“And why do you worry about clothes? See how the flowers of the field grow. They do not labor or spin. Yet I tell you that not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of these. If that is how God clothes the grass of the field, which is here today and tomorrow is thrown into the fire, will he not much more clothe you—you of little faith?”
—Jesus (Matthew 6:28-30, NIV)
Why do we worry about clothes? Ever since Adam and Eve’s sin made them ashamed of their nakedness, there’s something about the subject of clothing that makes people a little tetchy. Just ask, “Is it OK to wear this?” and everybody will chime in with an opinion until you’re too dizzy to care.
Jesus, of course, was talking to people who were worried about whether they’d be able to get any clothes at all, helping them remember God’s faithfulness to provide. Lots of other things make people worried about clothes, though. Am I overdressed? Am I underdressed? Is this tie too geeky? Will that skirt be too chilly? Is this too revealing? Will that cause a brother to stumble, or will he stumble on his own? Why exactly is it so horrible to wear white after Labor Day? And of course the all-time classic: Does this make me look fat?
Living under a system of rules is a great recipe for worry. Especially religious rules: if you have to do the right thing to glorify God, what if you do the wrong thing? Yet most Bible teachings about clothing are crammed with moralistic, rules-based readings of Scripture, especially once they get to “modesty.” I think we’ve missed the point.
One way to read the Bible, as I’ve described elsewhere, is to treat it as God’s Little Instruction Book. You scour it to find out what it says on topics X and Y and Z, and then tell us the instructions we have to follow. That’s where most teachings on modesty seem to come from. “See? There’s a verse in the Bible with the word ‘modest’ in it, so you can’t wear that!”
That’s problematic. For all the fuss people make about it, the Bible’s instructions about modesty aren’t terribly concerned with clothes. The Greek word translated “modesty” (kosimos) just means “well-ordered,” like the universe or a good library. The only place in the New Testament it refers to clothing for women, details like fashion and cut and fabric aren’t discussed; apparently it’s more important that women “adorn themselves… with good deeds” (1 Timothy 2:9-10). It’s used only once more, about an elder’s moral character (1 Tim. 3:2), where it’s translated “respectable,” or “of good behaviour.” The Lord’s looking at the heart, and we’ve made it about the outward appearance.
These aren’t the rules we were looking for. If anyone thinks these verses say anything about skin or skirts or jeans or shoulder straps or dresses or shorts or swimsuits or necklines or hemlines or sunbonnets, they’re committing eisegesis—reading things into the Scripture that simply aren’t there. So if we treat the Bible as a book of rules about what to wear or not to wear, it comes up surprisingly short. “Dress reasonably” is fine as far as it goes, but it doesn’t go to any specifics at all. That’s not what we would expect if God was giving us an instruction book. What can we do?
We could play the part of the Pharisees, making up extensive lists of rules about what counts as “modest” or not, then enshrining them as “biblical principles.” We could become lazy legalists, checking hemlines with tape measures and calling it “an issue of the heart.” We could get all chauvinistic and tie it to the sin of lust, blaming the way men sin on the way women dress. (Never mind that James explains, “Each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust,” not “by what someone else wears.”) We could try to find a reasonable middle ground, invoking Romans 14, saying that Scripture expects us to come to our own conclusions based on our cultural context.
Or we could read the Bible the other way.
When we look at the Bible to find rules, as the example of “modesty” shows frustratingly well, it becomes a morass of vague, conflicting ideas and banal moralizing. We’re left trying to insist that our favorite proof texts are more definitive than they are, and facing strong temptations to legalism and pharisaism. Even if we found clear rules and laws, how could we expect to live up to them, anyway? As C. S. Lewis quipped in another context, this is “the discovery of the mare’s nest by pursuit of the red herring.”
The other way of reading the Bible is the way Jesus interpreted Scripture. It involves a simple, but very challenging, readjustment of the way we look at things.
What if the Bible isn’t a book of moralistic platitudes? What if there’s a bigger, bolder, more glorious theme that everything else in it points to?
And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, [Jesus] interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself. (Luke 24:27, ESV)
Jesus said that “all the Scriptures” have something to say about Him. A daunting claim, to be sure, unless of course you’re the Son of God incarnate. On other occasions He went even further, calling out the Pharisees on their elevation of the Bible above the Person it’s about:
You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life. (John 5:39-40, ESV)
The Scriptures point us to Jesus. If we make obeying the Scriptures more important than seeing Jesus in the Scriptures, we’ve missed the whole point of the Scriptures.
Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. (Galatians 3:24, NASB)
If we don’t let the Scriptures direct us to Jesus in everything, even in what we think of as the Law, then we’ve failed to get the lesson the Law itself is there to teach us. God isn’t concerned with making sure we can check off a list of idealized behaviors. God wants us to— well, I’ll let Jesus say it:
Then they said to him, “What must we do, to be doing the works of God?” Jesus answered them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.” (John 6:28-29 ESV)
The “work of God” is singular: Believe in Jesus. Check.
When we read the Bible as a book that’s meant to point us to Jesus, we start to see the big picture. It’s the Gospel. We can’t possibly keep the Law, so Jesus came to die to set us free from sin and let us live by grace instead. By comparison, nit-picky moralistic rules about clothes seem paltry and trifling. Who cares about hemlines when you can look at the beauty of grace?
Yes, that one verse mentioned earlier says “modesty,” but it says it as an application of the idea that “there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all” (see 1 Timothy 2:1-10). The point isn’t “Keep this rule.” It’s “Look at Jesus. Look at the salvation and mercy and redemption and reconciliation with God Jesus gives you in the Gospel. Show people the Gospel in the way you act. For instance, don’t act as though clothes are the most important thing in your life; that would be Jesus.”
This is where it gets really interesting. Although that’s the main verse people try (wrongly) to make a rule from, it’s not an isolated example. When the writers of Scripture talk about the Gospel, they start talking about clothes. Not legalistic rules about clothes—clothing as a metaphor for salvation.
I delight greatly in the LORD;
my soul rejoices in my God.
For he has clothed me with garments of salvation
and arrayed me in a robe of his righteousness,
as a bridegroom adorns his head like a priest,
and as a bride adorns herself with her jewels.
(Isaiah 61:10, NIV)
Clothing is a persistent image of salvation throughout Scripture, from God covering Adam and Eve’s nakedness in Genesis to the choir of redeemed souls clothed in white in Revelation. It goes like this:
Our sin covers us in shame like dirty garments. Even our righteousness is like filthy rags (Isaiah 64:6). And then we have to stand before the King. What could be more humiliating than showing up in the throne room covered in sewage? But the King has something to give us:
Then he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the LORD, and Satan standing at his right hand to accuse him. The LORD said to Satan, “The LORD rebuke you, Satan! Indeed, the LORD who has chosen Jerusalem rebuke you! Is this not a brand plucked from the fire?”
Now Joshua was clothed with filthy garments and standing before the angel. He spoke and said to those who were standing before him, saying, “Remove the filthy garments from him.” Again he said to him, “See, I have taken your iniquity away from you and will clothe you with festal robes.”
Then I said, “Let them put a clean turban on his head.” So they put a clean turban on his head and clothed him with garments, while the angel of the LORD was standing by. (Zechariah 3:1-5, NASB)
We can’t clean our own clothes. Some stains don’t come out. So God gives us new clothes, clean clothes, garments washed white to cover our shame.
I counsel you to buy from me gold refined in the fire, so you can become rich; and white clothes to wear, so you can cover your shameful nakedness; and salve to put on your eyes, so you can see. (Revelation 3:18, NIV)
Salvation is a new beginning, coming home, starting over again. When the Prodigal Son came home, the first thing his father did was to show his welcome and forgiveness by giving him new clothes.
But the father said to his servants, “Bring quickly the best robe, and put it on him, and put a ring on his hand, and shoes on his feet. And bring the fattened calf and kill it, and let us eat and celebrate. For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found.” (Luke 15:22-24, ESV)
You were covered in ashes, mourning, despair, filthy clothes from a pigsty. God wants to dress you in beauty, gladness, joy— the garments of praise.
[God has sent me] to bestow on them a crown of beauty
instead of ashes,
the oil of gladness
instead of mourning,
and a garment of praise
instead of a spirit of despair. (Isaiah 61:3, NIV)
You turned my wailing into dancing;
you removed my sackcloth and clothed me with joy,
that my heart may sing to you and not be silent.
O LORD my God, I will give you thanks forever.
(Psalm 30:11-12, NIV)
The message of the Gospel is that we don’t have to clothe ourselves with our own righteousness, religious efforts, or good works. We’re clothed in Christ Himself.
