I think it's important to remember what modesty means when discussing what is MODEST to wear. Back during Biblical times, women were covered from head to foot, with mostly just their face and hands showing. Yet even THEN they were not being modest, and thus were instructed by the Apostle Paul to be modest.
This begs the question: If even being completely covered is not enough to be modest in God's eyes, then what is? Clearly covering up your mentionables and unmentionables is not enough!
In Biblical times being vain meant wearing "breaded hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes" (1 Timothy 2:9). Furthermore, these vain women made no effort to be beautiful on the inside before God (2:10). Basically, they cared only about making themselves beautiful on the outside so they could attract attention. This is the opposite of Biblically modesty, vanity and selfishness.
So now we have learned something important: (1) It's not what you wear, but what your reason for wearing it, that God is concerned about. (2) If vanity and selfishness are the opposite to modesty, than even when we cover ourselves up completely, we could be immodest!
Notice that men lusting has *nothing to do* with modesty. Modesty has to do with the heart of the women, not the heart of the men. Even if women dress completely modestly and pleasing to God, they can not stop men from lusting. The reason is because lusting is a heart issue with *the man*, not *the woman*.
I believe that the church is wrong to teach modesty has something to do with preventing men to lust. It distracts from the real message of modesty and gives men excuses to lust.
You don't believe me? Think about it.
If being modest becomes all about what you wear and not making men lust, then women don't have to concern themselves about things like vanity and selfishness. It is, after all, much easier to deal with outward appearances than to deal with inward ones.
By saying it's the women's responsibility to prevent lust, it allows men to "pass the buck". They are, in essence, saying as Adam did, "The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat." (Genesis 3:12) It's an easy, cheap way out of being held accountable for their sins.
In the end, was Eve held responsible for Adam eating the fruit? No. In the same way, women are not responsible for men lusting. God holds them accountable for giving into the temptation of lust, not women.
Dear reader, all that I have just said is not to advocate dressing like a slut. Instead, I am saying we are turning modesty into something it is not. By doing so, we give both men AND women an excuse to sin! (Or at the very least make it a lot easier to ignore sin.)
Now, getting back to modesty. How can we dress "modestly" if modesty is not about the length of our skirts? I think there are several ways to know whether we are dressing modestly. Here are some questions to ask ourselves:
"Am I trying to be trendy so I can feel socially accepted?"
"Am I dressing so men will look at me?"
"Do I dress the same as the trashy women in my area?"
"Am I representing Christianity well by what I wear?"
"Do I dress to attract lots of attention from strangers?"
"Am I honoring my parents/husband's wishes by what I wear?"
"Am I flaunting my wealth?"
You'll notice that most of these questions will result in a "personal answer". That is, a woman's answer will differ depending on her maturity and culture. What is modest for one woman may not be for another.
This will cause some conflicts, no doubt. How do you reconcile extreme differences between two people and what they think is modest? I think Paul described what to do in these situations best:
"Everything is permissible"—but not everything is beneficial. "Everything is permissible"—but not everything is constructive." 1 Corinthians 10: 23-24
"So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God. Do not cause anyone to stumble, whether Jews, Greeks or the church of God— even as I try to please everybody in every way. For I am not seeking my own good but the good of many, so that they may be saved." 1 Corinthians 10:31-33
This begs the question: If even being completely covered is not enough to be modest in God's eyes, then what is? Clearly covering up your mentionables and unmentionables is not enough!
In Biblical times being vain meant wearing "breaded hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes" (1 Timothy 2:9). Furthermore, these vain women made no effort to be beautiful on the inside before God (2:10). Basically, they cared only about making themselves beautiful on the outside so they could attract attention. This is the opposite of Biblically modesty, vanity and selfishness.
So now we have learned something important: (1) It's not what you wear, but what your reason for wearing it, that God is concerned about. (2) If vanity and selfishness are the opposite to modesty, than even when we cover ourselves up completely, we could be immodest!
Notice that men lusting has *nothing to do* with modesty. Modesty has to do with the heart of the women, not the heart of the men. Even if women dress completely modestly and pleasing to God, they can not stop men from lusting. The reason is because lusting is a heart issue with *the man*, not *the woman*.
I believe that the church is wrong to teach modesty has something to do with preventing men to lust. It distracts from the real message of modesty and gives men excuses to lust.
You don't believe me? Think about it.
If being modest becomes all about what you wear and not making men lust, then women don't have to concern themselves about things like vanity and selfishness. It is, after all, much easier to deal with outward appearances than to deal with inward ones.
By saying it's the women's responsibility to prevent lust, it allows men to "pass the buck". They are, in essence, saying as Adam did, "The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat." (Genesis 3:12) It's an easy, cheap way out of being held accountable for their sins.
In the end, was Eve held responsible for Adam eating the fruit? No. In the same way, women are not responsible for men lusting. God holds them accountable for giving into the temptation of lust, not women.
Dear reader, all that I have just said is not to advocate dressing like a slut. Instead, I am saying we are turning modesty into something it is not. By doing so, we give both men AND women an excuse to sin! (Or at the very least make it a lot easier to ignore sin.)
Now, getting back to modesty. How can we dress "modestly" if modesty is not about the length of our skirts? I think there are several ways to know whether we are dressing modestly. Here are some questions to ask ourselves:
"Am I trying to be trendy so I can feel socially accepted?"
"Am I dressing so men will look at me?"
"Do I dress the same as the trashy women in my area?"
"Am I representing Christianity well by what I wear?"
"Do I dress to attract lots of attention from strangers?"
"Am I honoring my parents/husband's wishes by what I wear?"
"Am I flaunting my wealth?"
You'll notice that most of these questions will result in a "personal answer". That is, a woman's answer will differ depending on her maturity and culture. What is modest for one woman may not be for another.
This will cause some conflicts, no doubt. How do you reconcile extreme differences between two people and what they think is modest? I think Paul described what to do in these situations best:
"Everything is permissible"—but not everything is beneficial. "Everything is permissible"—but not everything is constructive." 1 Corinthians 10: 23-24
"So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God. Do not cause anyone to stumble, whether Jews, Greeks or the church of God— even as I try to please everybody in every way. For I am not seeking my own good but the good of many, so that they may be saved." 1 Corinthians 10:31-33
No comments:
Post a Comment