Appropriate Apparel

Status
Not open for further replies.
Moderating: I suggest leaving the Lord’s crucifixion out of a discussion on clothing modesty. And to focus instead on discussing the OP’s question as he asked it.
Understood! While I think good argumentation makes use of examples in the extreme to test the viability of an idea, I also respect the concern for respecting the central event of our faith-I only chose the crucifixion (not from sputton) but to provide such an extreme case that makes profoundly clear that modesty is something other than a rigid formulation of attire.
 
But Jesus did define modesty; that is, by not going publicly naked until he was forcibly made to do so in his crucifixion. Matt. 5:40 may also possibly shed some light on what would have been accepted, at the least, common modesty in the days of Jesus.
Do you agree that Jesus was never immodest?
Ok, so nakedness is allowed if you're in the middle of getting crucified. I can agree with that.

@Redeemed Ronin made a truly excellent post above which is worth revisiting. But if I'm reading him correctly, aiming at the heart doesn't eliminate objective rules. Going naked in public is bad... Unless you happen to be on the receiving end of a crucifixion, in which case it's just fine.
Who is arguing for public nudity? Only, that modesty is a thing, at its core, relevant to context and heart.
 
I’ve heard it said that nakedness, biblically speaking, isn’t simply just being stripped completely of clothing; that men being shirtless, and that women exposing their upper arms and thighs is also considered being naked. Also, that modesty would mean that appropriate apparel is anything that covers the upper arms and thighs.
To put it simply, I’ve heard it said that the tunic which was what God made for Adam and Eve and thus set forth the principle of modest apparel for men and women regardless of their religious affiliation and/or culture. The tunic, or coat, was clothing that basically covered the upper arms and extended to the knee.

There are at least few difficulties that make this interpretation/application questionable:

1. This view takes just one passage, a historical one in Genesis 3, and turns it into rule-setting for modesty guidelines. If God had wanted us to learn from this passage exactly what parts of the body should be covered, and to what hem length, arm length, etc., we might expect to see some evidence of the importance of such details in the passage. But it isn't there. Yes, modesty is a theme in the passage, but it's wrong to take one instance of what God did one time and turn it into a hard-and-fast law for all situations.

2. If God wanted those arm lengths and hem lines to be a rule, he could have stated it that way somewhere. The Bible has many places where God makes it clear he is giving rules. But I can't think of anywhere the Bible says, "These are God's modest-clothing guidelines." All we have are scattered incidents that give us hints about modesty standards of the time (like the garments of David's envoys that were cut off at mini-skirt length in 2 Samuel 10:4, resulting in humiliation). If we gather these incidents and create from them a modesty checklist that otherwise does not exist, we end up making laws where God has not given laws. I suspect the obsession with precise modesty rules is ours, not God's.

3. The view you describe depends on a single, precise definition of kuttonet ("tunic" or "garment"). This immediately makes the argument suspect, because very few words in any language have a single meaning. Although it's possible kuttonet specified an exact amount of coverage in the minds of the original audience, it seems more likely there would be some variations, especially since 2 Samuel 13:18 suggests a kuttonet might vary in sleeve length. So, where do those who insist the garment provided coverage to a specific length get their information?

4. If the use of the particular word kuttonet in Genesis 3 is meant to point us to anything, it might make more sense to explore its connection to priestly garments, since that is how the word is used most often in the Bible. Did God make a priestly covering for Adam and Eve, and what does that mean? Probably, that's a more edifying question than, "Should a woman be wearing short sleeves in church?"
 
Isaiah 20:2 (ESV) - at that time the Lord spoke by Isaiah the son of Amoz, saying, “Go, and loose the sackcloth from your waist and take off your sandals from your feet,” and he did so, walking naked and barefoot.

This action was to predict the shameful treatment of Israel when they were taken into captivity. Why say 'and barefoot' if he didn't have a stitch on?

The Lord continues:

Isaiah 20: 3-6 (ESV)

3 Then the Lord said, “As my servant Isaiah has walked naked and barefoot for three years as a sign and a portent against Egypt and Cush,[a] 4 so shall the king of Assyria lead away the Egyptian captives and the Cushite exiles, both the young and the old, naked and barefoot, with buttocks uncovered, the nakedness of Egypt. 5 Then they shall be dismayed and ashamed because of Cush their hope and of Egypt their boast. 6 And the inhabitants of this coastland will say in that day, ‘Behold, this is what has happened to those in whom we hoped and to whom we fled for help to be delivered from the king of Assyria! And we, how shall we escape?’”

