.

[MyChainsAreGone]

But back to the topic, since people need specifics I'll give you some...

Now is there a scriptural standard? Not officially, ...

These two statements are in direct logical and moral conflict with one another.

If there's no Scriptural standard (which is correct) then there's no need for any "specifics" because by your own admission, they are only your own human reasoning and unbiblical "standard."

Now is there a scriptural standard? Not officially, but I sort of figured out one. Below is the picture of the high priest. In reference to the scandalous incident of David dancing before the Lord in 2 Samuel, King David was wearing "an ephod" like the yellow tunic/apron you see below (just the ephod, but not the other robes pictured in white). But in spite of him wearing an ephod (no other robes) his wife below reacts as if he was just dancing in his underwear or maybe with just a long cloth...

You're right... he was just wearing the ephod, and yes, David's genitals would have been clearly visible while he was dancing.

2 Samuel 6:14-22
"20 When David returned home to bless his own family, Michal, the daughter of Saul, came out to meet him. She said in disgust, “How distinguished the king of Israel looked today, shamelessly exposing himself to the servant girls like any vulgar person might do!

So, Michal was "offended" by David's lack of concern about "exposing himself." That certainly was what she thought of it.

But what did God think of it? Evidently, it didn't bother God, because there's absolutely no rebuke of David by God... or by a prophet... only by an uppity wife who couldn't control her husband.

And what happened next? Michal was the one that suffered the consequences of for HER attitude... not David!! Michal was childless for the rest of her life. David never suffered any negative consequences at all (other than his wife's rebuke).

So yes this shows that even guys, especially upper class guys were normally pretty covered up in Bible times.

No, there's nothing here about standards for attire for men... just as there aren't any standards for attire for women (aside from the avoidance of ostentation).

Which shouldn't be surprising because the scriptures tend to imply or associate provocative dress with promiscuity (only the low moral people do it).

I challenge to defend that statement.

I assert that it is utterly false... never does the Bible imply or associate provocative dress with promiscuity, nor does it say that only people of low morals do it.

And for the record, "dressed like a harlot" does not mean "sexually provocative"... it means that it was attire that was culturally known to be worn by women of the night. In other words, there's zero indication about how much skin is showing (that notion is utterly absent in the Bible).

 

[timewerx]

AMEIN!
Daddy's girl (Tom Boy) do make the best friend, companion, soulmate and lover (First Hand Experience)

Edit: And of course "Helpmate" (Father's Helpmate for Adam ~ Daddy's Girl)

My thoughts too!

I really like the style. It's completely unintimidating, lol if worn neat and try to look neat. Random strangers are more likely to talk to you, especially people who needs help which is a good thing. More opportunities to let the Light of the Lord be seen in you!

Man wearing one with jacket:

Modesty get's the job done!

 

[All4Christ]

Rebecca, I really liked your post.

I do have a follow-up I'd like you to expand on...


On what basis are you basing your comments about "professional prostitutes"?

Undoubtedly, there were such women (and men?) in Paul's day, but I actually don't see any evidence that that was in Paul's mind while writing 1 Timothy 2:8-10.

The ONLY thing that I see in the passage relative to clothing has to do with the flaunting of wealth.

I honestly think that it's only in western culture and modern Christianity that we've added the "sexual" component to the passage... but as I read Paul's words, it's simply not there at all.

Is there something I'm missing?

Thanks.

When we try to interpret scripture that is not clear or could be understood in multiple ways, it is helpful to look at other writings of the same time period. The “sexual” component was certainly part of what early Christians included in modesty.