Rather, clothe yourselves with the Lord Jesus Christ, and do not think about how to gratify the desires of the flesh. (Romans 13:14, NIV)
The message of the Gospel is that when we’re clothed in Christ, we become like Christ.
Therefore, as God’s chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience. Bear with each other and forgive one another if any of you has a grievance against someone. Forgive as the Lord forgave you. And over all these virtues put on love, which binds them all together in perfect unity. (Colossians 3:12-14, NIV)
The message of the Gospel is that in Christ all things are going to be transformed, changed, made new. Christ covers death itself with resurrection, immortality, and victory. At the end of things, we’ll take off our worn-out earthly bodies and be given new, immortal ones to wear.
Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed—in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality. When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: “Death has been swallowed up in victory.” (1 Corinthians 15:51-54, NIV)
That’s how the Bible looks when we read it as a book about Jesus. And we wanted to trade that for rules about “modesty”?
The truth is that you don’t have to worry about clothing. God will provide it for you.
You don’t have to worry about spiritual clothing either. You don’t have to worry about righteousness. You don’t have to worry about holiness. You don’t have to worry about being pure, being good enough, being clean, measuring up, being saved, having joy, being loved, being comforted, having everlasting life.
God gives you those, too.
AWESOME! Like the mourners at the funeral of a dead atheist. They were sad that he was dressed in a real nice suit and tie but because of his unbelief had nowhere to go.
If the point of the article is that people try to prove or improve their righteousness with clothing rules, agreed. Out of the heart the bad stuff comes . . . not from our clothing. The Amish and others have made a science out of clothing, down to godly colors and styles (blue and white?!). When someone announces that white shirts are godly, and colored shirts are not (yes, I was in a non-Gothard church setting where that was pronounced), then, well, we have fallen off the boat.
But . . . some balance? 1 Timothy 2:9, full verse: "In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided (braided) hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array . . . " That encourages, well, "modesty" . . . humble, less expensive. No hem line lengths given. But a commandment. Jesus does care what we wear.
How about this? "And, behold, there met him a woman with the attire of an harlot" (Proverbs 7:10) WHAT is this uniform, just out of curiosity? Big sign? No . . . we ALL know what it is . . . Advertisement for services . . . based on nothing but clothing. Ladies advertising for wrong looks and thoughts. Again, no hem line lengths . . . how far should we go to avoid association with that?
Adam and Even were ashamed of their nakedness . . . because nakedness is shameful. "I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear" (Revelation 3:18) Jesus said that - I know it has a spiritual focus here, but the understanding and implication regarding nakedness is clear. I say that because some have pronounced that there are no spiritual aspects to over-exposure of our skin. But Scripture says otherwise.
And to continue with A & E for a moment . . . how come they weren't ashamed of their nakedness before the fall? Because I think they had other things covering them. Ever notice that there are no naked angels? None . . . always covered. Here is one thing that covers:
"Bless the Lord, O my soul.
O Lord my God, thou art very great;
thou art clothed with honour and majesty.
Who coverest thyself with light as with a garment" (Psalm 104:1)
IF Adam and Eve were as close to God as Moses was, how about this?
"And the children of Israel saw the face of Moses, that the skin of Moses' face shone." (Exodus 34:35)
Skin . . . shining with light . . . like clothing. Something to think about.
Alfred, how can you read the book of Song of Solomon and come away with the conclusion that nakedness is shameful?
I argue that the nakedness Adam and Eve felt in the garden was because the intimacy they experienced with God and with each other was shattered. It had very little to do with the fact that they literally had no clothes.
Excellent point. One can relate recognizing the need for salvation to the realization of being "naked" When we recognize our sinfulness before a holy God, we must cry out for His covering - the only one who can cover us.
Carolina Girl: Balance is always a good thing. You will notice that Jesus Himself called their nakedness shameful. Here He is again, placing "nakedness" in the same category as "wretched", "miserable", "poor", and "blind":
"Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked" (Revelation 3:17)
It was such a big deal that Noah's own sons would not even see their own sleeping father naked, and the one son who took a look got a life-long curse. The shame that Adam and Eve felt was in a world where they - a married couple - were the only ones around. Seems like the shame is not toward people so much . . . as it is toward God.
I appreciate that that does not gibe with modern perspectives. I am just saying that the Bible - Jesus personally - seems to take it a lot more seriously than we do. That's it.