Why specify the uncovering the buttocks if they are completely naked? It is obvious that this is a shaming.
It is a public shame to have parts of your body that are supposed to be covered, uncovered.
 
Isaiah 20:2 (ESV) - at that time the Lord spoke by Isaiah the son of Amoz, saying, “Go, and loose the sackcloth from your waist and take off your sandals from your feet,” and he did so, walking naked and barefoot.
Surely shame is connected to nudity, but is immodesty? Not strictly. That's my entire contention, what I rest my case on. The point is that modesty is contextual to place, time, person, heart, culture, building, event, etc. Sex is not shameful.
 
Surely shame is connected to nudity, but is immodesty? Not strictly. That's my entire contention, what I rest my case on. The point is that modesty is contextual to place, time, person, heart, culture, building, event, etc. Sex is not shameful.
Amid the flood of detractors, I have to chime in and say that I agree with you. "What is modesty" seems to change with the eye of the beholder, and is nearly impossible to pin down objectively. I've seen a person covered neck to ankle be more immodest than one swimming at the beach with typically minimal (yet culturally acceptable for the time/place/activity) apparel. Modest behavior is possible with nearly any state of dress worn in the proper context, and viewed with charity rather than judgment.
That vulgar, scanty or excessive or innapropriate apparel is an easy way to broadcast immodesty does not as firmly link modesty to dress alone as some might wish who want a solid rule for length of hem or percentage of skin covered.
 
Amid the flood of detractors, I have to chime in and say that I agree with you. "What is modesty" seems to change with the eye of the beholder, and is nearly impossible to pin down objectively. I've seen a person covered neck to ankle be more immodest than one swimming at the beach with typically minimal (yet culturally acceptable for the time/place/activity) apparel. Modest behavior is possible with nearly any state of dress worn in the proper context, and viewed with charity rather than judgment.
That vulgar, scanty or excessive or innapropriate apparel is an easy way to broadcast immodesty does not as firmly link modesty to dress alone as some might wish who want a solid rule for length of hem or percentage of skin covered.
I don't think a single person here has said that modesty is linked to dress alone. Maybe I have missed something. What I see myself and others saying is that, while dressing modestly does not guarantee modesty, there are some things that are inherently inappropriate - such as public nudity. Also, in our society, what passes for culturally acceptable has no connection whatsoever with modesty. Our culture is shamelessly immodest and proud of it.
 
Up to a point. Nudity, or near nudity, is never appropriate in public. That much is not contextual at all.

Technically, that isn't the case. It is contextual, even though you say "it is never appropriate in public." You could imagine a scenario where it is necessary to go nude in public, for instance, if your clothing is doused in flame and you need to rip it off of yourself to survive. But now I'm just being pedantic.

But the technicality aside, I largely don't disagree with you, dear brother. I just think it. . I don't know, the argument of banning the flesh of a tricep, bicep, shoulder. . .I think it something, because the Biblical warrant is so very, very thin, thinner than, like, the spaghetti strap tank-tops my mother and sister might wear gardening on a July day, or something. Let 'em fly, those shoulders. So, anyway, OP. Hope this foray has been helpful. Ok time to sleep.
 
Technically, that isn't the case. It is contextual, even though you say "it is never appropriate in public." You could imagine a scenario where it is necessary to go nude in public, for instance, if your clothing is doused in flame and you need to rip it off of yourself to survive. But now I'm just being pedantic.

But the technicality aside, I largely don't disagree with you, dear brother. I just think it. . I don't know, the argument of banning the flesh of a tricep, bicep, shoulder. . .I think it something, because the Biblical warrant is so very, very thin, thinner than, like, the spaghetti strap tank-tops my mother and sister might wear gardening on a July day, or something. Let 'em fly, those shoulders. So, anyway, OP. Hope this foray has been helpful. Ok time to sleep.
Yes, I think we have a fair bit of common ground here. If I spelled out every qualification and nuance, I would either never post on here, or my posts would be interminably long and I would be unemployed and probably homeless.

