Modest Dress for Women.

[MyChainsAreGone]

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)”

Mere Christianity
Book 3, Chapter 5

So, @Jermayn , I haven't answered your repeated question about a woman going to church with exposed breasts, but it does seem that CS Lewis has an answer for you.

Lewis says that a woman from the Pacific Islands (wearing hardly any clothes) could be "equally modest" as a Victorian woman who is "completely covered."

So if such a woman in that culture attended a church in that culture, she could be there and completely modest, proper, and decent... even though she's wearing almost no clothes.

Surely no one would tell a woman that she can't attend church if her attire is modest, proper, and decent (Lewis' words) according to the standard of the society where that church is.

CS Lewis would say that in that context, YES, a woman could attend church topless.

Do you disagree with CS Lewis?

If so, how is his logic flawed?

 

[MyChainsAreGone]

Tell you what, Jermayn.

You answer the questions that I posed to you here, then I will answer the question that you posed to me.

I was assuming what your answers would be, but would you please confirm that I got them right.

Then please address the last question.

Thanks.

Still waiting, @Jermayn

 

[Fervent]

Never wrestle in the mud with a pig. Everyone gets dirty…..and the pig loves it.

There's that, and "never argue with a fool...they'll just drag you down to their level and beat you with experience."

 

[MyChainsAreGone]

Koine Greek: ἀσέλγεια (aselgeia). This word is often translated into English as "sensuality," "licentiousness," or "lasciviousness." It refers to a lack of self-control, indulgence in sexual excess, or unrestrained immoral behavior.

English: "Sensuality" generally refers to the enjoyment, expression, or pursuit of physical, especially sexual, pleasure. It is often associated with a heightened sensitivity to sensual or aesthetic pleasure, which includes not just sexual activities but also enjoyment derived from the senses, such as touch, taste, smell, sight, and hearing.

FINALLY!!

A DIRECT ANSWER TO A QUESTION!!

Thanks. Now I can answer.

I hope that you can tell that you have two different (though partially related) definitions... which is fine... but it means that there are two answers.

According to the meaning of the Greek word, I think we can summarize it as "sexual impurity" and by extension, the active pursuit of sexual impurity.

So the question you asked can be restated as "Why does God hate sexual impurity?" Fair enough?

Let me start by saying that I am not going to contest the assumption imbedded in the question that God does indeed "hate" sexual impurity, although I would probably phrase it differently. However, the answer requires some thoughtful consideration.

To start with, we should acknowledge that God has no qualms about "sexual impurity" when it comes to the animal kingdom. In many species, the strongest males happily copulate with as many females as they can.

So that begs the question, "why does God even care about sexual impurity in humans?"

The answer is found in Genesis 1-2... where God made mankind in His image.

Our image-bearing is a multifaceted reality, a remarkable fact is that it does include our bodies! But more than that, it also includes our sexual expression. Let me explain...

Good is a plurality expressed as a unity. The Trinity.

When God made the woman and presented her to Adam, He established marriage and declared that "the two will become one flesh.

God's intent is that husband and wife join together sexually--a plurality expressed as a unity--as part of the drama of image-bearing.

And that explains why God is against sexual impurity in humans... because it distorts the picture of Himself that He designed sexual union to portray.

---------

Regarding the English meaning of the word "sensuality," I think we can summarize it as "delighting in the world as experienced through the senses."

As defined, God does NOT hate "sensuality"... In fact He loves it when we utilize our senses to experience and enjoy this amazing world He has given us!

Provided, of course, that it does not venture into the realm of "sexual impurity," God even delights in our sensual enjoyment of sexual union within marriage!

Ok.

Now that I've answered your question about why "God hates sensuality," you need to answer my question about which female body parts are offensive to God and therefore sinful to leave uncovered.

 

[Jermayn]

Surely no one would tell a woman that she can't attend church if her attire is modest, proper, and decent (Lewis' words) according to the standard of the society where that church is.

CS Lewis would say that in that context, YES, a woman could attend church topless.

