Is women’s modesty the new legalism among Christians?

Contemporary America is one of the most sexualized cultures in the history of the world. Sex is everywhere, no matter how hard you try to avoid it, and the objectification of women in virtually every form of media is a commonplace. In this context, it is easy to see why many Christians react by placing tremendous stress on women’s modesty, not only in principle, but in terms of a system of rules and practices designed to cover and obscure the skin and curves of a woman’s body. In certain conservative circles the rhetorical and moral condemnation of those women who do not conform to the strict (and sometimes arbitrary) standards of others is quite intense. In many ways it is analogous to the fundamentalist approach that Christians took toward alcohol in the early twentieth century. The cultural problems caused by drunkedness and strong liquor were tragic and required a response, but the response of many Christians was more legalistic than realistic, more about control than about the gospel.

Of course, the problem with an issue like modesty is that one can always take a stricter, more modest position than the next person. Person A says women should always wear skirts, never pants. Person B says women’s skirts should always extend below the knees. Person C says women should never show their ankles or hair. Person D says why not just put on a burqa? Men don’t lust after women in burqas (or do they?). On the other hand, once one opens the door to Christian wisdom and liberty, where do you stop? In some cultures women freely show their breasts, even in church. Even in Victorian England it was suitable to show significant cleavage but not your ankles.

In his classic Mere Christianity C.S. Lewis writes,

The Christian rule of chastity must not be confused with the social rule of ‘modesty’ (in one sense of that word); i.e., propriety, or decency. 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. 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 unchaste)…. When people break the rule of propriety current in their own time and place, if they do so in order to excite lust in themselves or others, then they are offending against chastity. But if they break it through ignorance or carelessness they are guilty only of bad manners. When, as so often happens, they break it defiantly in order to shock or embarrass others, they are not necessarily being unchaste, but they are being uncharitable. (83-84)

Often lost in all of this is that when the New Testament talks about modesty it is always concerned about women who put too much emphasis on their clothing, jewelry, and hair, forgetting that what it means to be a Christian woman is about godly actions that stem from the heart, not about what one wears. If anything, Paul’s writings show that he was concerned about wealthy women drawing too much attention to themselves through their physical adornment. Throughout much of human history, and one sees this in the descriptions of the adulterous woman in Proverbs as well, sexual immodesty had to do with the kind of clothing and makeup a person put on to draw attention to herself, not with the showing of skin. And Jesus puts the burden of preventing lustful thoughts on Christian men, not on Christian women.

I am not saying women should dress provocatively, or that it is acceptable for them to show as much skin as possible. I am suggesting that there is nothing inherently immodest about showing the skin on most parts of the human body or about wearing clothing that accentuates certain curves. As Christians we should be careful not to commit the Muslim mistake of thinking that we need to hide a woman’s body in order to make life easier for men, or that feminine beauty is something that we should flee from and avoid rather than celebrate and enjoy. The problem is with the human heart (lust) and the actions that spring from it (sexual immorality and adultery), as Jesus made quite clear to the Pharisees who were prone to their own forms of legalism. It is not with women, or with the bodies that God has given to them.

One of the most helpful set of posts I have seen on this is by Rachel Miller at her blog, A Daughter of the Reformation. As Miller writes, responding to a post on another blog praising the merits of women wearing skirts,

Skirts are not inherently more modest than pants. Modesty is much more an issue of the heart than simply what a woman wears. A skirt can easily be provocative, and it’s not hard to be modest in pants, or shorts, or even a swimsuit. And, there is a real danger for many women to become self-righteous over their choice of clothing.

Miller illustrates her point with a clever set of pictures. The link in the quote leads to a more substantive post she wrote on the issue. There she writes,

In reading the Scripture verses that deal with modesty and clothing, I noticed something. First, I noticed that Scripture gives very little by way of specifics as to what modest clothing looks like. Second, I noticed that Scripture speaks more about what might be termed “inner beauty.” (Again, I want to be clear that I am not disagreeing with those who see the need to address the practical issues related to dressing with modesty.)

Noting the relevant biblical passages, she goes on with reference to 1 Timothy 2:8-10,

While we could certainly get into a debate about whether women should braid their hair or wear jewelry, I think the point Paul is making here is that godly women should not worry so much about their outward appearance, but they should concern themselves with living godly lives. Our love for God and His love for us should make us care more about what He thinks of us and less about what the world around us thinks.

