Women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, but with what is proper for women who profess godliness—with good works. (1 Tim 2:9-10)Paul, Paul, what were you thinking, man? You can't get away with something like that? Don't you know this will cause no end of conflict between men and women, no end of "no peace"? Really, Paul. You can't tell women how to dress.
It wasn't that long ago that the standard of modesty for women was "no ankle showing." I admit, that was before my time, but it wasn't a lot before my time. As the years went by, the skirt length requirement rose. From "show some ankle" to "perhaps the calves" to my day when it was "at the knees" (and they'd make girls kneel to make sure the hem touched the ground). After that there was no stopping it. "Six inches above the knee" to today's version that says, "No genitals showing" (seriously).
Now, tell me again, what is "modesty"? We're not entirely sure anymore, but we're pretty sure Paul has no place calling for it.
The dictionary defines modesty as "regard for decency of behavior, speech, dress, etc." (among other things, of course). The first thought (at least among conservative Christians) is "not showing too much skin; not creating sexual arousal." I guess that would fall under "regard for decency," but that's certainly not all. Paul uses the same word in 1 Tim 3:2 where elders are required, among other things, to be "respectable," so it's not a "woman thing." If biblical "modesty" is also "respectable" (the word is kosmios meaning "orderly, of good behavior, seemly"), then what is Paul talking about in that text?
First, we acknowledge that it is an issue for both males and females. So, if we are to all be "modest" and not merely "not showing too much skin," what is that? It is to be respectable, to be orderly, to be seemly. It speaks of conforming to propriety. We need to consider "What is appropriate?" If we answer that question from Scripture, we end up somewhere we may not have considered. Paul said we should, "Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility count others as more significant than yourselves. Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others" (Php 2:3-4). That, Paul suggests, is seemly -- appropriate. Like Christ (Php 2:5).
Where does that take us? If we are to be kosmios, we should be humble, considering others first. As such, our question in dress and behavior would not be "What would make me look best?" but "What would be best for others?" Women and men should dress with that in mind, act with that in mind, speak with that in mind. That is modesty. That is the aim. Biblical modesty speaks of propriety -- what is appropriate -- and and what is biblically appropriate is "Love God" and "Love your neighbor." If you let that drive how you dress and act and speak and live, you will do well. Hmm, perhaps Paul was not completely crazy.
3 comments:
I saw recently that a young conservative woman media personality cane out in favor of leggings as pants. In a response the the recent uproar about a RC mother speaking out against them. Her reasoning for her response was "they're comfortable". Now, that response makes total sense and I can totally understand why she said it. The problem I had with the response was that it was completely focused on her, not on others. We see this attitude in multiple areas. Notably when someone is asserting that they have the right to do or say something. In most cases they do have the right to do or say what they are doing or saying. But they are asserting that their exercise of that right automatically absolves them of any responsibility for how the words or actions affect others. It's similar with modesty in that those who choose immodesty are placing their comfort or expression above how those things affect others. It's one more example of the essentially selfish culture we live in.
Clearly people have the right to dress and act as immodestly as they please, yet they also bear some responsibility for how others respond to their choices. I'm not saying that "She deserved to be raped because of what she wore." is in any way appropriate. But, if you choose to dress or act in a way that emphasizes immodesty, you shouldn't be surprised that your choices affect how others respond to or think about you.
You are right that as Christians we should always be putting the welfare of others before ourselves and should probably go out of our way to keep others from sin because of our actions.
Jesus said that anyone who looks at another person lustfully has committed rape, if what you choose to wear encourages those thoughts, wouldn't you think twice about what you choose?
I know it's crazy, but put the welfare of others first.
Paul warned that all things were "lawful", but not all are helpful or edifying. Therefore, "Let no one seek his own good, but the good of his neighbor" (1 Cor 10:24). In his defense of Christian liberty he warned, "It is good to not do anything that causes your brother to stumble" (Rom 14:21). In a culture predicated on "What I want," biblical love -- a commitment to what's best for others -- is nonsense and too many Christians don't get that.
I agree that too many Christians are too self focused and not focused on others.
There’s a sense in which the SJ focus on others is a diversion from the kind of focusing on others you’re talking about.
Post a Comment