A Facebook Friend recently posted a couple links to articles
about Christian women’s responsibility to dress modestly. I dealt with the
topic previously in a post titled “Debating
‘Christian Cleavage.’” However, the second blog my Friend shared raised my
ire to the point where I feel compelled to write again. I think the modesty
issue is symptomatic of a larger problem which is evident in Christian circles
today.
The root of all misbehavior can be found in the original sin
committed in Eden: Adam and Eve wanted to be independent. They did not want to
depend on God to order their lives; they wanted to make their own rules. A
close cousin of the spirit of independence is found in the cult of
individuality that pervades our culture, and the church has not escaped it. While
it is true that Christ’s blood saves us individually, we are baptized into a
body. It is the corporate inter-dependence that gets lost when individuality
reigns.
It is this attitude that allows a woman to write that she no
longer feels accountable for the lustful thoughts of men who look at her (Read her
entire blog).
The discussion of Christian modesty often devolves into the placement of blame
on men for lusting. This is not the real issue; men are solely responsible for
their thought lives. However, women also have a responsibility to their
brothers to avoid things that would lead them into temptation. It is this
corporate aspect of an individual’s responsibility that many modern Christian
women reject. Their attitude is the opposite of what Paul counseled that we
should, “Never act from motives of rivalry or personal vanity, but in humility
think more of each other than you do of yourselves.” (Philippians 2:3, Phillips
New Testament)
This same “not my fault” argument appeared in the second
blog my Friend shared, but it was made worse by the clumsy misinterpretation of
Scripture to support the point. Joel
Michael Herbert makes several faulty arguments against women dressing
modestly before stating that, “The Bible does not breathe a word of such
nonsense.” Herbert then picks out one word from 1 Timothy 2:9 that is often
cited in this argument. He claims that the word sometimes translated “modesty”
has little or no reference to alluring dress but only to expensive attire.
It is true that the context would allow the economic issue
to be considered, but it is not explicitly mentioned, and the connotation of all
three words Paul chose as qualifiers clearly applies to the sensual nature of a
woman’s appearance. The first word (κοσμιω) means
“orderly.” To clarify what type of “order” is in view, Paul follows with a word
that means “having a sense of shame,” (αιδους) according to Strong’s Greek
Concordance. The word might be rendered “bashful,” especially in the presence
of men. The final word (σωφροσυνης) means
“sober or self-controlled.” One must ask how a sober, bashful woman would order
her wardrobe. I think Herbert completely misses the point.
Furthermore, it is disingenuous for Herbert to assert that “modesty”
appears only once in the Bible. It may be true that the word he chooses appears
only once in the NIV, but a more honest approach to the subject will uncover
many more passages that are relevant. Crosswalk, for example, finds seven
passages that speak to the issue. (Seven
Scripture Verses Your Daughter Needs to Hear About Modesty). Finally, Herbert’s
shameful reinterpretation of Jesus’ words on lust in Matthew 5:27–32 borders on
sacrilege. To imply that Jesus was being sarcastic or teasing His audience is
outrageous. The Master’s use of hyperbole does not give license to assume He
was kidding around.
More to the point is the fact that all the defenders of
scantily clad Christian women ignore the larger principle of concern for
others. It is also important to remember Paul’s comment that while all things
might be lawful, not all things are edifying. In other words, it might be lawful
to strut your stuff half-naked on the beach, but it is not going to be
profitable for anyone else, especially the men who will see you.
It is selfish and immature for a woman to say that her right
to dress as she pleases trumps her responsibility to care more for others than
for herself and to avoid a behavior that may incite sin. For a man to say the
same thing is simply bad advice, or in Herbert’s case, bad theology. This issue
is uncannily parallel to the Original Sin. After the First Couple decided to
make their own rules, God’s first reaction was to clothe them. It seems that a
woman’s desire to be unclothed goes all the way back to a tree in The Garden, a
Serpent, and some forbidden fruit. God save us from our non-dependence.