Maybe some overdo the "modesty" thing. In fact, I know they do.
The continual arguments of whether to do this or that, or whether to wear this or that, fogs the real issue in discussing Bill Gothard. Bill Gothard teaches ANOTHER GOSPEL. Indeed, he is the very definition of what Paul wrote against in Galatians. In short, yes, he teaches many false things about Christianity -- but more seriously, he teaches a false Christianity. This is an absolute fact. Everything else is defined by this as the foundation. To argue about whether this is that is correct within the legalistic system of Gothardism is about as profitable as a Mormon arguing with a JW. The man is a heretic. Read Galatians 1.
1: Adam and Eve's nakedness - "And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed." (Genesis 2:25) In their sinless state, it would never have occurred to them to see any potential for evil in nakedness - Adam would never have looked at another woman in a lustful way, another man would never have considered Eve for sexual purposes. It was only when they ate of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil that they became aware of how everything could be turned into sin. They became ashamed of their nakedness because they suddenly could see all that could go wrong with it. That is evident by God's immediate response to Adam: "Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded you that you should not eat?" (Genesis 3:11). The 'mystical covering' interpretation is as fantastical as the claim that Jesus made non-intoxicating wine at Cana. Scripture makes no apologies for its realities, however offensive some may find them.
2. The attire of a harlot - Such clothing is determined culturally. I work in a culture where the traditional dress includes an ankle length wrap-around skirt. Those of good character wear the opening on the left; wearing it to the right is considered a sign of loose morals. Neither position would be considered immodest in the U.S.A., even by ultra-conservative standards.
Thanks, Quiet
1) IF the shame of nakedness is a mark of sin, is there a reason for godly Christians to cover up? Why did Jesus, for example, wear clothes? Why is He wearing clothes in Revelation, surrounded by only holy beings? Why are angels always clothed? "Then I lifted up mine eyes, and looked, and behold a certain man clothed in linen, whose loins were girded with fine gold of Uphaz . . . " (Daniel 10:5) Angel in Revelation, clothed with a cloud . . . why? Even God is "clothed in light as a garment". See my point? All as innocent as Adam . . . and always fully clothed.
Adam and Eve had each other to look at - nobody else around . . . and yet they were ashamed.
On the "clothing of light", Moses spent time with God, 40 days, and his skin shone brightly, then slowly faded over a period of time. Jesus shone as he was transfigured. The linen-clothed angel had a face that blazed like lightening. Not a stretch to suggest Adam and Eve, walking daily with God, glowed in similar manner . . . IF they glowed, they definitely stopped, instantly. I have never heard a better explanation of what exactly made their nakedness so suddenly shocking.
2) Yes, point given. Very much relative. Every culture knows what ladies shopping for sexual attention look like. The girls know, the boys know. It is "disingenuous" for a girl to act shocked when some of the rules having been deliberately flirted with, guys collect with all the wrong ideas about what she wants in a relationship.
You know what Alfred, I grew up with self-righteous pharisees, so I can smell them a mile away. You only quote scripture when it fits your theology, and your general attitude is holier than thou. For the record, Adam and Eve were naked and not ashamed about it. Try Genesis chapter 2. And don't give me the whole, well, naked doesn't really mean naked... Cause that's a load of manure sitting in the sun stupid.
We had a missionary last night that offended 2 visiting people at our church. Do you know how? Because he wasn't willing to respect their opinions as being just as valid as his. Far as I am concerned, God does not care if you feel that the only color you should wear is lime green and polka dots, floor length mumus! He is very clear that your heart is the number one priority and all outside references are simply you showing your inner change to become more Christ-like. And the outer references talk about character and fruits of the spirit, not clothes, haircuts, and no movies.
And this particular article spells it out for the thick-headed. But since you are a self-righteous Pharisee who has to have rules and regulations to feel good about yourself, you try to twist the scripture to say what you want it to say so you can be right. You and the missionary last night are the reason that I don't want to be in church, don't want my children to grow up in church. Because you try to force your skewed, limited view of God on everyone else.
For everyone else, I apologize for getting hot under the collar, but sometimes its time to call a spade a spade and move on.