I am with you that we can find scenarios where it is necessary to be temporarily naked in public. In the scenario you envisioned, I imagine there would be an immediate reflex reaction to cover up one's private areas, and there would be a rush for the nearest person with a spare garment to provide some coverage. So I think actually this example strengthens the idea that there is something untoward and unseemly in public nudity. Nobody is accusing that person of sin for choosing not to be incinerated... yet, if that person went walking down the street and was stopped by a police officer, would the police officer let him go after hearing what happened? No - the police officer would chastise him for not taking the first available opportunity to get some clothes on.

And you would be right to point out that the word "public" itself is subject to qualification. Locker rooms, communal showers, dorm showers, etc. - these are not exactly private settings, and yet there is (or should be) an unspoken understanding that what might be seen in there is not appropriately seen elsewhere. Hopefully there's also some sense of decorum in such a setting as well, so that people aren't ogling or focusing on the exposure.

Now on the question of going beyond what Scripture prescribes in terms of modesty, I agree with you that we shouldn't do that. Where I took issue with you is the way in which you did that (particularly with the example forbidden by the mods, which I found to be almost offensively irreverent), and it seems that you are trying to make modesty almost totally subjective. Perhaps I am reading you wrong. I do think we shouldn't go beyond Scripture, but I do think that 1) there are certain objective standards of modesty; 2) in each situation we may need to come up with "solutions" or "rules" that go beyond Scripture because we have to figure out how to apply it; 3) that while a lifestyle of modesty may have some objective standards, as a matter of the heart it is MORE than those standards, but not less.

In my own house, I have 3 daughters, and so the question has come up of what modesty looks like. As a result, we have rules that are not found in Scripture. But they are binding household rules, nonetheless, because I see them as the best way to apply biblical wisdom in this day and age. I do think we live in a shamelessly immodest society, and even most Christians are guilty of this. If my daughters ask, or if they express envy of the wardrobes around them, I will advise them that I consider much of the attire at our own church to be sub-optimal, and that while we should not make an issue or cause contention with those people, I would like for them to hold to a certain standard of modesty, and here is why. Am I going beyond Scripture? Yes in the sense that our household rules are not Scripturally mandated. No, in the sense that I am using Biblical wisdom in an effort to lead my house (in the role Biblically given to me) to the best of my ability. And these things will come up. At some point, we have to field questions: is this modest? is that modest? Why or why not? The end result is that we have a set of rules, and frequent reminders not just to dress modestly but to carry ourselves modestly in word and deed, with frequent prayers that by God's grace these truths will take root in the hearts of our children.

As @Redeemed Ronin said, so much of what happens today is simply autonomy seeking to defend itself. I agree that modesty is a heart matter and can't be reduced to mere rules - and if more people had a heartfelt desire for modesty, I think you would see near-universal observance of certain "rules" among such people.
 
I don't think a single person here has said that modesty is linked to dress alone. Maybe I have missed something. What I see myself and others saying is that, while dressing modestly does not guarantee modesty, there are some things that are inherently inappropriate - such as public nudity. Also, in our society, what passes for culturally acceptable has no connection whatsoever with modesty. Our culture is shamelessly immodest and proud of it.
Thanks for clarifying.
What I'm saying is that "inherently inappropriate" is a hard thing to pin down. We all judge what's inappropriate by the lens of our own upbringing, culture, and prejudices, and all must admit that we may be way off base.
Also, there seems to be a confusion about the term "naked." If "naked" can mean "fully covered" as the booklet Pastor Silva linked to claims, then either our language or our translation have a problem. And if a woman wearing shorts and a tank top can thus considered naked and censured for it, we may as well just become fundamentalists and make up other arbitrary rules to establish our own righteousness by.
 
Thanks for clarifying.
What I'm saying is that "inherently inappropriate" is a hard thing to pin down. We all judge what's inappropriate by the lens of our own upbringing, culture, and prejudices, and all must admit that we may be way off base.
Also, there seems to be a confusion about the term "naked." If "naked" can mean "fully covered" as the booklet Pastor Silva linked to claims, then either our language or our translation have a problem. And if a woman wearing shorts and a tank top can thus considered naked and censured for it, we may as well just become fundamentalists and make up other arbitrary rules to establish our own righteousness by.
I agree that it can be hard (and imprudent) to try to exhaustively pin down what is "inherently inappropriate". What I'm arguing against - and maybe nobody is saying this, but it has seemed that some of the comments in this thread push in that direction - is the notion that there is no such thing as "inherently inappropriate". I do think that Scripture lays down some basic guidelines for modesty. Nakedness without shame was the norm pre-fall; but Scripture indicates that this is no longer so. Adam and Eve instinctively covered themselves up, and God did later. We have NT commands for modest apparel.