Bu no means are women to be allowed to uncover and exhibit any part of their bodies, lest both fall – the men by being incited to look, and the women by attracting to themselves the eyes of men – Clement of Alex., 2.246

I say, then, that man requires clothing for nothing else than the covering of the body, for defense against excess of cold and intensity, lest the inclemency of the air injure us. And if this is the purpose of clothing, see that one kind is not assigned to men and another to women. For it is common to both be covered, as it is to eat and drink….And if some accommodation is to be made, women may be permitted to sue softer clothes, provided they avoid fabrics that are foolishly thin and of curious texture in weaving. They should also bid farewell to embroidery of gold and Indian silks….Luxurious clothing that cannot conceal the shape of the body is no more a covering. For such clothing, falling close to the body, takes its form more easily. Clinging to the body as though it were the flesh, it receives its shape and outlines the woman’s figure. As a result, the whole make of the body is visible to spectators, although they cannot see the body itself. Dyeing of clothes is also to be rejected…But for those persons who are white and unstained within, it is most suitable to use white and simple garments – Clement of Alex., 2.265

Neither is it seemly for the clothes to be above the knee – Clement of Alex., 2.266

—————

They also talk about avoiding clothes and adornments that flaunt wealth or draw attention to oneself, elaborate clothing, and more. A previous poster mentioned that there are multiple aspects to modesty - with which I concur. There was, however, a sexual element even in the early church around the time of the apostles. It isn’t a modern western invention.

 

[Anguspure]

What does Christian modesty mean for men and women in today’s culture?

To facilitate the discussion I’m requesting three things from respondents:

— Please share an opinion based on your gender first. This subject skews disproportionately towards women and I would like to see edifying comments for both sexes.

— Please provide biblical support for your opinion if applicable.

— And for the sake of clarity for everyone, please share a visible example of the modest attire you’re addressing. Please avoid posting immodest images or videos in deference to those with struggles.

Thank you. I look forward to your response.

Thought I'd throw this into the mix from Jill Carattini at RZIM:

In a study included in the Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine children were shown to overwhelmingly prefer the taste of food that comes in McDonald’s wrappers. The study had preschoolers sample identical foods in packaging from McDonald’s and in matched, but unbranded, packaging. The kids were then asked if the food tasted the same or if one tasted better. The unmarked foods lost the taste test every time. Even apple juice, carrots, and milk tasted better to the kids when taken from the familiar wrappings of the Golden Arches. “This study demonstrates simply and elegantly that advertising literally brainwashes young children into a baseless preference for certain food products,” said a physician from Yale’s School of Medicine. “Children, it seems, literally do judge a food by its cover. And they prefer the cover they know.”(1)

The science of advertising is often about convincing the world that books can and should be judged by their covers. These kids were not merely saying they preferred the taste of McDonald’s food. They actually believed the chicken nugget they thought was from McDonald’s tasted better than an identical nugget. From an early age and on through adulthood, branding is directive in telling us what we think and feel, who we are, what we love, what matters.



But lest we blame television and marketing entirely for the wiles of brand recognition, we should recall that advertisers continue to have employment simply because it works. That is, long before marketers were encouraging customers to judge by image, wrapping, and cover, we were judging by these methods anyway. When the ancient Samuel was looking for the person God would ordain as king, he had a particular image in mind. In fact, when he first laid eyes on Eliab, Samuel thought confidently that this was the one God had chosen. But on the contrary, God said to Samuel, “Do not consider his appearance or his height, for I have rejected him. The LORD does not look at the things man looks at. Man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart.”(2)

The study with the preschoolers is startling because adults can see clearly that a carrot in a McDonald’s bag is still inherently a carrot. Yet how often are we, too, blindsided by mere wrappings, the cultural repetitions that mold us, the images and liturgies that shape our affections? Is the mistake of a child in believing the food tastes better in a yellow wrapper really any different than our own believing we are better people dressed with the right credentials, covered by the latest fashion, repeating the right belief-systems? Covered in whatever comforts us or completely stripped of our many wrappings, we are the same people underneath.

But according to one ancient writer, there is one exception. The Apostle Paul writes of a kind of clothing that changes the one inside them. “[F]or all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”(3) Clothed in the righteousness of the man Jesus, a person is wrapped in the identity of the human Son of God. They are given new packaging, new life, new robes worn only by Christ, and thus, like him, they are made most truly human.