This is a very freeing concept. Women and girls who know that they are loved by God, not for anything they’ve done or anything they are, but solely because He has chosen to love them, are freed from the constant struggle for acceptance by the world.

One might add that it frees Christian women from the constant scrutiny of those to the right of them on the modesty spectrum.

Here again the comments of C.S. Lewis are helpful:

I do not think that a very strict or fussy standard of propriety [i.e., modesty] is any proof of chastity or any help to it, and I therefore regard the great relaxation and simplifying of the rule which has taken place in my own lifetime as a good thing. At its present stage, however, it has this inconvenience, that people of different ages and different types do not all acknowledge the same standard, and we hardly know where we are. While this confusion lasts I think that old, or old-fashioned, people should be very careful not to assume that young or ‘emancipated’ people are corrupt whenever they are (by the old standard) improper; and, in return, that young people should not call their elders prudes or puritans because they do not easily adopt the new standard. A real desire to believe all the good you can of others and to make others as comfortable as you can will solve most of the problems. (84)

Again, the point is not that women should wear whatever they want without thought to modesty, or that they should dress provocatively. The point is that we should be very careful not to make arbitrary external rules our obsession, rather than the heart and the actions that stem from it, and that we should be careful not to fall into the trap of implicitly viewing women and their bodies as evils that are to be avoided or hidden. As a virtue of the gospel, modesty calls us to sanctify our hearts even as we celebrate that what God has made, including women created in his image, is very good.

[Note: the C.S. Lewis quotes have been added to the original version of this post]

About these ads

About Matthew Tuininga

Matthew Tuininga is a student of political theology and a doctoral candidate in Ethics at Emory University. He is a licensed preacher in the United Reformed Churches of North America.

Posted on July 26, 2012, in Christian liberty, women and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 22 Comments.

  1. I think rule-making – while sometimes offered with good intentions – has a negative tendency towards phariseeism that is way more dangerous than immodest, it seems to me.

    So, I reckon agree with you on this one.

    The Sabbath was made for humanity, not humanity for the Sabbath…

    I think that’s a vital key passage for Bible study and Christian living.

  2. Thanks, Matt for the link to my articles. Your article is great.

  3. I think the reference should be 1 Timothy 2:8-10.

  4. Thank you for articulating well what I was thinking while reading in the “skirt” article. The point is that we should be very careful not to make arbitrary external rules our obsession, rather than the heart and the actions that stem from it, and that we should be careful not to fall into the trap of implicitly viewing women and their bodies as evils that are to be avoided or hidden.” Great line.
    If someone thinks that they can be more modest just by wearing certain clothes they are mistaken. I know many women who were raised “skirt wearers” who learned that you can run faster with your skirt up than you can with your pants down. I don’t mean to be crude, but I think it shows my point.
    And thank you for pointing out that beauty isn’t an evil.

  5. Good post but I take exception to the word “new” in the title. The legalism concerning women’s clothing has been around for quite a while. BJU and Pensacola have rules on wearing skirts (last I heard) and Doug Wilson and his wife Nancy have been harping on this (I mean against this kind of legalism) for years. So while I agree with you I don’t think it’s suddenly appeared as a problem.

  6. Much of what you say here is beneficial, and helpful. Legalism in any area of life should be avoided, and is a constant danger. However, it is important to remember there is more to this than issues of legalism/lust. The covering of nakedness is an important Biblical theme: showing too much skin (outside the marriage bed) is seen as shameful and God providing a covering is an act of love. Think of Adam and Eve in the garden, the many Old Testament passages depicting nakedness as shameful, God showing love for his bride by clothing her in Ezekiel 16. We must be aware that throughout the centuries, most Christians have had a sense of modesty far more restrictive than ours, and were one to be transported into our churches today they would be shocked, scandalized, by what we wear. We should seriously consider if they had some wisdom we are missing out on, since we are being dulled to the culture. A Christian concerned about a lack of modesty may have some real wisdom, not to be quickly dismissed. Legalism is never the right reponse, but one can be modest, and encourage others to be modest, and not be legalistic about it. One final point – Paul states in Corinthians, “all things are permissible, but not all things are beneficial.” Our standard should never be “what amount of skin is permissible to show” but “what is most beneficial in both showing beauty and encouraging purity”? Personally, I find what many Christian women wear to be not beneficial, and indeed very disturbing – not in any sense of legalistic rule-making but simply a desire to most honor Christ. The need to avoid selfish license in what we wear is arguably a more urgent message that the church needs today than the (also appropriate) warning against legalism. -Eric