Do you disagree with CS Lewis?

If so, how is his logic flawed?

What did Adam and Eve realize immediately after they ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil? What did God do for them afterwards? In short, no, I do not agree with C.S. Lewis, at least on this topic. Christian culture and secular culture have very little overlap, however, of that little overlap, western secular and Christian culture tend to agree that modest clothing for women would be covered shoulders, breasts, mid-rift, and genitalia, with shorts coming to the knees or slightly above. Also, clothing that's not so tight it's essentially a second layer of skin. Some are a little more liberal, and some are a little more conservative, but I think that's a safe middle-ground definition of what western culture deems as modest.

So the question you asked can be restated as "Why does God hate sexual impurity?" Fair enough?

No... The Koine Greek was translated to "sensuality". Sensuality may encompass sexual impurity, but there's more to the word than this one concept. Otherwise the translation would have been to "sexual impurity".

As defined, God does NOT hate "sensuality"

Well, it's listed right there in things that will keep you OUT of his kingdom... I'll agree with you that God want's us to enjoy creation within the bounds of his commands, however, it is obvious that sensuality, in a biblical context, is referring to the overindulgence of said enjoyment.

Galatians 5:19-21: "Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God."

Your claim was that these passages linked clothing to sensuality. Your claim here that clothing CAN be a sexual/sensual expression... that's true enough...

You've agreed that it is possible to express sexuality, and even sensuality, by the clothing you choose to wear.

Now that I've answered your question about why "God hates sensuality," you need to answer my question about which female body parts are offensive to God and therefore sinful to leave uncovered.

Lol. Talk about straw men. You know I'm going to say God is not offended by the body he created, and I know you are going to use that to claim that no one else should be offended by it either. I never asked what God thought of our naked bodies though, so...yeah. I'm glad you brought this up though, because it plays into the next question I have for you.

Let's pull all this information together.

a. Sensuality is a sin in the biblical sense of the word.
b. The clothes you wear can express sensuality/be sensual.
c. God is not offended by the human body.
d. God is not tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone "James 1:13".

Put into one logical statement:

While sensuality, as expressed through clothing or other means, is considered sinful in a biblical context, this does not imply that God is offended by the human body itself.

Now for my next question to you. If God is not offended by the human body itself, why would sensuality, which can include our manner of dress, be included in a list of things that will keep you from entering God's kingdom, as well as be spoken against in several other verses?

 

[Jermayn]

Never wrestle in the mud with a pig. Everyone gets dirty…..and the pig loves it.

Exactly, which is why I ignore most of your posts.

 

[MForbes]

What did Adam and Eve realize immediately after they ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil? What did God do for them afterwards? In short, no, I do not agree with C.S. Lewis, at least on this topic. Christian culture and secular culture have very little overlap, however, of that little overlap, western secular and Christian culture tend to agree that modest clothing for women would be covered shoulders, breasts, mid-rift, and genitalia, with shorts coming to the knees or slightly above. Also, clothing that's not so tight it's essentially a second layer of skin. Some are a little more liberal, and some are a little more conservative, but I think that's a safe middle-ground definition of what western culture deems as modest.


No... The Koine Greek was translated to "sensuality". Sensuality may encompass sexual impurity, but there's more to the word than this one concept. Otherwise the translation would have been to "sexual impurity".


Well, it's listed right there in things that will keep you OUT of his kingdom... I'll agree with you that God want's us to enjoy creation within the bounds of his commands, however, it is obvious that sensuality, in a biblical context, is referring to the overindulgence of said enjoyment.

Galatians 5:19-21: "Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God."


You've agreed that it is possible to express sexuality, and even sensuality, by the clothing you choose to wear.


Lol. Talk about straw men. You know I'm going to say God is not offended by the body he created, and I know you are going to use that to claim that no one else should be offended by it either. I never asked what God thought of our naked bodies though, so...yeah. I'm glad you brought this up though, because it plays into the next question I have for you.

