Modest Dress for Women.

[AgapeBible]

I think we have a problem in America with young women dressing to skimpy. People dress in horrible ways to show they follow a culture of darkness. Tattoos, piercing, the defacing of the body and ruining the flesh of the human body is foolish and sinful. Once you have a tattoo, it is extremely expensive and more painful, difficult, to get it off. Piercings are usually permanent too. Our bodies are holy temples, we should not deface, pierce, and scar them. People go around with spiked hair, disgusting goth make up, color their hair outrageous colors, have claw like finger nails painted black or blood-red, they make themselves into freaks. This is because of a culture of darkness.

Off that that subject, women wear really low cut blouses with plunging necklines, some so short that show the belly, short skirts that nearly reveal their bum, they reveal the shoulders and back with their spaghetti strap blouses. I livve in a warm sunny state so I see it all the time. Really, girls, cover up! On TV magazines, the internet, posters, movies, we are bombarded by images of girls and women dressed skimpy seen as sexual objects. There are now images of men seen as sexual objects for women or gay men. Men with chiseled muscle chests, arms, legs, the bum. Men are now treated as sexual objects for women to enjoy just like women have been treated for several centuries.

We need to love each other and quit confusing love with lust! Jesus wanted men and women to see each other as equals in God's eyes and love each other as brothers and sisters. Husband and wife have a special relationship, that is meant to be kept quiet and private secret between each other. Jesus had several women followers. There were a lot of followers besides the twelve disciples. Jesus had care, concern, love for the Samaritan woman at the well. He love Mary Magdalene and Martha and Mary. He love the 12 year old girl who became sick and died, he love the woman with an issue of blood who tugged on the edge of his robe. He loved sinful woman with the alabaster jar of perfume who wet his feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair. He loved the adulteress the crowd wanted to stone. You get it?

 

[seeking.IAM]

...the same image half the people in this thread says is fine to wear to a church service

I have been worshipping in churches of various persuasions for more years than most forum users here have been alive. I have never seen a woman in church dressed like the photo you posted. Not once.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

I have been worshipping in churches of various persuasions for more years than most forum users here have been alive. I have never seen a woman in church dressed like the photo you posted. Not once.

It’s not what the thread was about or asking, either.

 

[RDKirk]

I have been worshipping in churches of various persuasions for more years than most forum users here have been alive. I have never seen a woman in church dressed like the photo you posted. Not once.

I have. Quite often, in fact, in the last couple of years.

 

[Jermayn]

I have been worshipping in churches of various persuasions for more years than most forum users here have been alive. I have never seen a woman in church dressed like the photo you posted. Not once.

The point of that particular photo was to set a nonsensically low standard of modesty that everyone could work their way up from. Much to my surprise, we actually have people that want to work their way DOWN from that photo to an even lower standard.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

That’s not true either but ok.

 

[Miles]

Asking a question in regard to 1 Timothy 2:9-10, which states:

"I also want the women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, adorning themselves, not with elaborate hairstyles or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God" (NIV).

How would you define the "dress code", if you will, described in this excerpt?

Do you think churches should have a defined dress code, such as guidance on neckline, skirt/pant length, sleeve length, etc., or do you think the interpretation should be left up to the individual?

Would you confront a woman who you thought may be pushing the boundaries with the way they were dressing in church? What about in public in general? If so, how? (I'm speaking of a fellow believer here, not just any random woman you think is dressed inappropriate.)

If a fellow believer approached you and said a woman in your church was dressing in a manner that caused them to either fall under temptation or to sin, how would you address this situation?

I think dress code largely depends on the culture. What's considered modest in one may be considered immodest in another. The passage you cited brings to mind women trying to outdo each other. Each vying to get the most attention rather than focusing on what's important.

This isn't something that I would approach a stranger about, but if we're talking about somebody close to me I might say something. There's such a thing as being noticed for the wrong reasons. It's also true that we should have higher priorities than how we're dressed, which is I think the main point of modesty. To focus on God more than things like clothes.

 

[MyChainsAreGone]

I think dress code largely depends on the culture. What's considered modest in one may be considered immodest in another. The passage you cited brings to mind women trying to outdo each other. Each vying to get the most attention rather than focusing on what's important.

This isn't something that I would approach a stranger about, but if we're talking about somebody close to me I might say something. There's such a thing as being noticed for the wrong reasons. It's also true that we should have higher priorities than how we're dressed, which is I think the main point of modesty. To focus on God more than things like clothes.

CS Lewis addressed the issue of modesty in his book, Mere Christianity

“The social rule of propriety lays down how much of the human body should be displayed and what subjects can be referred to, and in what words, according to the customs of a given social circle. Thus, while the rule of chastity is the same for all Christians at all times, the rule of propriety changes”

And in case we didn't get the point...