Alfred has proven that he is here as a troll, but I sure got a kick out of this line: "Try Genesis chapter 2. And don’t give me the whole, well, naked doesn’t really mean naked… Cause that’s a load of manure sitting in the sun stupid." It's such give-away when even Scripture isn't good enough for someone so they have to improve it. Conversely, Scripture is just flat-out brilliant to describe our beginning as being without shame and then shame entering due to the Fall. It's such a wise and beautiful description of how everything was created good but is now tainted.
Here is a tragi-comical example of how well it works to try and "repair" Scripture where it ain't broke: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/08/21/this-is-why-you-shouldnt-attempt-to-restore-a-rare-painting-that-you-werent-asked-to-fix/
what is a troll (in cyber jargon)? sorry about off-topic, just clueless.
Someone who intentionally posts controversial/hateful/mean/disturbing things, in order to stir up trouble or debate, either for the attention, or for the love of causing trouble. (That's the basic definition of a troll, I'm not accusing anyone here, simply answering a question.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)
Basically when someone is more interested in stirring the pot than honest and helpful discussion. The saying is DNFTT (do not feed the troll, meaning don't give them the attention they crave).
I know that Alfred is a real person with feelings and a heart and a family. I have given him the benefit of the doubt many times and would have gladly met him on an honest and personal level in the comments. I really thought that in the discussion about the "Call to Repentance" post that he was honestly asking and seeking. But once again, he got painted into a corner, then just dropped it, went quiet for a few weeks, then shows back up with the same-old same-old arguing fine points and hijacking posts.
Two insightful responses to Alfred are here (not written by me) https://www.recoveringgrace.org/2013/03/stolen-treasures/#comment-15788 and here https://www.recoveringgrace.org/2013/03/stolen-treasures/#comment-16020
A quote from one of those comments:
Honestly, Matthew. I ignored your last "troll" rant . . . I guess maybe I shouldn't have. Trolls generally - never? - post their real names, links to their personal websites, nor provide access to their personal lives on Facebook, eh?
Someone who see things differently can really provide a lot of value in otherwise single perspective settings. Provided that they are respectful, willing to accept and respond to criticism. That I have attempted to do, and I have some of my chief (former?) adversaries signed up to keep me accountable. People who I discover are godly, intelligent, caring, and really rather nice. Will gladly include you in the list. You do recall I offered. Whether you believe it or not, you are one that I do respect.
I have rough edges, and I can be harsh. That is wrong, and I will keep working on it.
"Call to Repentance": Some things take more deliberate, private focus. At least if you care about the people close to you . . . or even, God forbid, Bill Gothard. Rest assured it is far from dropped.
Alfred,
While I disagree with your statement about trolls, as often they don't operate anonymously, I agree that "Troll" might not be the most accurate description of you. I think you are probably sincere in your "trolling", but it's probably more accurate to say you are guilty of idolatry, and are a very fervent evangelist for your "idol". You defend him to the point of having to defend your defense. Your logic gets twisted into pretzels at times in this defense, as you are intent on "defending the indefensible".
Many people have noted over the years that "Gothardites" to tend to blur the line between worshiping Gothard and worshiping Jesus. Sad to say, at one time I was one of those. The Gracenote published this week refers to this.
https://www.recoveringgrace.org/2013/07/anniversary-milestones/#more
Make no mistake. whatever his motives, (which are only known to God and himself), Bill Gothard preaches a false gospel. He is equatable to the Pharisees of Jesus day. A "respected religious figure" whom Jesus reviled as a "whitewashed sepulcher". Go to this site and read the "Seven Woes". You can say about Gothard everyone of these.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woes_of_the_Pharisees
I especially find Matthew 23:4 applicable.
"They tie up burdens that are heavy and unbearable and lay them on people's shoulders, but they refuse to lift a finger to remove them."
This sums up in one verse the "false gospel" of Gothard.
He's led many people astray over the years, doing unbelievable damage, and it continues to this day. He is willfully blind to the damage in his wake. And if there is one thing almost everyone agrees on, he is completely unwilling to listen to ANYONE, including his own Board and Advisers, when confronted with real or potential errors in his teaching. In fact, his response in these situations is usually to find some way to personally destroy the "Nathan the Prophet" when confronted. This is not the behavior of a Godly, humble man.
The damage Gothard has done to the Christian church in this country is incalculable, and will bear fruit for generations. I call on you to reject Gothardism, embrace Jesus. Your family will thank you down the road.
Patrick: That list would be great to go over . . . probably not in this thread. Maybe you can get the admins to open another topic :-) Or . . . if already up, point me to it.