Let's pull all this information together.

a. Sensuality is a sin in the biblical sense of the word.
b. The clothes you wear can express sensuality/be sensual.
c. God is not offended by the human body.
d. God is not tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone "James 1:13".

Put into one logical statement:

While sensuality, as expressed through clothing or other means, is considered sinful in a biblical context, this does not imply that God is offended by the human body itself.

Now for my next question to you. If God is not offended by the human body itself, why is sensuality, which can include our manner of dress, be included in a list of things that will keep you from entering God's kingdom, as well as be spoken against in several other verses?

 

[MyChainsAreGone]

What did Adam and Eve realize immediately after they ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil? What did God do for them afterwards? In short, no, I do not agree with C.S. Lewis, at least on this topic.

OK... you mention Adam and Eve. You reference them as if what they did after they sinned was worthy of our emulation... cover our bodies.

But I submit to you that covering their bodies was not the only thing recorded in God's Word that they did after the fall. Here's a list:

1. The covered their bodies (actually, just their genitals, if we understand the Hebrew terms correctly)
2. They hid from God when He approached the Garden
3. When confronted about their sin, they deflected blame rather than confess and repent.

So... would you say that we should emulate points 2 & 3 as well as point 1? Why? Seems to me that once they had sinned, they didn't do anything right...

Furthermore, while the text in Gen. 3:7 does seem to indicate that they just "figured out" that they were naked, the question from God 4 verses later actually indicates a different mechanism for them learning of their nakedness... "Who told you that you were naked?" God, in his omniscience, asked a question which assumes personal ("who") agency ('told you") as the way they learned of their nakedness. That query by God points to the fact that Satan was the one who "told" them. And if that's true, it means that their concern about their nakedness was a demonic doctrine, not some sort of "special knowledge" of a higher issue (nakedness becoming sinful at that moment).

To God, it seems, their concern over their nakedness was a sure sign that they had disobeyed with reference to the Forbidden Tree.

Christian culture and secular culture have very little overlap, however, of that little overlap, western secular and Christian culture tend to agree that modest clothing for women would be covered shoulders, breasts, mid-rift, and genitalia, with shorts coming to the knees or slightly above. Also, clothing that's not so tight it's essentially a second layer of skin. Some are a little more liberal, and some are a little more conservative, but I think that's a safe middle-ground definition of what western culture deems as modest.

So... your standard for what should be covered is NOT found in the bible, but in "Western and Christian Culture"???

I'm glad to see you acknowledging that your moral standard is not actually from the Bible.

No... The Koine Greek was translated to "sensuality". Sensuality may encompass sexual impurity, but there's more to the word than this one concept. Otherwise the translation would have been to "sexual impurity".

OK... just use the word "Sensuality" if you prefer. But just know that when the Bible uses that word, it's NOT talking about simple enjoyment of the sunshine and wind on my face. That IS "sensual" in the English sense of the word.

Well, it's listed right there in things that will keep you OUT of his kingdom... I'll agree with you that God want's us to enjoy creation within the bounds of his commands, however, it is obvious that sensuality, in a biblical context, is referring to the overindulgence of said enjoyment.

Galatians 5:19-21: "Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God."

Absolutely.

You've agreed that it is possible to express sexuality, and even sensuality, by the clothing you choose to wear.

Possible, yes, but not synonymous. It's possible with food and sport, too. It is not the clothing or the food or the sport that determine if it is "sensuality" as defined by the Bible. It's all about the attitude and the intent... NOT the style or even the presence of clothing.

You claimed that the Bible LINKS sensuality to clothing... it does not. Can we apply the teaching of "sensuality" in the evaluation of clothing choices? Of course! We must! BUT... the clothing itself is not the point of evaluation, rather it's the heart and intent!

We must apply the evaluation to ALL aspects of life... even if not "linked." But that by itself is not a "link."

Lol. Talk about straw men. You know I'm going to say God is not offended by the body he created, and I know you are going to use that to claim that no one else should be offended by it either. I never asked what God thought of our naked bodies though, so...yeah. I'm glad you brought this up though, because it plays into the next question I have for you.