Based on that, I think it's safe to say, as what I would consider to be an unquestionable baseline, that aboriginal cultures where clothing is scant or absent are not following Biblical guidelines for modesty. Nudist colonies are also not following Biblical guidelines for modesty.

Where I suspect I would run into more disagreement would be in asserting that contemporary American society is, as a whole, flagrantly and wilfully immodest. Much of what is "acceptable" today ought not to be so - but in a culture that is sliding back toward pagan practices in every way, I'm not really surprised that we would dress like pagans for the ride. I don't think that makes me a fundamentalist, but perhaps you do.
 
@Ploutos
I'm not charging you with being fundamentalist. That comment was directed at the notion that a minimum level of coverage can be reasonably established, which is what the OP was asking about to begin with.
One thing I fear a lot more than the licentiousness of our times (I agree with you there, that immodesty is celebrated by our, and historcally many, cultures), is the neverending crackdown on what someone else deems "immodest," which we see playing out with the Taliban even now.
The freedom of people to choose how they dress and behave, knowing that each stands of falls to his/her own master, is better (in my opinion), than the bondage imposed on women and on society by cultures like the Taliban.
 
@Ploutos
I'm not charging you with being fundamentalist. That comment was directed at the notion that a minimum level of coverage can be reasonably established, which is what the OP was asking about to begin with.
One thing I fear a lot more than the licentiousness of our times (I agree with you there, that immodesty is celebrated by our, and historcally many, cultures), is the neverending crackdown on what someone else deems "immodest," which we see playing out with the Taliban even now.
The freedom of people to choose how they dress and behave, knowing that each stands of falls to his/her own master, is better (in my opinion), than the bondage imposed on women and on society by cultures like the Taliban.
It's true, and this is neither a theological or binding argument, but it does seem that libertinism of the sort so prevalent in our society can provoke a fundamentalist reaction. At least some Islamic fundamentalism is driven by the open degeneracy of the "Great Satan" - degeneracy which we enthusiastically export to every country that will do business with us.
 
Yes. . .which I found to be almost offensively irreverent)
Thank you for, I feel I could support essentially everything you say here! Well said.

Concerning the offensive irreverence, everyone on PuritanBoard confesses they would die for their Lord--and I am no different--it pains me deeply to think anyone would think otherwise. At the same time, I confess honestly I find it smacks of superstition not to use the crucifixion in argumentation, and in my head it is a wrong sort pietism, since it is Christ himself, reigning and ruling in glory, who demands my reverence---but that's a whole different can of worms, and likely my philosophy background makes it natural to use the crucifixion, because it is viewed as a data point, as it were, in a broader system of propositions, etc. Regardless, I apologize for even the appearance of evil and irreverence and will be scrupulously aware as I go forward on PuritanBoard, now that I am aware of the expectations.
 
Thank you for, I feel I could support essentially everything you say here! Well said.

Concerning the offensive irreverence, everyone on PuritanBoard confesses they would die for their Lord--and I am no different--it pains me deeply to think anyone would think otherwise. At the same time, I confess honestly I find it smacks of superstition not to use the crucifixion in argumentation, and in my head it is a wrong sort pietism, since it is Christ himself, reigning and ruling in glory, who demands my reverence---but that's a whole different can of worms, and likely my philosophy background makes it natural to use the crucifixion, because it is viewed as a data point, as it were, in a broader system of propositions, etc. Regardless, I apologize for even the appearance of evil and irreverence and will be scrupulously aware as I go forward on PuritanBoard, now that I am aware of the expectations.
Don't make my opinion worth more than it is. I was just letting you know that I found it irreverent; I'm not a mod, or any sort of authority figure anywhere except in my own household. :-)
 
Don't make my opinion worth more than it is. I was just letting you know that I found it irreverent; I'm not a mod, or any sort of authority figure anywhere except in my own household. :)
Ahaha, fair enough. You are older and wiser than me though, genuinely, further along in the walk, and that counts for something!
 