I have seen so many times that "Phariseeism" is in the eye of the beholder. What looks "legalistic" and extreme in one context, suddenly looks sober and sane in another. When such issues come up I try to put out the balance I see. When people start yelling at me and calling me names, well, it does the opposite of convince me I have missed the boat. Even Jesus spent a minute undermining the key points of his Pharisitical adversaries, to the point that they had nothing more to say.
I love Jesus and I reject “Gothardism”! But . . . I like Mr. Gothard, and I believe he is basically correct on most of what he teaches, even if I disagree with some of his applications and even if he doesn't keep it himself at times.
And some people have taken the temptation and "modesty" business to unbelievable extremes. So maybe I don't disagree with the author at all. Just wanted some balance, especially in the light of other recent articles declaring a woman’s God-given right to dress as she pleases. The New Testament really does specifically address physical clothing standards for women . . . and not at all for men. There MUST be a reason. So . . . if we can acknowledge that, then I think we will have it nailed pretty close.
Its really pretty simple. Christians should dress modestly and not bring attention to themselves via outlandish or revealing clothing. I don't understand the big fuss.
The big fuss is what the article was about- esteeming/diciphering/agonizing over how to follow the rules of man (how/what to eat, type and color of apparel, what size dog is approved by God, how many children to have, type of car to drive, type of entertainment and the recipe for tator-tot casserole over and above and choking out the love God/love your neighbor emphasis in the Bible. That's what all the fuss is about.
Why would an individual that purportedly follows Christ wish to dress immodestly or present themselves in a garish manner?
The point of the article is not "wear this" or "don't wear that." The point is "Follow Christ." Let His ways become your ways and it will be easy to know what to wear. Plus, we will realize that there is no way we can dress well enough to impress the God of the universe.
When we as Christians try to convince others that they should dress a certain way, talk a certain way, listen to a certain kind of music, etc., we are telling them that that is what being a Christian is about. We are telling them "dress this way, read these books, talk this way, and you will be a Christian." We take Christ completely out of the equation! True Christianity is not a mere set of rules- if it were, it would be the same as any other religion on earth. True Christianity is about a relationship with our Heavenly Father.
Well grateful, the trouble is that everyone's definition of modest/immodest/garish/revealing, are very different. There are those who think that a woman showing her collarbones or ankles is scandalous, let alone a low cut top (even if the top doesn't actually show cleavage) etc.. There are those who believe that certain colors are off limits, regardless of how covered up you are. Behavior wise, there are those who believe that women should pretty much never speak above a soft voice, laugh loudly, move quickly, or draw any kind of attention to themselves, because it would be immodest. (Talk about crushing, esp if you are an extrovert!)
For people who believe this to preach that 'this is Christ' is the problem in the modesty debate.
"present themselves in a garish manner"
what is the definition of garish?
some Christians like more color, even outlandish, some dress in toned down colors.
some Christians have outgoing personalities, to the point of loud (ever hang around one or more Christian artists? very loud and colorful!)
Some live in hot humid areas where less clothing will keep them from heat stroke. I said in another post, there are no problems with modesty in the north pole climates. Everybody is covered up to keep warm.
it is when everyone starts dressing exactly the same that I begin to get a little wary about Who they really belong to.
1Sa 16:7 But the LORD said unto Samuel, Look not on his countenance, or on the height of his stature; because I have refused him: for the LORD seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the LORD looketh on the heart.
Yes Chris Sumonds;
This verse you quoted(1 Sam.16:17)also lets us know that we are human and God is God.We are not God,and will never be.That is why we will continue to look on the outward appearance.
And so the whole issue of modest/immodest clothing should be viewed in light of the Scriptures.Talking about man judging from the outward appearance and knowing that man cannot see the heart,the Lord Jesus said in Matt.7:20.."Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them".So men will judge you by what fruit you are displaying.
Everyone is free to claim that his/her motive for donning immodest clothing is pure:"God sees my heart !",but we know that "A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit"- Matthew 7:18.
We also know that,on the Last Day, God will reveal the intent of those hearts("For nothing is secret, that shall not be made manifest; neither any thing hid, that shall not be known and come abroad"..Lu 8:17.)