You still don't understand what a straw man is... I did NOT attempt to summarize what you believe so that I could then "shoot it down." I made no attempt to represent what you believe. I simply asked you direct questions so that you could clarify what you believe so that I CAN respond to what you actually say and believe.

So, you can represent exactly what you believe.

I'm SO glad that you are willing to admit that God is not offended by the human form that He created!

And I'm SO glad that you instinctively know that if God is not offended by it, that we shouldn't be offended by it either!! YOU are actually making my points for me here!!! Thanks!

So.... why ARE you offended by the human body???

Let's pull all this information together.

a. Sensuality is a sin in the biblical sense of the word.
b. The clothes you wear can express sensuality/be sensual.
c. God is not offended by the human body.
d. God is not tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone "James 1:13".

Put into one logical statement:

While sensuality, as expressed through clothing or other means, is considered sinful in a biblical context, this does not imply that God is offended by the human body itself.

Wow! I actually agree!!!

Now for my next question to you. If God is not offended by the human body itself, why would sensuality, which can include our manner of dress, be included in a list of things that will keep you from entering God's kingdom, as well as be spoken against in several other verses?

Easy. Because sexual purity is important to God because our "one flesh" union as husband and wife are designed by God to be a part of our bearing His Image... we are a Plurality expressed as a Unity... just as He is.

When we mess that up, we distort the image.

 

[Jermayn]

But I submit to you that covering their bodies was not the only thing recorded in God's Word that they did after the fall. Here's a list:

1. The covered their bodies (actually, just their genitals, if we understand the Hebrew terms correctly)
2. They hid from God when He approached the Garden
3. When confronted about their sin, they deflected blame rather than confess and repent.

This is a false dilemma. Action 1 has nothing in common with action 2 or 3, nor am I required to emulate every action of a person just because I emulate one. They realized something was wrong, namely that they were naked, and attempted to correct it by covering themselves with fig leaves. God validated that action by giving them animal skin to cover themselves. Actions 2 and 3 were Adam and Eve continuing to sin, which they were punished for. So, to recap, action 1, not a sin. Action 2 and 3, sin.

Furthermore, while the text in Gen. 3:7 does seem to indicate that they just "figured out" that they were naked, the question from God 4 verses later actually indicates a different mechanism for them learning of their nakedness... "Who told you that you were naked?" God, in his omniscience, asked a question which assumes personal ("who") agency ('told you") as the way they learned of their nakedness. That query by God points to the fact that Satan was the one who "told" them. And if that's true, it means that their concern about their nakedness was a demonic doctrine, not some sort of "special knowledge" of a higher issue (nakedness becoming sinful at that moment).

To God, it seems, their concern over their nakedness was a sure sign that they had disobeyed with reference to the Forbidden Tree.

This is just wrong. Immediately after God asked "Who told you that you were naked", he asked if they'd eaten from the tree. You also have Genesis 3:6-7: So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate. Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves coverings.
No where is it implied that the serpent TOLD them anything about being naked. They ate from the tree, their eyes were opened, they realized they were naked, and they tried to cover themselves. It can't be any clearer that the opening of their eyes was the effect of eating the fruit from the tree.

Another good question for you regarding this story. So, Adam and Eve was punished for eating from the tree, right? They sinned and God held them accountable for disobeying his command. Isn't it interesting that someone else who DID NOT eat from the tree was punished here? In fact, the serpent was punished even BEFORE the main offenders in the story. But God never gave any commands to the serpent, right? Wonder why he got punished so harshly? It's almost like it was because he caused Eve to stumble... you know... like if someone put a block in your path and you stumbled over it.

Easy. Because sexual purity is important to God because our "one flesh" union as husband and wife are designed by God to be a part of our bearing His Image... we are a Plurality expressed as a Unity... just as He is.

When we mess that up, we distort the image.