While avoiding specifics, it is possible to be fully clothed and yet "essentially naked". In those cases, it the questions involved are more:
  • "What am I emphasizing?"
  • "Why am I emphasizing it?
This is in the same vein of what I said earlier, so I won't repeat myself.

Overall, it seems like the topic has run its course, so I won't belabor the point. I will share an article that I found approps through the Aquila Report. I've only skimmed the article, but it seemed to hit similar chords as our topic here. I'll commend it to you for further thought: https://www.theshepherds.church/blog/righteous-adornment-a-biblical-approach-to-modesty
 
I personally believe this issue is in practice a particularly pathetic problem in the witness of evangelical and Reformed Christians, churches, and Christian institutions today (not excluding many sports teams). It is nearly taboo to even broach the topic. One pastor whose church has published concerns on modesty in apparel with Christians today said to me once that he believed his church would not likely ever grow much beyond its small numbers because of its leadership on this important issue (and a very worldly take on it by most of today's Church). Such things were not always so.

Considering the context of this site, I think it's important to review what the Westminster Larger Catechism states on the seventh commandment:

WLC 138: "What are the duties required in the seventh commandment?" Included among a host of other things is "modesty in apparel," with this Scripture reference: 1 Tim. 2:9: In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;

Of course how modesty is described in this verse above may more closely touch on another very touchy issue in too much of the Evangelical and Reformed world today and not as directly on too little cover but too much and too gaudy and vain. However, what should not be ignored is the important topic of modesty in wearing too little and exposing too much, which also is further addressed next (note that the idea of modesty and some kind of connection to apparel/clothing is indeed directly made in the Scriptures).

WLC 139: "What are the sins forbidden in the seventh commandment?" Included among a host of other things is "immodest apparel." Here, the Scripture references given are Prov. 7:10, 13: And, behold, there met him a woman with the attire of an harlot, and subtil of heart ... So she caught him, and kissed him, and with an impudent face said unto him, [Emphasis added: one does not need to think hard about what this allusion might likely look like in entierety of a professional costume and very often includes what is being referred to in the opening question of this thread.]

For anyone interested to consider the topic further, here are resources linked to from our website on this category under the subheading, "Purity and Chastity in Sexual Behavior" (from this page: https://puritanchurch.com/about/doctrine-and-practice/practice-what-duty-god-requires-of-us/):
We "republished" Mrs. Hemphill's (wife of an RPCNA pastor) article listed above. Here is an excerpt from that article in which she wrote:

At the risk of the reader’s knee-jerk reaction mentioned above, or a response of, “oh, please, that was a different age”, let me quote John Bunyan’s words:

Why are they for going with their … naked shoulders, and paps hanging out like a cow’s bag? Why are they for painting their faces, for stretching out their neck, and for putting of themselves unto all the formalities which proud fancy leads them to? Is it because they would honor God? Because they would adorn the gospel? Because they would beautify religion, and make sinners to fall in love with their own salvation? No, no, it is rather to please their lusts … I believe also that Satan has drawn more into the sin of uncleanness by the spangling show of fine clothes, than he could possibly have drawn unto it without them. I wonder what it was that of old was called the attire of a harlot: certainly it could not be more bewitching and tempting than are the garments of many professors this day. [I believe professors here means professing Christians.]
[Emphasis added for direct reference to what was being asked in the opening of this thread; frankly, the cows bag comment is particularly a problem and nearly an epidemic in Reformed churches and homes, including too many led by pastors and elders.]
 
Last edited:
...One pastor whose church has published concerns on modesty in apparel with Christians today said to me once that he believed his church would not likely ever grow much beyond its small numbers because of its leadership on this important issue (and a very worldly take on it by most of today's Church). Such things were not always so.