Unlike the catch and costliness of well-marketed wrappings, the robes he describes are free. The beautiful and difficult word of Christianity is that Christ requires only that we come without costume or pretense. The many robes we collect, the covers with which we judge the world, we must be willing to give him. He takes from tired shoulders robes of self-importance and false security. He tears from determined grasps those garments of self-pity and shame. And then he clothes the needful soul with garments of salvation, arrays us in robes of righteousness, gives us the hopeful liturgy of his presence, and reminds us that we wear his holy name from the inside out.

Jill Carattini is managing editor of A Slice of Infinity at Ravi Zacharias International Ministries in Atlanta, Georgia.

Home Page

 

[ChicanaRose]

I believe that you would find it impossible to defend your position from Paul's words... he's not talking at all about "sexual" immodesty in that passage. That is a very modern notion, but it's not actually biblical.

The subjective application of one word is not a sound basis for a moral evaluation.

Thanks but I am aware of the difference between subjective application of one word and deriving the general "principle" (i.e. the heart of/ the spirit of) the scriptures. The principle here is not to draw attention to oneself, avoiding worldliness, and showing reverence in the house of God. But perhaps biblical commentaries I've read are subjective.

 

[Paidiske]

IMO, today's Christian women dress in attire more for what other women think ... than that of a man.

I would have thought that ideally, we would dress neither for what women or for men think, but for the purpose of our day?

For example, today I'm wearing an ankle-length dress, because I happen to like it and I don't expect to be called on to do anything for which it would be impractical. But if I were going to be doing work which required unhampered movement, it would be a totally unsuitable choice, and jeans might be better...

What I shouldn't be doing is choosing my clothes to entice men or impress women.

 

[Anguspure]

What I shouldn't be doing is choosing my clothes to entice men or impress women.

Except perhaps your husband. It strikes me that in this regard we have it around the wrong way in our society. We dress to impress and titillate everybody but the ones we respect and Love. Whereas in other societies extremely modest attire is worn in public, but what is worn in private is something all together different.

 

[Paidiske]

Except perhaps your husband.

Fair point; I was thinking about public display.

It strikes me that in this regard we have it around the wrong way in our society. We dress to impress and titillate everybody but the ones we respect and Love. Whereas in other societies extremely modest attire is worn in public, but what is worn in private is something all together different.

I don't know whether it's about right or wrong; I know that many women find the demands of looking "professional" a burden and are glad to be able to have a break from them at home.

 

[bèlla]

.

 

[Anguspure]

I don't know whether it's about right or wrong; I know that many women find the demands of looking "professional" a burden and are glad to be able to have a break from them at home.

This did gut me a little. My ex was a person who all but refused to dress to please at home but went out of her way to please her employer with a great looking wardrobe. Then to my horror I found that while I was away at sea there was a regular difference in appearance due to the social circles she was hanging out in.

 

[Paidiske]

This did gut me a little. My ex was a person who all but refused to dress to please at home but went out of her way to please her employer with a great looking wardrobe. Then to my horror I found that while I was away at sea there was a regular difference in appearance due to the social circles she was hanging out in.

From what you've said here and elsewhere, it sounds as if the core of it was her lack of love for you.

I can understand why that is deeply painful, but I'm not sure that particular issue of dress can be generalised to apply to other relationships.

 

[Anguspure]

I'm not sure that particular issue of dress can be generalised to apply to other relationships.

You are probably correct, and the unique experience for people who spend such long periods of time away from home is one of big contrasts and upheavals. I only hear similar experiences from people a work with, people ashore do not seem to be similarly affected.

 

[bèlla]

.

 

[timewerx]

If Christian women dressed that way they’d be accused of forsaking their femininity or labeled a feminist. Tomboy fashion is growing in popularity because its androgynous.

Interesting.

But to me this is a large gray area to be honest. I still see women looking feminine enough in those clothes. Could be just my perspective.

And then modern men clothing is becoming more and more unisex in style as well. I don't actually go by this trend, I still prefer, wearing a bit loose clothing (I actually hate body fit, it's not comfortable and too warm to wear)

And then we have Moses explicitly giving those commandments concerning cross-dressing. Not all of the laws Moses put forth are absolute. Unfortunately, we don't know exactly which of those laws still applies today.

