Le Sabot Post-Moderne

The question of what is or isn't modesty has come up many times in my household. My mother-in-law lives with us and, being 70 some years young, has a very different viewpoint on what is modest that I or my wife (the purdiest girl in the whole universe) do. Yes, we are a generation and some change apart, and the culture of the 1940's is as alien to modern America as electricity in the Middle Ages.

If we use (fill in whatever cultural blank you please) as a guide to what is or isn't modest, what we'll have is endless and quite pointless debate. All disgusting, loathsome and pathetic higher criticism aside, from a Christian standpoint we need to view modesty from a biblical perspective. Agreed, the subject in scripture does use cultural language of the time to address the subject (as well as every other subject, Old or New testament) we can gleen the principles concerning modesty readily from His most holy Word.

It is concerning the brethren that the Word addresses modesty, and not to worldly standards. The principle is simple- avoid tempting a brother (or sister, for that matter) in lust. The gauge for this is also clear. 1. What tempts yourself will likely tempt someone else. 2. If a brother suggests or implies imodesty in dress, take it seriously.

Fit that into (fill in whatever cultural blank you please) daily living, and you should be okay.

Theognome

I've had conversations with high school girls about modesty and the truth of the matter is that the vast majority of them do not dress to impress us men. Rather, they dress because their girlfriends think this or that outfit is "cute." Now, I've never managed to elicit a clear definition of what constitutes a "cute" outfit, so I think one can assume that there are several definitions among peer groups and that it is a relative term, as is modesty.

Biblically speaking, there are all sorts of things that can govern a discussion of what constitutes modesty. We have Jesus's warnings against lust in the heart (Matthew 5:27). He doesn't implicate the object of lust as a guilty party. We also have the Pauline corpus of thought: his views concerning head coverings (or veils depending on who is exegeting the passage - 1 Cor. 11), his views concerning Christian liberty (Romans 14 and 1 Cor. 8), his admonitions to Timothy concerning women (1 Timothy 2:9), and a comment in 1 Corinthians 12:23. There's more probably, and I didn't even bother with the Old Testament.

My own view on the subject? I don't know. I sense a cultural tension. Call it the National Geographic/Maxim tension. There are pictures aplenty of nude African women in National Geographic. There aren't any nude pictures (at least, not full frontal nudity) in Maxim. Yet I can look at National Geographic academically, not Maxim. What's the deal here?

I don't know if you're looking for some Socratic-style Biblical definition of modesty (I hate Socrates' fetish for absolute precision anyway), but I can't give you one, and biblically-speaking, I don't think there is absolute precision with regards to modesty. I think less skin is better, but I'm not downright prudish either. Maybe Justice Blackmun's comment concerning pornography can be modified: I can't define immodesty, but I know it when I see.

I think I might have upped your search engine hits though. All that talk about "nude pictures."

Theognome's suggestions concerning what tempts you or a brother are good gauges. I've had conversations with my teenage daughter about how certain styles and fit draw attention to certain female "assets" in the male mind.

In the context of our culture, I think I can speak relatively confidently about what other males would be contemplating when glancing at my daughter wearing certain clothing styles and when that red flag goes up, I say "no".

Alex,

You also make some good points, but I would like to make an observation concerning 1 Cor. 11. The passage does sound purely cultural, however Paul's appeal is to creation, and not to culture. It seems that his point is not so much about modesty as it is about submission to/acknowledgment of authority, for both men and women.

Theognome

On a tangent. . . I do see in the Bible that it is important for men to dress like men and women to dress like women. One of the things I've appreciated here in Kyiv is how feminine women dress, for the most part. And sure, some of the clothes are a bit tighter, shorter, more revealing that I believe is modest. But it really stands out to me how women here, as a whole, do strive to look womanly. (It's a common sight to see mothers pushing their baby in a stroller, while wearing high heels. . .)

I share theognome's thought about headcoverings/modesty. Wherever you come down on that, I have always scratched my heads at people who thought it was about "modesty," as though hair, or the top of the head, was something improper to be seen. I've always thought it was about *appropriateness,* which is related to, but not identical to, modesty.

Anyhow, Disco, you're asking exactly the questions which I think need to be asked on this subject. I only wish I had more answers, other than gut reactions about how I want myself and my daughters to dress! (Interestingly, I somehow seem to have inculcated what I believe to be a modest attitude into my 12-year-old daughter -- the oldest -- without a lot of lecturing or explicit standards, maybe more by taking responsibility to form good taste than by a lot of emphasis on modesty.)

Um, I have only one head. Really.

Yeah, you had me scratching my heads, too. I am one cool frood, though, so I can do that.

We clearly must allow for a substantially part of modesty to be culturally relative, and nobody seems to object to that. I think this implicitly grants that modesty is related to sexual temptation, especially the degree to which exposed body parts cause sexual temptation, which can vary from culture to culture. Ankle skin might be a major stumbling block to a believer who is used to seeing blue burkas everywhere. On the other hand, believers much of the West (and sounds like the Ukraine) are called upon to develop character resources to resist lusting even in view of dangerously hip-hugging pants and low-cut tops.

Obviously, the development of and consistent reliance on these stalwart anti-lust character resources will be problematic in highly sexualized and relatively more skin-bearing cultures like ours. I am much more likely to lust after Shania showing her midriff than Shania totally covered in blue fabric, regardless of how used I am to resisting the temptation. Still, being used to seeing images of her and those like her, short-sleeved shirts are a complete temptation non-issue, all things being equal. Hence, the line of modesty moves.