But we've already agreed that sensuality encompasses more than the physical act of sex. So why would God be against dressing sensually, eating sensually, etc. in the BIBLICAL context, which means with intentions outside the bounds of what he intended? Hint: The answer is hidden in the post.

 

[Roderick Spode]

I think it should be left to each individual as to what is appropriate attire. What someone wears is something that a believer can seek wisdom from the Holy Spirit, or feel a conviction about. If a non-believer comes to church, I don't think it would be a good idea to have them removed due to a strict dress code.

 

[MyChainsAreGone]

I think it should be left to each individual as to what is appropriate attire. What someone wears is something that a believer can seek wisdom from the Holy Spirit, or feel a conviction about. If a non-believer comes to church, I don't think it would be a good idea to have them removed due to a strict dress code.

Right, Roderick.

The problem is that there are many Christians who claim that there is some sort of biblical standard of appropriateness, and that they have the obligation to declare what should be right for all people and all contexts.

It is a huge but very common error that people will presume to speak for God and declare moral absolutes that he has not articulated in the inspired text of the scriptures.

That's really what this thread has been about, and quite frankly, a pretty egregious example of this error.

 

[Jermayn]

I think it should be left to each individual as to what is appropriate attire. What someone wears is something that a believer can seek wisdom from the Holy Spirit, or feel a conviction about. If a non-believer comes to church, I don't think it would be a good idea to have them removed due to a strict dress code.

So, are you arguing for no standards regarding dress as well?

 

[Roderick Spode]

So, are you arguing for no standards regarding dress as well?

No. For instance, is someone wasn't wearing any shirt, that might not be appropriate. But rather than turn that person away, the answer to the problem might be to get an extra shirt somewhere for them to wear. If the church has a drama dept., there may be a shirt there. Or, a church member may have one in their car.

There are certain establishments that have strict dress codes. The requirement to wear a shirt and tie for a classy restaurant may be a means to keep riff raffs out. They operate in the negative by reducing their clientele to desirable customers, which would give their restaurant a good reputation.

A church would generally operate in the positive trying to include everyone, not being concerned with reputation per se. So the idea would be to remove any obstacle if there genuinely was one concerning clothing, to make sure that person can enter their church service. Someone wants to come, but doesn't have a shirt. The welcoming ministry apologizes that they have to meet some certain public dress code, making it clear that they do however want them there, and will make sure they can get a shirt somewhere for them to wear.

The key factor being; "we want you here", vs "we don't want you here".

 

[Jermayn]

No. For instance, is someone wasn't wearing any shirt, that might not be appropriate. But rather than turn that person away, the answer to the problem might be to get an extra shirt somewhere for them to wear.

Completely agree here, however, what would your response be to this person is they said, "Nah, I'm good"?

There are certain establishments that have strict dress codes. The requirement to wear a shirt and tie for a classy restaurant may be a means to keep riff raffs out. They operate in the negative by reducing their clientele to desirable customers, which would give their restaurant a good reputation.

I think I'm in agreement with you here as well. I definitely wouldn't support a dress code requiring expensive clothing that many couldn't afford.

A church would generally operate in the positive trying to include everyone, not being concerned with reputation per se. So the idea would be to remove any obstacle if there genuinely was one concerning clothing, to make sure that person can enter their church service. Someone wants to come, but doesn't have a shirt. The welcoming ministry apologizes that they have to meet some certain public dress code, making it clear that they do however want them there, and will make sure they can get a shirt somewhere for them to wear.

The key factor being; "we want you here", vs "we don't want you here".

I certainly agree that if someone is unable to afford a shirt that one should be offered from the church. My question here is the same as the first. What do you do when this person says "No, thanks."

 

[Roderick Spode]

Completely agree here, however, what would your response be to this person is they said, "Nah, I'm good"?


I think I'm in agreement with you here as well. I definitely wouldn't support a dress code requiring expensive clothing that many couldn't afford.


I certainly agree that if someone is unable to afford a shirt that one should be offered from the church. My question here is the same as the first. What do you do when this person says "No, thanks."