    • Matthew Tuininga

      Eric,

      Thank you for this very thoughtful comment, surely one of the most thoughtful I have received on this (i.e., you are not simply reacting to what I am not saying). I think I agree with everything you say here, with the caveat that each person needs to recognize that their own judgments on this matter cannot be equated with modesty itself, and with the caveat that the majority of Christians in past cultures may have been just as blinded by sinful assumptions as we are today. Each one of us is doing our best to determine what God requires of us, and how we can best honor him and love one another in what we wear. We should help and encourage each other in this respect, while refraining from judging one another based on our own wisdom. That’s the key, I think.

      In part, whether or not you view immodesty or legalism as the greatest danger depends on your context. Remember that legalism can be an immense stumbling block to the gospel of Christ (I know plenty of people for whom it is). Jesus was criticized because he associated with prostitutes rather than with those who were pure on the outside. It’s something to keep in mind. The only other thing I would add is something another person said on a conversation about this topic, something that is very insightful indeed: “I think that modesty is wearing clothing that doesn’t stick out and not calling attention to yourself. It’s wearing clothing that is appropriate for the group. If you wear clothing that covers everything like a burka or a really long dress in a situation where that’s not normal, it calls attention to yourself, just like if you were to wear a seductive, skin revealing outfit. Both outfits say “LOOK AT ME!!!”

      Obviously conformity cannot be our only guide, but there is certainly wisdom in recognizing appropriateness to context. Again, according to Liddell and Scott, the Greek word (kosmios) our translations translate as modesty means “well-ordered, regular, moderate,” or when applied to persons “orderly, well-behaved, regular, discreet, quiet,” or when used as an adverb “regularly, decently.”

      ________________________________

  7. Geoff Gleason

    Hi Matthew.

    Thank you for your post. I appreciate you writing about this important topic. No one wants to be labelled a legalist, and I’m no exception. I think that anyone who thinks that his or her clothing style contributes to his salvation is sadly mistaken and the wrath of God remains on him (John 3:36). At the same time, I think it is essential to stress that the regenerate will seek to conform himself to the image of Christ through the work of the Holy Spirit to will and act according to God’s good purposes. Someone more strict in applying the Word of God to the issue of modesty is not necessarily a legalist, just as one more loose is necessarily an anti-nomian. With all these caveats out of the way, I do think there is an inherent responsibility in women toward modesty.

    As Christians, we are not free to do whatever we like, but we are to put to death any sin that dwells in us (Colossians 3:5-10). The sin in immodesty is that of seeking to glorify self rather than Christ. I think a simple test we can apply to see if our clothing glorifies Christ is by asking, “What is the goal of the people who are designing much fashion?” And I don’t mean trying to guess what is in their hearts. I mean look at the headlines on most (maybe all) of the fashion magazines such as Cosmo, Elle, etc. What is their main purpose? Sexuality, being “sexy”, making an impression on “your man”, along with things too crass to mention here. That is what most of the clothing depicted in those magazines is supposed to accomplish. I think that if, as a Christian woman, you look like the people in Cosmo, you can assume that you will have a provocative effect on 99% of the men around you. Why? Because that is the purpose for which those clothes were designed.

    Does that excuse the sin of lust in men? Absolutely not. Both are culpable. The woman for immodesty and the man for lust. At the same time, neither are acceptable. As believers being sanctified, we cannot excuse the lust of men, neither the immodesty of women. Both point to self. We are to set our eyes on the things above (Colossians 3:1-3). In part this is done in women by dressing modestly and in men by refraining from lust. These behaviors demonstrate a spirit that is set on the things above. I fear this article will, unnecessarily promote a cavalier attitude toward modesty. I’m not saying that is your purpose in writing it. I think that is how it could be perceived.