However the MAIN REASON, that God commands us to dress modestly with SHAMEFACEDNESS (1 Tim.2:9) is the warning given by our Lord Jesus Christ in Matt.18:6.."But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea"
Again writing in Romans 14:13,19 & 21, Apostle Paul admonishes us thus:"Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother’s way.19…Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another.
21…It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak".
Paul the Apostle, when he was brought before Felix the governor,said of himself(speaking for all true believers) in Acts 24:16:"And herein do I exercise myself, to have always a conscience void of offence toward God, and TOWARD MEN".
Going back to the issue of immodest clothing;I know that WORLDLY LUST is at the root of our attraction to immodest clothing:."For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world"..1Jo 2:16
What is the way out?Walking in the spirit.."This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh"..Galatians 5:16.
Remember that God's commandments were not given to regulate the conduct of God,but the conduct of man.They are for our admonition.."Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come"(1Co 10:11) and we are to keep them joyfully;"For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous"-1Jo.5:3.
In summary:"Let us live our Christian lives here on earth with consideration for our weaker brethren !"
You can quote all the Bible verses in the world but the Bible does not at all spell out what is modest and what is not. The whole issues of modesty is touched on in the Bible in the very vaguest of ways. That is because what one culture or time period considers modest or appropriate may be not so in another. That show the universal strength of the Gospel. What is considered modest in the 1st century isn't in 1420 and it is different in 1870 and again in 2015. Likewise, you put the whole burden on the woman to dress modestly in order not to tempt the "weaker" man. Seriously, if a man already has a problem with lust etc, no matter how modestly some woman maybe dressed, isn't going to stop the man's problem which is within him. Likewise and common sense is needed, appropriate dress is also determined by the activity. What one may wear to the beach is inappropriate for Church or a formal dinner and what one may wear to Church would border on stupidity at the beach. Unless you want women to dress up in hajibs, Butkas and the rest as in Islamic countries, setting a strict dos and don't of dress really can't be done. Unless of course you want to isolate oneself from society in your own little bubble world. But I think the great commission to going out with the Gospel message should be primary than maintaining some out of date dress code in the name of modesty
"What if the Bible isn’t a book of moralistic platitudes? What if there’s a bigger, bolder, more glorious theme that everything else in it points to?"
YES!!!! To be honest, when I viewed the Bible as instructions for daily living I was a judgmental, condescending little twit! It wasn't until one day two years ago the scales fell off my eyes and I finally saw the truth in the Sermon on the Mount that I started to experience love, joy, peace.
Thank you once again Eric for such a heart-reaching article.
Alfred said "declaring a woman’s God-given right to dress as she pleases."
this is where some miss the boat on what this article intends...actually that should be "declaring a woman’s God-given right to dress as she feels led by God on an individual basis for where she lives."
Yes, NOT, 'a woman's God-given right/requirement to alter her wardrobe to please the wide variety of men around her, each of whom have a very different idea of what is modest and what is not.' It'll drive you nuts, cause no matter what you wear, SOMEONE is going to find it immodest. Even Little House on the Prairie clothes are a turn on for some types. And from what I understand, the type of men who find that hot, are usually thinking about very dirty, bondage style sex, and not in a 'marriage bed is holy' kind of way.
I know Alfred can be very contentious but I have seen pics of his wife and daughters so although he may be a big supporter of B.G. His wife and daughters hardly fit the typical ATI IBLP mold. In fact they dress rather immodestly by Gothard standards.... just saying!
I have been outed :-) If you want to see a very recent picture, click on my name.
Well . . . My ladies do dress modestly. But not according to all of the rules. Like somebody - Heather? - said, it will drive you nuts.
The point is that we do need to take the concerns of others seriously . . . not that this will drive our life in each and every instance. Paul said to take the situations seriously when others are offended - serve them in love wherever possible.
Our ladies do dress up for ATI functions . . . and for church. Nothing wrong with that, eh? If someone is grieved by something they discover, you sometimes take a few more steps in their direction to make them happy (Paul did this: 1 Cor. 10:28). The point is not to let things that don't matter - like clothes - mess up things that do, like relationships.
Alfred I agree with appropriate dress for the occasion. Some IBLP members I have met dress as though they are are at a church meeting or ATI convention all the time. I don't think the way your wife and daughters are dressed in that photo is in any way immodest, some would say they are though
Thanks, Chris. I stopped living for the "some" a long time ago. Not that I don't care . . . but, like in a race, the big deal is to FINISH. And you carry what you can to help you get there, and jettison the rest.