I question the premise. God isn't somehow tip-toeing on the edge of reviving the church, waiting for us to "get modest." He isn't punishing us for not preaching more seriously to our women and men to be modest. He isn't baiting his breath, as it were, sad that his church isn't modest, pained that he can't revive us because of modesty. Nothing is keeping church numbers low. Nothing except God's will. Period. That's it. No sin, no holiness, will make God breathe untold millions into our churches. It's just: God will do as he does when he does. When God wants to diminish, he diminishes. And he doesn't need an excuse, like immodesty, to do so, to diminish, to keep your friend's church low in numbers. Our God is Job's God. I might labor someday and never preach to more than 50 people. Not my sin, not their sin. Not my talent at preaching, or lack thereof, etc. Spirit does as the Spirit will do, whether a church is unwittingly crowded with part-time pornstars themselves, or unwittingly crowded with full time prostitues, or no. It makes it easy to forget our sin, by pointing out the immodesty in others. But our every breath exudes sin, our every inhale inhales sin, our every heartbeat pulses with sin. So no. It isn't the sin of immodesty that is keeping your friend's church small. But the spirit in his heart that claims such a thing? Tentatively, not knowing the chap, perhaps that is it. And of course, when the Holy Spirit sweeps through, the pornstars would, as it were, become chaste museum curators. Because revival will bring holiness. But it isn't our lack of holiness preventing revival. Such a view forgets that God is sovereign. And it forgets our best works are filthy. ...And if it is "small because strict on the issue," that's no worry either. Be strict if it's Biblical, and fruit will come.
 
Last edited:
I personally believe this issue is in practice a particularly pathetic problem in the witness of evangelical and Reformed Christians, churches, and Christian institutions today (not excluding many sports teams). It is nearly taboo to even broach the topic. One pastor whose church has published concerns on modesty in apparel with Christians today said to me once that he believed his church would not likely ever grow much beyond its small numbers because of its leadership on this important issue (and a very worldly take on it by most of today's Church). Such things were not always so.

Considering the context of this site, I think it's important to review what the Westminster Larger Catechism states on the seventh commandment:

WLC 138: "What are the duties required in the seventh commandment?" Included among a host of other things is "modesty in apparel," with this Scripture reference: 1 Tim. 2:9: In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;

Of course how modesty is described in this verse above may more closely touch on another very touchy issue in too much of the Evangelical and Reformed world today and not as directly on too little cover but too much and too gaudy and vain. However, what should not be ignored is the important topic of modesty in wearing too little and exposing too much, which also is further addressed next (note that the idea of modesty and some kind of connection to apparel/clothing is indeed directly made in the Scriptures).

WLC 139: "What are the sins forbidden in the seventh commandment?" Included among a host of other things is "immodest apparel." Here, the Scripture references given are Prov. 7:10, 13: And, behold, there met him a woman with the attire of an harlot, and subtil of heart ... So she caught him, and kissed him, and with an impudent face said unto him, [Emphasis added: one does not need to think hard about what this allusion might likely look like in entierety of a professional costume and very often includes what is being referred to in the opening question of this thread.]

For anyone interested to consider the topic further, here are resources linked to from our website on this category under the subheading, "Purity and Chastity in Sexual Behavior" (from this page: https://puritanchurch.com/about/doctrine-and-practice/practice-what-duty-god-requires-of-us/):
We "republished" Mrs. Hemphill's (wife of an RPCNA pastor) article listed above. Here is an excerpt from that article in which she wrote:

At the risk of the reader’s knee-jerk reaction mentioned above, or a response of, “oh, please, that was a different age”, let me quote John Bunyan’s words:

Why are they for going with their … naked shoulders, and paps hanging out like a cow’s bag? Why are they for painting their faces, for stretching out their neck, and for putting of themselves unto all the formalities which proud fancy leads them to? Is it because they would honor God? Because they would adorn the gospel? Because they would beautify religion, and make sinners to fall in love with their own salvation? No, no, it is rather to please their lusts … I believe also that Satan has drawn more into the sin of uncleanness by the spangling show of fine clothes, than he could possibly have drawn unto it without them. I wonder what it was that of old was called the attire of a harlot: certainly it could not be more bewitching and tempting than are the garments of many professors this day. [I believe professors here means professing Christians.]
[Emphasis added for direct reference to what was being asked in the opening of this thread; frankly, the cows bag comment is particularly a problem and nearly an epidemic in Reformed churches and homes, including too many led by pastors and elders.]
Thank you for all this. I was so thankful when this summer at our family conference during an “ask the pastor” meeting, our pastors gave clear counsel to a question a young person asked about guidelines on clothing. I agree that at this time, it seems such congregations’ sizes will stay relatively small because of these clear and loving stances. (But… thankful that God sends times of reformation!)
 