“A girl in the Pacific islands wearing hardly any clothes and a Victorian lady completely covered in clothes might both be equally “modest,” proper, or decent, according to the standards of their own societies: and both, for all we could tell by their dress, might be equally chaste (or equally unchaste)”

Finally, he was not a fan of standards of modesty being promoted and expanded. Quite the opposite.

"I do not think that a very strict or fussy standard of propriety is any proof of chastity or any help to it, and I therefore regard the great relaxation and simplifying of the rule which has taken place in my own lifetime as a good thing."

Mere Christianity
Book 3, Chapter 5

 

[MyChainsAreGone]

Something needs to be said.

The Bible does NOT teach modesty as it is taught by most western Christian churches today.

There's literally only one verse in all of the Bible that supposedly teaches this doctrine, and even a simple examination of the text shows that it is not talking at all about sexual propriety in attire for women.

Modesty, according to its real definition, simply means to have a moderate view of oneself.

We still use that word that way from time to time, I have a modest income, I live in a modest house, I drive a modest car.

That is what the word means as it is found in the text in 1 Timothy 2:9

That's why the KJV translators used it, because that's what Paul's meaning was in the passage.

But somehow over time, Western culture has decided to give a very different definition to the word, and made that new definition the primary meaning.

Then we've jumped to this erroneous conclusion that somehow the Bible teaches the sort of modesty that our redefined understanding of the word tells us it is.

It is an egregious error, because we are elevating a man-made notion to the level of a biblical mandate.

Let me say it again.

The Bible does not teach the kind of modesty that everybody has been talking about in this thread.

Full stop.

 

[RDKirk]

Something needs to be said.

The Bible does NOT teach modesty as it is taught by most western Christian churches today.

There's literally only one verse in all of the Bible that supposedly teaches this doctrine, and even a simple examination of the text shows that it is not talking at all about sexual propriety in attire for women.

Modesty, according to its real definition, simply means to have a moderate view of oneself.

We still use that word that way from time to time, I have a modest income, I live in a modest house, I drive a modest car.

That is what the word means as it is found in the text in 1 Timothy 2:9

That's why the KJV translators used it, because that's what Paul's meaning was in the passage.

But somehow over time, Western culture has decided to give a very different definition to the word, and made that new definition the primary meaning.

Then we've jumped to this erroneous conclusion that somehow the Bible teaches the sort of modesty that our redefined understanding of the word tells us it is.

It is an egregious error, because we are elevating a man-made notion to the level of a biblical mandate.

Let me say it again.

The Bible does not teach the kind of modesty that everybody has been talking about in this thread.

Full stop.

My comment was in line with CS Lewis. Paul was calling for women to avoid ostentatiousness.

 

[MyChainsAreGone]

The point of that particular photo was to set a nonsensically low standard of modesty that everyone could work their way up from. Much to my surprise, we actually have people that want to work their way DOWN from that photo to an even lower standard.

Exactly what makes a standard of dress a "high" or "low" standard?

If someone thinks that you must cover every part of the female anatomy, is that then a "higher standard"?

If so, then you could declare that the orthodox Muslims have the highest standards of modesty. "Higher" must be better, right? So why don't we promote covering female bodies absolutely and completely?

But that's actually not a better standard, is it?

Why not? Well, because it sexually objectifies the woman in her entirety. There is literally no part of her body which is free from sexual objectification, therefore none of her body is safe to be seen without being sexually objectified and without her being sexually mistreated.

So that standard is not truly a higher standard, rather it is a bad and dehumanizing standard.

So, what does that mean?

How do you know if a standard of dress is sexually objectifying some part of a woman's anatomy?

It turns out that it's really easy to tell. Whatever part of a woman's body you require for her to cover, that's a part that you have decided must be treated as a sexual object.

Said another way, that's the body part that you sexually objectify.

Think about it... There's only one reason that a woman has to keep some particular body part covered, right?

But tell me, is it acceptable to sexually objectify ANY part of a woman? She IS her body. If you sexually objectify ANY part of her, you are sexually objectifying HER!

When an ethical male doctor performs a full body examination of a female patient, he sees every inch of her body. Is she being immodest? When he sees her breasts, does he sexually objectify them? No, and no.

But how can that be? If a woman's body parts are intended to be treated sexually, how then can there be ANY context where a man could view them and not respond sexually?

But that scenario is real, and it's TRUE!

There is no part of a woman's body that we should require them to cover because no woman deserves to be sexually objectified, and no part of her body should be sexually objectified.

So the truth turns out to be the exact opposite of what you might have thought...