I think if someone wouldn't agree to wear a shirt if one were given to them, then it would be an indication they weren't really interested in attending. So, yes, I would draw the line there. Churches obviously have rules to abide by. If someone has a record of disrupting church services, their motivation for going is to cause grief. Someone who wouldn't accept an offer that would allow them access, making it clear how welcome they are, probably doesn't want to be there unless maybe they can be a disruption. Or their apparent disinterest is enough to let them go.

Imagine if someone really wanted to go to some big gala event as a spectator, and could pay at the door to get in. The person at the ticket counter tells the man that he needs to wear a tie to get in. And then tells him they have a tie they can give or lend him because they really want him there. The man would have to be out of his mind to say "Nah, I'm good", given that it's an event he genuinely wanted to attend.

 

[Paidiske]

If I turned up to church somewhere, and they refused to let me in the door unless I accepted some arbitrary article of clothing because they decided my own was inadequate, I would take that as a massive red flag, turn right around, and leave. No matter how much I had genuinely wanted to attend, that would squash that desire right there. Because no matter how nicely you try to do it, that offer comes with a load of judgement and shame.

 

[Roderick Spode]

If I turned up to church somewhere, and they refused to let me in the door unless I accepted some arbitrary article of clothing because they decided my own was inadequate, I would take that as a massive red flag, turn right around, and leave. No matter how much I had genuinely wanted to attend, that would squash that desire right there. Because no matter how nicely you try to do it, that offer comes with a load of judgement and shame.

I might too if there was a suggestion of poor taste in clothing.

Jeeves disapproves.

 

[Jermayn]

If I turned up to church somewhere, and they refused to let me in the door unless I accepted some arbitrary article of clothing because they decided my own was inadequate, I would take that as a massive red flag, turn right around, and leave. No matter how much I had genuinely wanted to attend, that would squash that desire right there. Because no matter how nicely you try to do it, that offer comes with a load of judgement and shame.

If a professing Christian shows up to a church service willfully half naked, they deserve a load of judgment and shame.

 

[Paidiske]

...they deserve a load of judgment and shame.

As I understand it, this is not how we are to treat one another. You cannot love your neighbour while judging and shaming them; those are tactics of control, not love.

 

[seeker2122]

This is a great question and one I've struggled with. On the one hand, it is wonderful to have such a diversity of fashions, clothing, that express oneself and even shows off the beauty of a man/woman (same goes with cosmetics and beauty products). But on the other hand, taken too far (whatever that line is) and in inappropriate contexts (whatever that also can mean), is also troubling. I always frown when I see scantily dressed women and then get upset that men are gawking at her. I mean, if you are showing cleavage but don't expect a man to look there...how does this make much sense? The blame should be on BOTH of them. The woman should not show off her breasts like that and the man should not be gawking or peeping at them. I don't agree with the defense that women say, "just look away or ignore it".

It's the same argument with TV. If something controversial is on TV, some don't like it on TV and think it's inappropriate but others will say, then don't watch it and change the channel. 50/50 both sides have a point.

But I definitely side more with not putting it out there and then putting it out there and then telling people to just ignore if they don't like it. It's still out there!

Example: if you have a KKK program on live TV or radical muslim program out there spewing hate for Jews, you can't just say, "well if you don't like it, ignore it and change the channel." That's not a defense. Likewise, if women are half naked walking around our streets and blaming men for not being able to control themselves from looking and say, "just ignore it and look elsewhere", that is not a good enough solution.

I don't like men walking around topless either. Just because they have nice muscles or a nice body, I also would not want men to walk around showing off their body parts. Men should also dress modestly.

When it comes to going to a beach or a public swimming pool..... I honestly don't know now....it's just such a fine line. It's not like we can tell people to cover up at the beaches and pools? I guess in that context one has to have self-control and try not to look if you are prone to lust and sexual thoughts. What a tough question! I can appreciate the muslim societies sometimes when they cover up....it does help a lot !