    Most sincerely,

    Geoff Gleason

  8. Geoff,

    Thank you as well for your very thoughtful comment. I certainly do not want to promote a cavalier attitude toward modesty. At the same time, I think there is danger in making our central goal obscuring beauty or sexuality in order that men may be prevented from lusting. Because if our sole goal is to prevent that lust, why not make all our women wear burqas? I think a lot of the people who are worried about my post are failing to take this basic question seriously. It’s easy to criticize someone else for drawing a line different from yours, but how do you justify your own line? If covering up and preventing lust is the only criteria, then burqas are the way to go. After all, many Christians in past generations would have dressed something like the way orthodox Muslim women dress today.

    In other words, either women all wear burqas, or we acknowledge that a woman dressing in a particular way to make her look beautiful is not wrong just because some men may use that as an occasion for sin. The beauty of women, like the athletic ability of men, or the gift of good food, is a gift from God that is to be enjoyed with thanksgiving. God is glorified when we celebrate his gifts to us, and legalism becomes a danger when we flee his good gifts, rather than learn how to use them appropriately. Women lust after athletic men, but does that mean men should not strive to do their best in sports? Many people struggle with alcoholism, gluttony, or eating disorders, but does that mean we should make our drink taste bad and our food terrible? Why is modesty for women any different than these other issues?

    I know this makes it hard because it prevents us from being able to rest on hard and fast rules. But I think this is what the Christian life is all about. It’s not about hard and fast rules, it’s about love and godly actions. Again, as I’ve said over and over, I agree that women should not dress provocatively. But what is provocative will vary from culture to culture, and therefore our practices will rest to a great degree on Christian wisdom.

    Again, I am grateful for your thoughtful interaction with me on this important topic. I pray that God will give all of us wisdom as we seek to dress modestly and lovingly, while glorifying God for the gifts he has given us.

    • Geoff Gleason

      Hi Matthew,

      I think we agree for the most part. Also, I would like to clarify. I never believed your intention to be to foster a cavalier attitude toward modesty. I simply suspect that some will end up concluding that it is not right to draw lines from your article. I, like you, believe that the beauty of women is a gift from God to be enjoyed. However, I think it is to enjoyed within certain boundaries. As a presbyterian, I believe that our chief end in life is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever. Modesty, athletic pursuits, food, alcohol all fall under that umbrella too. Therefore the way we dress ought to glorify God by obeying his commandments (1 John 5:3). The issue of feminine beauty, should be primarily enjoyed in marriage (Proverbs 5:15-19). Certainly not in the midst of a worship service where God is to be central.

      The passage on modesty in 1 Timothy 2 does set out hard and fast rules. The clothing of a Christian woman is to meet certain criteria: respectable, modest. Now, whether the woman in question recognizes her adherence or transgression of those criteria is irrelevant. The criteria remains. My contention is that we know from fashion magazine publications and fashion designers that much of our contemporary clothing is designed to provoke sexually and, in my humble opinion, a Christian woman should know that when she puts those clothes on she becomes sexually provocative, whether she intends to be or not. In that case she no longer is adorning herself modestly, but selfishly.

      I agree that Christian wisdom is needed to deal with this issue. And I think you are spot on about men sharing equal guilt through their lusting. But I do think addressing modesty in our churches is entirely appropriate. Just as I think it is entirely appropriate to address lusting in our churches. I see too many folks adopting the fashion of the world without consideration. My point is that we ought to consider the purpose for its design, which will rule out the purchase of a large swath of “genres” in fashion.

      In love,

      Geoff

  9. Geoff, Yes, what you say here is very helpful. I have to admit, I am not familiar with the magazines of which you speak, but I entirely agree that women should not dress in a way that is sexually provocative, and that some women’s clothing is designed to be precisely that. The key, I suppose, is to distinguish between what is sexually provocative, and what is simply beautiful.

    But do you mean to say that feminine beauty should primarily be enjoyed in marriage, or do you mean that it is primarily to be enjoyed sexually in marriage? I suppose part of the distinction I want to make is between appreciating someone’s beauty (i.e., I can appreciate my daughter’s beauty) and desiring someone sexually (i.e., I should only desire my wife in this way).