 

[MyChainsAreGone]

When we try to interpret scripture that is not clear or could be understood in multiple ways, it is helpful to look at other writings of the same time period. The “sexual” component was certainly part of what early Christians included in modesty.

Bu no means are women to be allowed to uncover and exhibit any part of their bodies, lest both fall – the men by being incited to look, and the women by attracting to themselves the eyes of men – Clement of Alex., 2.246

Thanks for that well-researched post!

I did not know about Clement's writings.

I scanned some of his works, though, and I have to say that I don't believe he is a credible source. He takes a LOT of unusual position... including the notion that men should not shave or even comb their hair... presuming that such actions were efforts to appear effeminate and/or to attract sexual attention from women or other men.

Clement's presumption with "licentiousness" in everyone leads him to say awful things like the passage you posted, where a woman's very form is to be considered a danger to men. This is more like Gnosticism (spirit good, body bad) than it is true biblical theology.

Clement was also at odds with other early church fathers.

It is not well known today, but even in Clement's time, the baptism ritual in the church was performed with the one being baptized fully naked. This is documented in a the writings of a contemporary of Clement, Hippolytus of Rome, who described the rite of baptism in detail in his work, Apostolic Tradition.

In 21:2-3 he writes: "When they come to the water [for baptism]... Then they shall take off all their clothes." In the verses that follow, it's clear that men, women, and children are all baptized in the same place and time (at one baptism event). Then in verse 11, after some renunciations of Satan and before the profession of belief (vss 12-18), it says this:

"Then, after these things, the bishop passes each of them on nude to the elder who stands at the water. They shall stand in the water naked. A deacon, likewise, will go down with them into the water."​

I searched through Clement's writings to try to find anything that described the actual rite of baptism, but could find none.

There are other strong indications that early church baptism was performed nude. The early church adopted the Jewish practice of baptism--called the mikveh--which has always (and to this day) required complete nudity in order to be considered valid. Also, if you look at early Christian artwork, the more ancient the artwork, the more likely it will be depicting those being baptized as completely unclothed. There are many such depictions of Jesus' baptism with Jesus completely unclothed.

So, I do not give any credence to Clement's commentary about "modesty"... they simply do not have any foundation in God's word and they are literally in opposition to the historical fact that the early church baptized people unclothed.

Furthermore, the Gymnasiums (from the Greek gumnas, "naked") were right there during the time of Christ and the Apostles. So were the public baths. Even Jerusalem had them (Maccabees mentions it in 1 Maccabees 1:14). Not only did Jesus AND the NT writers neglect to EVER condemn the public nudity in those places (which everyone knew about), they never once forbade Christians from attending them.

And... Paul used imagery in his writings that alluded directly to the activities engaged in within the gymnasiums. This included running, boxing, wrestling... all athletic activities performed while nude. The writer of Hebrews also invokes the imagery of an Olympic foot race in Hebrews 12:1. Finally, Paul references "exercise" (bodily discipline) as having some value in 1 Timothy 4:8, and the word he used for "exercise" is literally the word "gumnadzo"... based on the Greek word describing naked exercise.

There's simply no explanation for why Jesus and the NT writers failed to address such public nudity except the simple fact that there was no moral need to speak against the exposed human form... and it was fully exposed at every Christian baptism. Our bodies and their shapes are not the problem... our hearts are the problem when it comes to lust. THAT is what the bible teaches about lust... the bible never teaches "covering the body" as a solution to lust... so... that can't be what Paul meant.

 

[bèlla]

.

 

[Hazelelponi]

What does Christian modesty mean for men and women in today’s culture?

To facilitate the discussion I’m requesting three things from respondents:

— Please share an opinion based on your gender first. This subject skews disproportionately towards women and I would like to see edifying comments for both sexes.

— Please provide biblical support for your opinion if applicable.

— And for the sake of clarity for everyone, please share a visible example of the modest attire you’re addressing. Please avoid posting immodest images or videos in deference to those with struggles.

Thank you. I look forward to your response.

For church more like this:

I just think it's more appropriate than jeans or slacks..