The HIGHEST standard for dress is when no body parts are specifically required to be covered, for only in the absence of any such requirement can we claim to oppose ALL sexual objectification of a woman or her body.

The LOWEST standard? Requiring her to cover ALL off her body.

As uncomfortable as that may make you to think about, it is without any doubt the truth.

 

[Jermayn]

The HIGHEST standard for dress is when no body parts are specifically required to be covered

Yet ANOTHER person who thinks we should be able to come to church naked.

Look, this topic has been beat to death already, but your response is essentially the same as the other people who argue for no standard of modesty. This is a bit off topic, but let me enlighten you a little as to the world you live in, because this fantasy land where no one get's sexually objectified in any way whatsoever DOESN"T EXIST. Not yet at least.

People SHOULDN'T murder. Guess what? They do.
People SHOULD'T steal. Guess what? They do.
People SHOULD'T lie. Guess what? They do.
People SHOULD'T commit adultery. Guess what? They do.

THAT is the world you live in. Despite every law you write and every program you create to try to prevent these things from happening, they will continue to happen until Jesus returns. Would you tell your children they should move to a neighborhood where the murder and rape rates are 5000% higher than anywhere else in the country because it's illegal and immoral for someone to murder them?

When an ethical male doctor performs a full body examination of a female patient, he sees every inch of her body. Is she being immodest? When he sees her breasts, does he sexually objectify them? No, and no.

So should we start a church for doctors only? Funny how every man should be held, ethically and morally, to the standard of a medical doctor, but women are free to come to church naked and we're supposed to act like this is normal. I'd be willing to bet if everyone here who pretends like they've been glorified and ascended above being tempted could have their thoughts and deeds spread out on a table for all to see, we'd find a very different person than what's being portrayed in this thread.

 

[MyChainsAreGone]

Yet ANOTHER person who thinks we should be able to come to church naked.

Look, this topic has been beat to death already, but your response is essentially the same as the other people who argue for no standard of modesty. This is a bit off topic, but let me enlighten you a little as to the world you live in, because this fantasy land where no one get's sexually objectified in any way whatsoever DOESN"T EXIST. Not yet at least.

People SHOULDN'T murder. Guess what? They do.
People SHOULD'T steal. Guess what? They do.
People SHOULD'T lie. Guess what? They do.
People SHOULD'T commit adultery. Guess what? They do.

THAT is the world you live in. Despite every law you write and every program you create to try to prevent these things from happening, they will continue to happen until Jesus returns. Would you tell your children they should move to a neighborhood where the murder and rape rates are 5000% higher than anywhere else in the country because it's illegal and immoral for someone to murder them?


So should we start a church for doctors only? Funny how every man should be held, ethically and morally, to the standard of a medical doctor, but women are free to come to church naked and we're supposed to act like this is normal. I'd be willing to bet if everyone here who pretends like they've been glorified and ascended above being tempted could have their thoughts and deeds spread out on a table for all to see, we'd find a very different person than what's being portrayed in this thread.

Can you offer a single cogent rebuttal to my assertions?

I saw none in your response.

As uncomfortable as that may make you to think about, it is without any doubt the truth.

 

[MyChainsAreGone]

Listen everyone...

There are two levels to this question... What standard of dress should we have for women in the church?

* The biblical level (absolute truth)
* The cultural level (contextual wisdom)

Both levels are in play, but if we get the answer to the first wrong, we do not have the correct mindset to reach a wise and reasonable answer to the second level!

And most Christians get the first one wrong.

That's why it's the one I addressed in my previous post... Asserting that the Bible doesn't teach the "modesty" generally taught in the church today." Fact is, the Bible doesn't tell us anything about how to dress with reference to sexual propriety. Period.

That means that we cannot make absolute truth assertions what is ok or not ok for women to wear.

We can only apply biblical principles to how we seek to answer the non-absolute "cultural" level.

And until someone acknowledges these facts, they are not yet qualified to offer a viable answer to the opening question.

 

[Jermayn]

Can you offer a single cogent rebuttal to my assertions?

I saw none in your response.

As uncomfortable as that may make you to think about, it is without any doubt the truth.

I've rebutted this same argument several times throughout this thread and they always end in personal accusations of me being some kind of pervert or being "uncomfortable" for not wanting my church to become the Playboy mansion. However, if you must have a rebuttal:

As uncomfortable as that may make you to think about, it is without any doubt the truth.

This is the opinion of a man (or woman). You.

Galatians 5:19-21, Ephesians 4:19, 1 Peter 2:11, Jude 1:4, 1 Thessalonians 4:3-5, 1 Timothy 2:9-10, 1 Peter 3:3-4, Proverbs 7:10.
These are verses from God's Word that detail the dangers of sensuality as well as link dress to said sensuality or advocate for a standard of modesty concern dress, particularly for women.