I question the premise. God isn't somehow tip-toeing on the edge of reviving the church, waiting for us to "get modest." He isn't punishing us for not preaching more seriously to our women and men to be modest. He isn't baiting his breath, as it were, sad that his church isn't modest, pained that he can't revive us because of modesty. Nothing is keeping church numbers low. Nothing except God's will. Period. That's it. No sin, no holiness, will make God breathe untold millions into our churches. It's just: God will do as he does when he does. When God wants to diminish, he diminishes. And he doesn't need an excuse, like immodesty, to do so, to diminish, to keep your friend's church low in numbers. Our God is Job's God. I might labor someday and never preach to more than 50 people. Not my sin, not their sin. Not my talent at preaching, or lack thereof, etc. Spirit does as the Spirit will do, whether a church is unwittingly crowded with part-time pornstars themselves, or unwittingly crowded with full time prostitues, or no. It makes it easy to forget our sin, by pointing out the immodesty in others. But our every breath exudes sin, our every inhale inhales sin, our every heartbeat pulses with sin. So no. It isn't the sin of immodesty that is keeping your friend's church small. But the spirit in his heart that claims such a thing? Tentatively, not knowing the chap, perhaps that is it. And of course, when the Holy Spirit sweeps through, the pornstars would, as it were, become chaste museum curators. Because revival will bring holiness. But it isn't our lack of holiness preventing revival. Such a view forgets that God is sovereign. And it forgets our best works are filthy. ...And if it is "small because strict on the issue," that's no worry either. Be strict if it's Biblical, and fruit will come.
It's possible to be mechanistic in our conception of cause and effect: if I raise my kids well, they will become Christians; if I pastor my church well, it will grow; if I do this, that, and the other thing, I will become a good Christian. That is definitely wrong because it creates a god in our image who behaves according to human rules.

But it's also possible to go to the other extreme and envision a capricious God for whom our actions are not in any way connected to the outcomes. You said it, though you didn't mean it that way: that was Job's mistake. It is also yours. In the wake of his calamity, Job envisioned a God who whimsically doles out misfortune and prosperity on all with no regard for whether they are righteous or not.

Somewhere in between, we have the witness of Scripture, which states that in this lifetime, we can expect to see God protect and reward the righteous while punishing the wicked. Certainly there are substantial nuances to this, the biggest of which is that we serve a sovereign God who normally works according to certain patterns but is not bound by them, indeed who is not bound by anything within our capacity to comprehend. Some things are part of a larger pattern and point to spiritual applications of this truth that will not be realized in this life. Some circumstances have multiple concurrent threads around which only God has fully wrapped his head.

In light of the Scriptural witness, it is perfectly reasonable to state that a society full of people that dress like harlots is a society that is 1) probably abandoning God's will in multiplicitous other ways 2) inviting God's judgment and 3) likely to experience God's judgment. All 3 are perfectly evident in today's society.

If you were to point out the absurdity of telling people to dress modestly so that God will bless them, so that they can experience the blessings due to them for their great feats of righteousness, I would join you in deriding such a view as the view of Job's 3 "friends". But it's not at all wrong to say that we should call people to do better and pray for our country to do better, out of a desire for holiness and a genuine fear of what we are inviting upon ourselves. It's not wrong to note that views that go against the grain of the times are often unpopular, or to make a connection between the smallness of a church and the faithfulness of its teaching. Of course there may be other reasons as well - issues of pastoral gifting or excessive stridency. But to characterize others in this thread as saying that God is waiting for us to get modest is a straw man, at best.
 
I highly recommend it and we have made use of this booklet with our church.
It's been some time since I glanced over it, but doesn't it effectively put the kibbosh on mixed bathing--like males and females should never be near water at the same time? Maybe I got the wrong impression of it, but it struck me as an over-reachingly fundamentalist. It's that sort of thing that starts measuring sleeves and hems and misses the point that modest apparel need not be excessive apparel.
There are outfits fit for climates that would be oppressive, uncomfortable, and horrible in others; there are clothes suited to some activities that are not to others. A universal rule of coverage (which again If I recall correctly, is the logical conclusion of the booklet) I think goes beyond what the Bible means when it enjoins modesty. I guess others disagree.
 