I have a real life scenario that I would like for you all to comment on. Ex-ATI young woman stops wearing denim down to her ankles one day and then the next day (seemingly) wears skin-tight white daisy duke shorts and spaghetti string top to a gathering with known non-Christians. Is she:
a) an immature believer and just needs to grow in the Lord.
b) demonstrating her freedom in Christ and to heck with everybody else, deal with it.
c) Since God looks on the inside, what she wears has no bearing on anything
d) something I'm missing here ...
Honestly just curios, not trying to stir things up. I really do not understand why dressing modestly is such a big issue, the connotation of living such a lifestyle that reflects so is all throughout Scripture.
The answer is all of the above. If this ex-ATI kid under 21...if she is still a teen she is doing what teens do, exercising her choice to make independent decisions. And some of those decisions are just plain dumb. (Teenage boy's famous last words are "Hey, watch this!")
If she is in her 20's and has been told all her life that denim to her ankles is God's only way but has seen others (Christians, too) not being held to such strict rules and wondering why God has given her such strict rules. She is like the rock in the boomerang, pulled back so tight that when finally let go, it flies way further than you could imagine. Or like a pendulum which will swing back.
So yes, that is immodest but she is probably dealing with the inner turmoil of a b c and d going through her mind all at the same time. In time, she will work it out and if she belongs to Christ, He will give her grace to grow through it.
I think esbee's answer is a good one here is another thought. I would argue that it might be partly (a) but mostly just having no idea how to function in the "real" world. I was raised in California to the age of 15 I was the most conservative dresser in my circle including the ATI girls! But California conservative wasn't anything like what I ran into when moving to Arizona where conservative meant dresses only. So I began to question what I had done previously and conform something odd happened that I didn't expect. I actually found that if I dressed to the extreme conservative long dress that I got unwanted attention from disgusting guys and older men I am not kidding. After a couple of particularly bad experiences one of them bordering on stalking I quit. I still dressed conservatively but did my best to look more like those around me so as not to stand out. I realized that by dressing in certain ways I looked like I might be innocent bait rather than a woman who wanted to be respected. I sounds like the young lady you are talking about is going to the extreme in looking like everyone else. The pendulum thing esbee mentioned is probably happening it may be also that the modesty stuff she was taught was so over the top she doesn't know how to moderate. I pray she can figure out where she belongs soon without too much embarrassment along the way.
Imho, one should always take weather and region into consideration when deciding whether or not something is 'modest'. Hello heat stroke! Also, even though I would not wear Daisy Dukes (call me old fashioned, but I think your shorts should be longer than your vagina, haha), I have no issue with a tank top, especially at a BBQ. I mean really, it's a BBQ. Of course, I suppose that depends on body type, flat chested girls can wear almost anything, and it's not immodest, whereas, the Rachel's among us can't wear stuff like that without looking hoochie.
In answer to your scenario, I would conclude she is just experimenting - seeing how it feels to look like everyone else. She'll develop her own style and if she is rooted in the Lord, she'll figure out what is modest attire.
On your concluding comment - as a former ATI student who obeyed all the dress codes without question, it took going to another culture to find the answer to the question of: What is modest dress?
I mentioned in a reply to Alfred that the traditional dress in the culture where I work includes an ankle length wrap-around skirt. Those of good character wear the opening on the left; wearing it to the right is considered a sign of loose morals. Now, keep in mind, the culture is heavily influenced by Islam. However, the breasts are treated solely as a maternal organ, and do not have a sexual connotation. Women breastfeed openly anytime, anywhere (which is excellent for the health of their children) and they often strip to the waist while cooking or washing. But, to expose the hips or upper thighs is extremely provocative.
Modest dress is guided by the culture in which one is living - if it is considered sexually-provocative by the general population to wear such and such, a Christian should avoid wearing it. I realize there are limitations to such an answer, as in places where not wearing a burkha is considered an invitation for sexual assault, but it is a good general guideline under reasonable circumstances. Like Paul, we should be culturally appropriate.
hello "quiet one"
You wrote:
"In answer to your scenario, I would conclude she is just experimenting - seeing how it feels to look like everyone else. She'll develop her own style and if she is rooted in the Lord, she'll figure out what is modest attire."
Let me say this;No one who is "rooted in the Lord" will attend a public gathering/function in the attire of a harlot.