never wear racy clothing. The context suggests that Paul is likely more concerned about economic modesty—that Christian women not flaunt their wealth through expensive clothes, braided hair and gold jewelry.”

So are you saying bikinis are OK if you buy cheap ones?

I believe you were trying to use humor but just in case you weren’t, the answer is “no”. I am saying that Paul was not banning bikinis although we have that liberty.

[Ron Bean]

I believe you were trying to use humor but just in case you weren’t, the answer is “no”. I am saying that Paul was not banning bikinis although we have that liberty.

Interestingly, it does mean that the man in the expensive suit is more literally disobeying “modesty” than a girl whose skirt is a little too short.

[Dan Miller]

Ron Bean wrote:

I believe you were trying to use humor but just in case you weren’t, the answer is “no”. I am saying that Paul was not banning bikinis although we have that liberty.

Interestingly, it does mean that the man in the expensive suit is more literally disobeying “modesty” than a girl whose skirt is a little too short.

Seems like this would imply that Lydia and the Proverbs 31 wife were in sin, not to mention God would be in sin for His attiring Israel beautifully in Isaiah 16. For that matter, our Lord’s robe was woven in one piece (akin to top down knitting perhaps?), implying it was made by a craftsman/woman of unusual skill. So I don’t think the breadth of Scripture would be consistent with the idea that going to Macy’s or Nordstrom instead of Target would be a matter of sin. We’d be throwing too many bombs at people God commended.

I’m thinking the New Testament modesty passages, again, could well be idiomatically translated “if all the beauty you have is bought from Chanel or Leger, you have some business to do with God—and if you’re spending far more time attending to your wardrobe than to your Godliness, you have an issue with priorities.”

I seem to remember Don’s church has, on their website, a note that the use of “uncover nakedness” in Leviticus 18 indicates that when certain portions of the anatomy are exposed—through direct line of sight, tightness, or pattern—then the person is, whether they know it or not, signaling readiness for “certain steps in the relationship.” Couple that with how Israel was to be humiliated in case of disobedience—exposure per the end of Deuteronomy—we can infer that those zones are, specifically the upper chest, hips, and probably part of the upper thigh. Really the same areas actresses of modest ability use to get attention, no?

So Paul isn’t telling us that certain areas ought to be covered, but other areas of Scripture give us that hint.

Both “indecent exposure” and “ostentatious display” are examples of immodesty. I thought Ron’s quote was a little unbalanced, though I don’t think he intended it to be.

If the author of the book he is considering wants to make immodesty exclusively “ostentatious display,” then I think they are wrong.

I also think Miss Hicks did a fine job in her piece and pointed to an often overlooked point. I linked to it on P&D today also.

Both “indecent exposure” and “ostentatious display” are examples of immodesty. I thought Ron’s quote was a little unbalanced, though I don’t think he intended it to be.

This is a really, really good point and something that is usually missing from our discourses on modesty. Thanks for noting it.

I agree that indecent exposure is inappropriate for Christian women but if the context of I Timothy 2 is public worship and ostentatious display for women’s dress, are we correct in applying this text to indecent exposure?

Fair question. I would say yes, we can apply Scripture to contexts that are different from the context in which we find them. The context of Scripture informs us as to meaning. The application of Scripture is much wider however. We have the Lord’s and the apostles’ usage of Scripture as precedents. We also have our own practices as examples. For example, if we could only apply Scripture to its exact context, to what could we apply 1Cor 8, meat offered to idols? Would Paul be in error to apply “muzzle not the ox” to paying the preacher? (1Cor 9)

i could go on but I think you get the point

In the case of “muzzle not the ox,” what you’ve got is a case where the one doing the work is not to be denied his pay…..so there is a very real parallel to the concept . Now what parallel are we going to make to the New Testament passages on modesty and uncovering skin? If you don’t have some connection, you might as well be making it up as you go along.

To be blunt about the matter, I think that a lot of people have figured out that a lot of people talking about modesty are indeed just making it up as they go along—and not surprisingly are declining to follow that teaching simply because it doesn’t make any sense to them.

Here is Merriam Webster on modesty:

mod•es•ty \ˈmä-də-stē\ noun
1531
1: freedom from conceit or vanity
2: propriety in dress, speech, or conduct

Inc Merriam-Webster, Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary. (Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster, Inc., 2003).

When a woman is wearing ostentatious clothing in church (the presumed context of 1 Tim 2.9) she is immodest by common agreement, at least in this thread. She is perhaps guilty of conceit or vanity, she is inappropriate in her dress.

Why?

Because she is calling attention to herself instead of giving glory to God (1 Tim 2.10).

By extension or application, if a woman (or a man) dresses to call attention to herself as revealing clothing surely does, she is also being immodest. One could argue, I suppose that a bikini is modest on the beach in that it doesn’t call attention to one’s self since “everyone is doing it”. However, two responses in opposition to that notion:

1. Laws of nakedness in the Bible would seem to apply here
2. It could also be argued that “everyone” is seeking to draw attention to one’s physical person by wearing revealing swim wear.

It is a strange fight to pick when someone wants to argue for revealing clothing as somehow not covered by Scriptural commands/exhortations regarding modesty.

It is an even stranger position to take that we must rigidly apply Scriptures only to the exact context in which their truth is expressed. We don’t live in the 1st century. The 1st century context informs us as to meaning but not to application. If you want to insist it informs us as to application, then the Scriptures have nothing to say to us at all. We don’t live in the same context.

Much neglected in discussions on the topic: “modesty” is about humility and meekness. What has complicated biblical application for a number of years is several cases of ‘wrong passage’ application. There are plenty of passages that call both men and women to humility and meekness as well as to respect for sexual boundaries. It’s the combination of these two principles that speaks most to things people choose to wear. The passage about “modest apparel” is relevant, but not the most important text on the topic.

From Webster…

Definition of modest

:placing a moderate estimate on one’s abilities or worth:neither bold nor self-assertive :tending toward diffidence
:arising from or characteristic of a modest nature
3:observing the proprieties of dress and behavior :decent
4a :limited in size, amount, or scope

a family of modest means

b :unpretentious

a modest home

Modesty in clothing is the opposite of “bold” and “daring” and “provacative” and other terms that are quite popular in the clothing selection mindset in our culture. (And most cultures before it, in one way or another!)

There’s an old saying I’ve repeated often at church: “Be attractive without being an attraction.”

It occurs to me that Merriam-Webster is a dictionary of the modern English language, and any of us not succumbing to the Biblical and linguistic illiteracy of KJVO ought to concede that, ahem, a koine Greek dictionary might be a better bet for determining the meaning in 1 Timothy and 1 Peter. (odd that the pastors among us would not be the ones to pick this out)

Here is your definition.

Cognate: 2887 kósmios (from 2889 /kósmos, “world”; see also the other adjectival form, 2886 /kosmikós) – literally, ordered (properly organized); hence, well-prepared (well-ordered).

Notice it says absolutely nothing about coverage. There are places in Scripture from whence one can reasonably infer that a degree of bodily coverage is expected of God’s people, but 1 Tim. 2:9 and 1 Peter 3:3-4 do not appear to be among them. Their primary reference is not to the coverage, but the ostentation, of clothing, and even that needs to be weighed in light of the examples of Lydia, the Proverbs 31 wife, and the example of how God clothes His bride in places like Isaiah 16.

Really, Scripture doesn’t say a lot about coverage, probably because there was no need. Pale skin was the fashion, and the jobs of the day used clothing as protective equipment. Plus, they didn’t have cheap stretch knits, and the places where people would go “less clad” or unclad altogether—baths, gymnasia, temples—were also those associated clearly with paganism.

Now in our day of cheap stretch knits, fashionable tans, and sedentary jobs, we’ve got our work cut out for us to figure out our approach, and the worst thing we can do is use a modern dictionary of English to shoehorn a Koine Greek word into submission. Well, second worst—worst is to blame women for “leading men astray”. Again, thankfully, the author backs away from that.