 

[bèlla]

For church more like this:

I just think it's more appropriate than jeans or slacks..

That’s really cute and looks quite comfy!

 

[VMaeLove]

If Adam and Eve did not feel wrong about being naked until after they sinned. Could God does not see the human body in a way as we do. They were naked before that right?
Maybe God sees our bodies as a beautiful thing and sin twists the image.

 

[MyChainsAreGone]

What does Christian modesty mean for men and women in today’s culture?

Well, I'll start by declaring this...

• There is no such thing as "Christian Modesty."

"Modesty"--as perceived by most Christians today--is not a biblical concept. The Bible simply never teaches it. At all.

• Who may see your body.
• Who may not see your body.
• Which body parts are wrong to be seen.
• How the "standards" differ for men and women.
• What sort of garments must be worn.
• That doctors/healthcare-workers are "exempt" from the prohibition to see people's bodies.
• At what age a child may no longer see their parent's body.
• At what age a parent may no longer see their child's body.

ALL of these things are "missing" in the Bible. Yet Christians seem to "know" what God thinks about "modesty" in spite of this glaring fact.

So... that means that ALL "modesty" rules are man-made, and according to God's Word, such man-made rules should be rejected!

Colossians 2:20-23 "If you have died with Christ to the elementary principles of the world, why, as if you were living in the world, do you submit yourself to decrees, such as, “Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch!” (which all refer to things destined to perish with use)—in accordance with the commandments and teachings of men? These are matters which have, to be sure, the appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and self-abasement and severe treatment of the body, but are of no value against fleshly indulgence." (emphasis mine)

We THINK that modesty rules (keeping body parts covered) will promote righteousness, but as this verse clearly states, such rules are of "no value" precisely on the point of moral purity!

The fact is that by focusing our attention on body parts, we are codifying the sexual objectification of those very body parts! And shouldn't we rather be opposed to ALL sexual objectification?

So, your question really becomes, what do our modern unbiblical notions about "modesty" mean in modern culture.

I think that's the wrong question. The correct question should be, "How does a truly biblical understanding of the meaning of the human form--created in God's image--inform the Christians response to and life within modern culture?"

— Please share an opinion based on your gender first. This subject skews disproportionately towards women and I would like to see edifying comments for both sexes.

— Please provide biblical support for your opinion if applicable...

I am a man.

I have studied this matter of "modesty" in the bible in great depth.

But that's not saying much, because there's only ONE verse in the bible that can be used to teach the so-called "modesty" rules... 1 Timothy 2:9.

But this verse has been misused and misinterpreted and mis-applied... to the point that people believe that God has given us a standard for behavior that God never gave us!!

Let me summarize the errors this way...

1. We see the English word "modesty" in 1 Timothy 2:9 and we presume that it means in the Bible what we think it means in common usage of the word today. It does not. This is clear from the immediate context, because Paul is talking about ostentation, not anything about "sexual" allure.

2. The Greek word translated "modest" in the KJV doesn't mean anything close to what we think of as "modest" today... it literally comes from a Greek word derived form "cosmos"... which means "order." This fact is highlighted by the fact that while the NASB translators still use the word "modest" in their translation, they actually translate a different word as "modest" than the one so translated by the KJV translators! This gives us an indication that the translation of this verse is NOT as sure as we might have assumed.

3. We have isolated verse 9 from its context... rather, it should be understood within the context of verse 8 (instructions to men) and verse 10 (more instructions to women about their role in the church). By neglecting the context, we have lifted the one verse out of context and used to to assert something that Paul did NOT mean.

I have put the results of my study into a "white paper" detailing exactly why and how I believe this verse has been misinterpreted. And I offer what I believe is a more accurate translation of the verse, based on what the words actually mean in the original language text.

Rightly Dividing 1 Tim. 2:9

Our need as Christians really is that we be as thoroughly and accurately biblical as we can be... and where our current mores and ideas prove to be unbiblical, we need to reject them.

I never want to be guilty of telling our culture that something is biblically true (like "modesty") when it actually is not.

The BEST thing we can tell our culture about "modesty" is to admit that we've been wrong about it for years.