    Thanks for the clarification on what you meant by the term cavalier. You are certainly right. There are a number of people who took my article in a different way than I intended it, though most people seemed to realize that I believe we should draw lines; simply that we should be careful about judging other people based on the lines we draw.

    Blessings,
    Matt

    • Geoff Gleason

      Hi Matt,

      I think that because of the corruption of our natures in the fall it is difficult for men to enjoy beauty in women without sexual desire creeping into the picture. Test it this way. Spend the next days telling your wife/girlfriend/fiancee every time you enjoy the beauty of another woman. I would guess it wouldn’t be too long before she told you to keep your eyes to yourself, and rightfully so. Having said that, I am not advocating women wearing burqas to compensate for man’s sinful desires. I am doubtful that would work anyway. For centuries men have been adept at working around attempts to curb lust. However, at the start of your article you point out the sexual nature of our culture. That nature is reflected in the fashion of our day and it is incumbent on the church to point out that kind of conformity with the word and call Christian women back the standards of modesty outlined in the Bible. There are standards or hard and fast rules that apply to that which is provocative and we should not shy away from stating them, guarding ourselves from attributing any legalistic righteousness on ourselves because of our actions. It is an action of thankfulness to our Lord Christ in response to what he has done rather than an attempt to win his love and approval. As a 3 forms of unity guy, I thought you would appreciate that ending ;)

      Geoff

  10. Hello, a friend asked me to comment on this: I did notice that Ist Timothy 2:9 does definitely describe some specifics as to what modest clothing looks like. Several key words describe it: adorn, which means “to drape”, modest, which means” to cover” (among other meanings http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/search/word,modest), apparel, which means “loose and flowing”, with shamefacedness, which means “shy” or bashful (which would be the opposite of showing off) and sobriety, which means “serious” and other meanings. So, there are some guidelines within that one sentence that do describe modest clothing: it covers without being so tight that it reveals every sexual part of the body, and it is not deliberately drawing attention to the woman’s sexuality, while still being feminine enough to distinguish her as a woman, and is very respectable. It would be described as the opposite of indecency. The old testament, which was “written for our learning” taught the Jews a strict code of modesty and we can learn from that, even though we don’t follow rules today as much as the principles.

    • Matthew Tuininga

      Lydia, thanks for your comment. Of course, what you need to look up is the meaning of the Greek words, and then interpret that meaning based on context (not just select the possible meaning you may like). If you do that, you’ll find that the verse does not prescribe such concrete guidelines, except of course in the way of things like braided hair and jewelry. I’m curious, what texts do you have in mind when you refer to the Old Testament’s strict code of modesty?

  11. Hi,
    I wonder why people would not just read and apply the biblical scriptures, instead of finding a meaning after a Christian author’s interpretation, even C. S. Lewis.
    This only book of truth is the Bible and God inspired it.
    Modesty is a conviction of the heart, which is renewed by the Holy Spirit and the Living Word i.e. The Bible. Honestly, if you are modest at heart ad in appearance, such debates seem odd and vain.
    I understand that Deteronomy 22:5 can divide and create debate but Titus 2:9 and John 2:15-17are clear to the born again man or woman.
    I see close to 40 % of women in my church who are not dressed with modesty nor propriety on Sundays, and I don’t think they dress any better during the week. It does not make them lesser Christian than a Christian modest woman but how many fruits of the spirit can one rip when they keep they garden or field unkept? really?
    I dress modestly and put a lot of effort toward this honoring act everyday but I would not tell people why or how because first I don’t want to offend anybody and second, I don’t want to boast….
    BUT ON THIS INTERNET
    I can tell that many so called Christians will TRY TO JUSTIFY themselves when they truly only JUSTIFY THEIR SINS.
    FEAR GOD AND FLEE FROM EVIL .
    Today fashion is not modest. It is sensual, vulgar and degrading. It leaves you financially broke…or in debt…

  1. Pingback: Is it really antinomian to ground our standards of modesty in the Gospel? « Christian in America

  2. Pingback: Modest Expression-Housewife Theologian

  3. Pingback: Modest Expression

  4. Pingback: Christians have never called for women to wear burqas, have they? « Christian in America

  5. Pingback: Is Women’s Modesty the New Legalism Among Christians? | Christian in America

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,006 other followers

%d bloggers like this: