I just received a new comment from Kendra on an old post. I found her comment very thought provoking, and since the post was old, I was afraid nobody would see it, so I thought I’d give it some attention here.
I was interested in the comment the writer made that “the Bible doesn’t give hard and fast rules about (modesty), yet we are commanded to dress modestly.” I agree that the Bible does not draw a human body marking the areas God deems necessary to be covered. (This may be to avoid individuals aiming for as little as possible to still scrape by.) However, the Bible does mention some specifics about what is considered “nakedness,” and therefore shameful. Ex 28:42 & Isa. 47:2-3 both mention the thigh as an inappropriate or shameful part of the body to expose. Isa 20:4 speaks of the buttocks and Ezekiel 16:7 mentions breasts in relation to nakedness. These are just a few but they do show us some of the places we ought to cover up in public. Just some food for thought.
I especially found this interesting given what Kathi Armstrong of Summer Setting said about her husband in the comments section of a different post.
He says (and I believe he speaks for the human side of every man) that he is very distracted by women who dress in a way that emphasizes or exposes breasts or thighs, particularly cleavage or slits.
Notice how some of the things that the Bible mentions in connection with “nakedness” are the same things that men feel a visceral sexual response to and that they have to invest mental and emotional energy putting out of their minds in order to stay pure. A further interesting connection is that in the Bible, “uncovering nakedness” has sexual connotations, and is often a euphemism for actual sex.
What do you think? Is modesty totally culturally determined, or does the Bible give us some actual, physical hints at what God considers immodest in the passages Kendra shared? Are there other passages to consider in this discussion? What about the fact that a couple of the passages Kendra brought up (Isaiah 47:2-3 and Ezekiel 16:7) also mention hair, yet few modern Christians consider hair in modesty discussions? Even I don’t, and I’m in the pro-headcovering camp! I’ve never considered it a “modesty thing” and have always covered as a sign to angels (I Corinthians 11:10). Are modern Christians missing something, or is this just an example of the cultural relativism at play here? I look forward to hearing your thoughts.
July 31st, 2008 at 6:54 pm
I think trudging through the world has weakened my sense of propriety. I’m probably doing everything wrong. Hanging out the gym probably doesn’t do much either. I agree.. I agree.. I just … I just… am too worldly, I think! Is it middle-aged dull spirituality? I mean, I don’t cruise around in short skirts and low cleavage, but I’m just not even aware of it as much like you are. Either way, that is why we need the younger sisters too!
July 31st, 2008 at 9:29 pm
And I for sure need older sisters to keep me sane and well grounded! Young people have great theories that work well and fit the data perfectly, but sometimes it’s only because they have so little data.
July 31st, 2008 at 11:42 pm
I think modesty in a Christian woman is very important. But I do wonder if some things may be more cultural. Just some thoughts… in Victorian times women couldn’t show their wrists, ankles, etc. because it was considered immodest. Was this exciting to men when it was seen SIMPLY BECAUSE it was forbidden? Also, this brought to mind the book “The Savage My Kinsmen” by Elisabeth Elliot. I don’t know if you’re familiar with it, but it’s her story of going to live among the South American Indian tribe who killed her missionary husband. She was a very “proper” lady, and wrote about how this tribe basically wore a string around their waste with a cloth covering the front of them and that’s all. And there was nothing weird or sexual about the rest of their bodies being exposed because that’s what was normal in their culture. I’m just offering these ideas up for thought; not saying I’m sure of things one way or the other.
August 1st, 2008 at 6:56 am
I think it’s a heart issue. We, as women, know what we are comfortable wearing. We know what is appropriate and modest within the guidelines of our mind and heart before God and within our own homes. I think there is a cultural component, but more importantly, I think it is a familial issue: what does our husband think is proper and modest and lovely? God has put us under our husband’s headship. Dressing over-modestly, (I think we all know what I mean) can be a control issue with women over their husbands as well as dressing immodestly.
August 1st, 2008 at 9:36 am
Ashley,
These are really good examples that show the broad spectrum of modesty cross-culturally. There definitely IS a cultural aspect to how we perceive a given level of skin exposure.
But I’m wondering how God perceives the exposure of various body parts. Is this something we can know? Given the verses that Kendra brought up, how would God feel about the people that Elizabeth Elliot shared the Gospel with if they became Christians and continued to wear their strings and little cloths? Is that totally fine because that’s their culture? What about the fact that Adam and Eve tried essentially the same level of modesty when they “made themselves aprons” (Gen 3:7)? God didn’t leave them in this state. “Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them” (Gen 3:21). Despite the fact that they were wearing “aprons,” God still didn’t consider them “clothed.” They needed “coats,” (Strong’s number H3801, meaning “coat, garment, robe”). This is especially interesting because at that time there was no culture. AND I’m wondering if it shows that what satisfies our human sense of modesty may not actually satisfy God’s sense of modesty. In other words, someone might feel fine in a string bikini, but it might actually not be OK with God if she wears it to the beach.
August 1st, 2008 at 10:02 am
I appreciate the comment about modesty being a heart issue. Although I think immodesty (especially among Christians) is sometimes out of ignorance to the Scriptures, it is more often because a woman knows she looks good in (or out of…) something.
One thing that I remind myself when I dress is whether or not the way I dress will make someone sin. I understand the arguement that I am not directly responsible for my brother’s decisions, but I should be willing to do whatever nescessary to help someone NOT to sin. How would it make me feel if I knew there was something another woman could have done to keep my husband from sinning?
(As a sidebar-I also cover my head to pray but not necessarily for the sake of modesty.)
August 1st, 2008 at 10:08 am
In addition, I agree with Mrs. Parunak on the topic of the “primitive societies.” Regardless of what culture deems “appropriate,” God’s law comes first. Otherwise Lot (Gen 19) could have rightfully been a homosexual since that was the “culture” in Sodom.
August 1st, 2008 at 10:50 am
I don’t see that there’s any way we can know what God considers modest or immodest. Clearly, culture plays a role and clearly individual standards are part of it and clearly God is part of it but, I think beyond that it gets fuzzy….I think that’s our problem. God covered Adam and Eve with skins but it doesn’t say if he just replaced their aprons of leaves with skin aprons or made them jackets and called it good or stitched up whole outfits. I think its really hard to draw hard evidence of clear standards for clothing from the Bible.
August 1st, 2008 at 12:20 pm
I was really taken by Kendra’s Biblical references that seemed to support my husband’s honest reflections. He’s trying hard to keep his eyes in the right place, but he also knows what naturally attracts his eye, and I suspect his is the natural human response of most men. As women, it is a part of love to cover that which is a stumbling block to even mature husbands who have a heart to do right. I think that’s what Paul meant when he said we should use our liberty to edify one another in love…it’s not about what we “can” do, but what we give up for the sake of loving others!
August 2nd, 2008 at 3:44 am
Wow, this is really interesting I never thought of it this way, I’ve been looking up all the verses in my Bible. I’ve been convicted about dressing modestly since being saved a few years ago now, but have always struggled with what is considered modest and if my idea of modesty is influenced by the culture we live in.
I found you blog last week through LAF, and have been looking through your older posts, there’s some great info here thanks.
August 3rd, 2008 at 2:49 pm
Concerning the savage tribes, specifically the ones E. Elliot is referring to, the tribe itself is a lot different now than it was when it was first called “Auca”. In a recent (2005) interview with the “Woarani” (the people), they were all clothed! A lot has happenend in 50 years–including Christ and their own convictions about clothing! (First, they had to see that killing each other was wrong and bigger issues like that).. Striving to be culturally and biblically modest, O.M.
August 7th, 2008 at 6:24 pm
Speaking of the tribes like the Auca’s…I always wondered if it was the convictions of following Christ that made them begin to wear clothing, or if it was us bringing our western culture to them in that way. It seemed to me based on what I’ve read in the past and seen when watching them, seeing a womans breast or thighs was that exciting to the men in their culture. It was just “part of life”. I could be totally off base, but thats how it came across to me. Of course, I do not know those mens thoughts or hearts at all.
August 14th, 2008 at 2:38 pm
Modesty is important and sometimes we do not even realize how we are being motivated by lust… hanging out in a gym, or being a part of a group that is just generally immodest will influence us if we are not careful. I had a pastor that had some general guidelines and it does help when we just aren’t “feeling modest” to keep these in mind…
Sleeves to the elbow, dresses and skirts to the knees, neck lines not too much lower than the collar bones… it helps, I find that I wear a lot of thin undershirts for sleeveless blouses, my skirts and dresses not too tight, and when I sit I like my kness covered… there are a lot of ways to be modest, and still look very pretty and feminine and not too strange.
September 7th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
Having actually grown up in another part of the world where so-called “primitive” cultures exist (the Ivory Coast, West Africa), I can honestly say that culture plays a very large part in PERCEPTION of immodesty. Where I grew up, a woman walking around topless was nothing strange. Breasts are utilitarian–a food supply for children. On the other hand, a woman of adolescent age or older who showed the outline of her legs (i.e. wore pants) or her knees and above was immodest indeed. Which, when you think about it, makes sense. The crotch, after all, is actually sexual in nature.
With the advent of Western culture, this is changing. You still find much of this attitude in the villages and smaller towns, but fewer women go topless in the towns (it’s more of an “around the house” sort of thing at any rate) and gradually more women are wearing pants–even jeans with short tops rather than knee-length tunics/robes–without having to worry about being seen as prostitutes.
I think the significant aspect of the story in Genesis is the concept of innocence. Before the Fall, Adam and Eve were Innocent. This includes being innocent of the sinful sort of lustful thought, right? By eating the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, essentially they became capable of seeing each other and other people (eventually) in evil ways.
So if a culture contains an aspect of this original Innocence, are we acting in the capacity of Evil when we despoil the innocence? Knowledge itself, as a concept, is not Evil–but the kind of knowledge and its purpose and effect may be.
Perhaps that’s why the Bible doesn’t get overly specific.
September 8th, 2008 at 9:24 am
Marisa,
It’s important to remember that the original holiness and purity of our first parents’ state was due, not to their ignorance of their nakedness, but to the fact that they had never disobeyed God. What was evil and perverse about their fallen state was not their lack of “innocence,” but the fact that they had disobeyed God. The Serpent’s role in the story was in encouraging Eve to disbelieve and disobey their Creator (”Yea, hath God said…?”), NOT in revealing to Eve her nakedness. He didn’t come over and say, “Hey, Eve, you’re naked! What a disgrace. You should really cover up.”
It is also good to keep in mind that the Hebrew word for what Adam and Eve made to cover themselves (”aprons”) actually covered LESS than what God made to cover them (”coats”). When we show people who already have some sense of modesty (nearly all primitive people make some attempt at covering their crotches, much like Adam and Eve with their “aprons”), and explain to them that they need to cover more of their bodies (breasts for example), the person in the story we are most closely resembling is God, not “Evil.”
What no one has yet addressed is Kendra’s Scripture passages themselves. IF is it true that the Bible really condemns exposing the body parts described, then that is the only information that anyone needs, regardless of culture. Take lying for example. The Bible clearly condemns lying. Now there are some cultures that accept deceitfulness. Would a Christian missionary in such a culture be “despoiling innocence” by pointing out that God does not want people to lie? Obviously not. Similarly, if God truly wants people to cover certain parts of their bodies, we are not despoiling innocence by pointing that out, either.