Now, which of these do you think holds more weight?

 

[MyChainsAreGone]

...Funny how every man should be held, ethically and morally, to the standard of a medical doctor, ...

You started with a straw man argument, summarizing my position in a false way so you could shoot it down rather than refute my logic, but you did drop this little gem of truth!

This is exactly what we should do! Although, the real standard is the standard of Christ.

Would Christ ever sexually objectify any woman or any of her body parts?

Should we ever excuse it for any man?

The doctors prove that it's possible!! It's even possible for men without the power of the Holy Spirit in their lives!! How much more can and should it be true for men who follow Jesus!

But here's the rub...

As soon as we start putting it on women to "keep covered" in order to "help men," we are giving men a FREE PASS to sexually objectify women!!

That's wrong, wrong, wrong. No free pass.

Men, Christ and that doctor are your standard. And we're not saddling women with behavioral rules to accommodate or excuse your weaknesses!

 

[MyChainsAreGone]

I've rebutted this same argument several times throughout this thread and they always end in personal accusations of me being some kind of pervert or being "uncomfortable" for not wanting my church to become the Playboy mansion. However, if you must have a rebuttal:


This is the opinion of a man (or woman). You.

Galatians 5:19-21, Ephesians 4:19, 1 Peter 2:11, Jude 1:4, 1 Thessalonians 4:3-5, 1 Timothy 2:9-10, 1 Peter 3:3-4, Proverbs 7:10.
These are verses from God's Word that detail the dangers of sensuality as well as link dress to said sensuality or advocate for a standard of modesty concern dress, particularly for women.

Now, which of these do you think holds more weight?

Ah, yes!

Applying principles from the Bible to the cultural level of the question!

Absolutely the right thing to do!

But that does not rebut my assertions.

When we require a woman to cover a body part, we are sexually objectifying that body part, and the woman is attached to.

Therefore, the only way to claim that we are not objectifying and/or condoning the sexual objectification of women is to NOT have any requirements for which body parts to cover.

Please address THAT assertion rather than one I did not state.

As far as the passages you referenced, I agree that they definitely come into play after we get the "biblical standards for dress" question right (there is none). That's when we start applying biblical wisdom to how we should move forward.

 

[Jermayn]

You started with a straw man argument, summarizing my position in a false way so you could shoot it down rather than refute my logic, but you did drop this little gem of truth!

This is exactly what we should do! Although, the real standard is the standard of Christ.

Would Christ ever sexually objectify any woman or any of her body parts?

Should we ever excuse it for any man?

The doctors prove that it's possible!! It's even possible for men without the power of the Holy Spirit in their lives!! How much more can and should it be true for men who follow Jesus!

But here's the rub...

As soon as we start putting it on women to "keep covered" in order to "help men," we are giving men a FREE PASS to sexually objectify women!!

That's wrong, wrong, wrong. No free pass.

Men, Christ and that doctor are your standard. And we're not saddling women with behavioral rules to accommodate or excuse your weaknesses!

Once again, if you read the entire thread you'll see no one is arguing for a free pass. I'm not going to restate something I've already argued about 17 times.

On the contrary, the doctor's are humans with the same struggles as everyone else, thereby proving that even a person you think holds the highest standards of morality STILL falls far short of that of Jesus Christ. Are we to strive to imitate Jesus? Absolutely. Will we be sinless from the day we accept Jesus as our savior? Unless you die shortly afterwards, no. So let's all just stop acting like we've ascended to a point where there are no more stumbling blocks for us and we've become completely immune to temptation. That's the kind of ideology that makes people give up when temptation eventually rears it's ugly head.

Men, Christ and that doctor are your standard. And we're not saddling women with behavioral rules to accommodate or excuse your weaknesses!

Oh look. More personal accusations. Standard response when someone lacks and substantive argument. Guess the Bible verses did the trick.

 

[Jermayn]

When we require a woman to cover a body part, we are sexually objectifying that body part, and the woman is attached to.

Therefore, the only way to claim that we are not objectifying and/or condoning the sexual objectification of women is to NOT have any requirements for which body parts to cover.

So, you're saying the pinnacle of morality for a man concerning lust is to not find women sexually attractive anymore? How does your wife feel about that?

 

[MyChainsAreGone]

So, you're saying the pinnacle of morality for a man concerning lust is to not find women sexually attractive anymore? How does your wife feel about that?

Seriously, you're resorting to straw man again?

Why can't you just address the assertions rather than try to postulate some imaginary notion that you think that I'm saying and responding to that?