I am clearly leaving out the factor that differentiates the totally nude Neolithic cultures from Britney Spears cultures. I have to get back to work now, so bonus points to whoever isolates it and describes it. (It’ll probably be Pentamom—just watch.)

How can I even attempt to follow that without sounding grandiose? ;-) But here's my shot: it's the "peek" factor. Brittney gives us a "peek;" the "neolithic" cultures just kinda walk around unselfconsciously "that way." Brittney is tacitly telling us that we're seeing things that we're not really "supposed to." Cultures that just plain aren't very into clothing aren't doing that "wink and nod" thing with what they expose.

Another stab: a lot of those let it all hang out cultures actually have really strict understandings of modesty that you Do Not Violate Without Consequences. They may seem to be Really Weird standards to us, and perhaps indeed they objectively are, but contrast that to the Brittney culture: there is no conception that modesty is a virtue at all, and no big consequence, at least with respect to those who've fully imbibed the culture, that is suffered by violating any standards that might be thought to exist.

So there you have a couple random thoughts that someone of the superior gifts of the Shaman or the Duchess might be able to synthesize into a coherent theory. :-)

Now my own tricky question: at what point do you move from a sensible cultural view of modesty that doesn't so strongly challenge the "character resources" of the members of society who seek to live virtuously, to the "it's your fault you slut" tabooism that beats women for letting their ankles peek out of their burqas? Of course I'm not suggesting that there isn't a line, or that there isn't a fair amount of space in between, but in the spirit of Tim's post -- what's the differentiating factor? Any answer that is primarily founded in "genuine modesty is a Christian virtue and the Taliban weren't regenerate" is immediately ruled out as missing the point -- what is the ACTUAL THING that "being regenerate" changes that affects this matter?

Last year our homeschooling curriculum had a book about a missionary couple who evangelized the Dani tribe in New Guinea. They (the members of the tribe) wore penis gourds and grass skirts. The book mentioned the modesty of the men and how they would hide in the bushes if the gourd came off while playing ball or something. If you Google for Dani tribe, you may come up with some pictures of what this attire looks like---my mental image was way off.

Later when Dani tribe members successfully evangelized another tribe that lived in an even warmer climate than theirs, one of the first things they did was to send them penis gourds so they would be able to dress with appropriate Christian modesty--in their steamy climate the other tribe customarily wore nothing at all.

Having nearly been sucked into the Cult of the Blue Denim Jumper when I first started homeschooling my children, this story had me laughing appreciatively.

I'm sorry I have nothing constructive to add!

Kathy

Sort of a tangent -- I think a lot of us could put up with BDJMism a lot better regardless of our disagreement with their particular standards if they didn't seem to make this particular virtue (i.e., their version of modesty) all out of proportion to other Christian virtues -- IOW if they weren't so "in your face" about modesty (which is of course a contradiction, and probably the source of discomfort for many of us.) ;-) How many times have I seen on the Net, where mothers relate, sometimes purely in embarrassed fashion, sometimes with what seemed to be a sort of hidden glee under an embarrassed veneer, stories of their kids loudly objecting to the appearance of strangers in public. Some of these folks are actually proud that their kids are "so well trained in modesty" that they are "bold" enough to be Really, Really Rude to People. Gluttony's a sin, too -- are they proud when their kids say, "Look at that fat lady?"

Here's my thoughts:

yes, I agree, the Ukrainian women DID look great.

I'll now go back to pretending to be spiritual.
PB

Hey, Theognome...is your real name Bill C., by any chance?

Bill Cunningham, to be exact.

Theognome

Ha! It's Mr. Toni!

Gee... I seem to be (in)famous.

Theognome

The "purdiest girl" bit was a dead giveaway. Good to see you, Bill! Perhaps you will remember Penta (Jane D) and me from the RYM days. :^)

Tim, I don't know what "one cool frood" is, but I'm sure you're at least two of them.

Valerie-

Frood is a term taken from the "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy." I've applied it to Tim a couple of times because of his insouciant Beebelbroxian froodiness.

Y'know, it's interesting what thinking in another language does to your English. Looking at the double H in 'hitchhiker', I'm struck by how weird it really looks...

Ah...it's been too long since I've indulged in Mr. Adams's genius!

Insouciant: what a great word for Tim.

"Blue Denim Jumper Mafia" - freakin' hilarious. :) I know them only too well.

All, right, let's just settle this right now.

If you wear a blue denim jumper, calf-length or longer, with either a fully buttoned blouse or a crew neck or higher shirt, you are modest. No need to trouble yourself about the issue anymore. It's all taken care of.

There's one potential sin scratched off the list! ;-)

As long as you don't accessorize it with any brightly patterned headscarves. =^O

(Sorry...inside joke with Penta!)

Love the phrase "Blue Denim Jumper Mafia." I saw one in the gas station this morning and felt compelled to hold the door for her, even though I'm not particularly like that with anyone else. She was very nice and said thank you, so I think that proves that people who wear *modest* clothing are just plain better people.

Curious question, are there any black women who join the BDJM? I live in a lilly white region, worse than Vermont, so I don't know if that's a white-quaker-culture thing or what?