It's been some time since I glanced over it, but doesn't it effectively put the kibbosh on mixed bathing--like males and females should never be near water at the same time? Maybe I got the wrong impression of it, but it struck me as an over-reachingly fundamentalist. It's that sort of thing that starts measuring sleeves and hems and misses the point that modest apparel need not be excessive apparel.
There are outfits fit for climates that would be oppressive, uncomfortable, and horrible in others; there are clothes suited to some activities that are not to others. A universal rule of coverage (which again If I recall correctly, is the logical conclusion of the booklet) I think goes beyond what the Bible means when it enjoins modesty. I guess others disagree.
I don't want to put the kibbosh on your desire to not go beyond Scripture, or on your desire to not be a fundamentalist, both of which are good things. However, since the issue of climate is one that often comes up in debates about modesty, you might find that there is some room to balance your thinking here.

I live in a hot climate, and my home state has been populated by literate civilized people for far longer than air conditioning has existed. It is therefore possible to find written records of what men and women wore for outdoor work and for swimming in the 19th and early 20th centuries, and you might be surprised at what you find. I would encourage you to give some consideration to what may be a relatively modern assumption that hot weather provides unlimited license for just taking off more clothing - if that's a part of your thinking. A great deal can be said for the material and cut of the clothing worn, not just for the amount of skin exposed.

I can attest, as someone who has physical difficulty being out in the heat for extended periods of time, that simply covering less skin doesn't make much difference. I do all my yardwork in long pants, and I don't buy for one minute the argument that shorts are a necessity (something that comes up often in such debates). They don't really help, and in the tropical heat sometimes covering MORE skin (and even wearing a hat) is a more effective way to stay cool.

It's been a while since I've read on the subject, and some of what I've found has been at local museums and county history exhibits, where you can see pictures of women working outside in long flowing dresses and men working in long sleeves and pants. If I can dig up some online resources, I'll send them your way. Again, my intent is not to quash your desire to stay within the realm of Scripture, but to encourage you to consider whether you're not also subconsciously staying withing the realm of a modern culture which throws up cheap cardboard arguments about comfort - arguments which fall faster than a cardboard house once one realizes that these are questions which were readily answered, once upon a time, without the compromises for which we now advocate.
 

This was the result of a relatively quick google search, and I'm not putting this here to advocate for everything stated in this article. First, we don't need to embrace Victorian morals and customs. Second, not everyone has the time and resources to redo their whole wardrobe based on the fabrics used, and many people have legitimately more pressing priorities from a spiritual perspective. Everything should be in balance.

I'm mainly posting it as one example of what I was referring to above - that there's more to comfort than simply the amount of skin covered. With the right kind of fabric and cut, one can work outside in the heat with no loss of comfort - in fact, possibly with a greater degree of comfort. If people are going to say "I need to be comfortable and cool so I should wear such and such", I just want to point to another perspective that addresses the same concerns. Modern fabrics such as polyester and spandex are often horrid in the heat. Not always, but often.
 

This was the result of a relatively quick google search, and I'm not putting this here to advocate for everything stated in this article. First, we don't need to embrace Victorian morals and customs. Second, not everyone has the time and resources to redo their whole wardrobe based on the fabrics used, and many people have legitimately more pressing priorities from a spiritual perspective. Everything should be in balance.

I'm mainly posting it as one example of what I was referring to above - that there's more to comfort than simply the amount of skin covered. With the right kind of fabric and cut, one can work outside in the heat with no loss of comfort - in fact, possibly with a greater degree of comfort. If people are going to say "I need to be comfortable and cool so I should wear such and such", I just want to point to another perspective that addresses the same concerns. Modern fabrics such as polyester and spandex are often horrid in the heat. Not always, but often.
Having lived much in tropical climates, and with my work in summers involving 14 hours in the pitiless sun, I contend that those people lived in misery and died young. While I hide skin from the sun (big hat and long sleeves), there is nothing more miserable than too much coverage indoors on a muggy day--say in a southern church with no AC. God made skin to cool mankind by means of sweat--holding that all in neck to ankle is just defeating a lovely, natural, God-given function.
As for swimming--you simply cannot expect a woman to swim in a neck-to-toe dress--though I know some who will only allow their wives to go to the beach that way. It is not possible (or safe, in any amount of surf) to move through the water dragging all that fabric. And to segregate bathing areas would mean I couldn't go swimming with my daughters, which is one of our favorite hot summer afternoon things to do.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top