What About Speedos? Or, Are Liberty and Libertinism The Same?

The yoga pants kerfuffle continues to rage on social media. Somehow it seems that suggesting that sisters in Christ running around in pants that are little different from body paint might be inappropriate on a number of levels has gotten a lot of people pretty upset with cries of Puritanism and mind your own beeswax. In some ways I don't get it and in others I really do.

Even granting that I have never and will never engage in yoga, I am pretty sure that it is not necessary to wear yoga pants while actively engaged in yoga, much less while going to the grocery store (unless the intent is to fool people into thinking you are coming from or going to a workout based on wearing workout clothes and running shoes. Here's a hint, you ain't fooling anyone.).Likewise I am pretty sure that playing volleyball doesn't require wearing shorts so tiny and tight that your butt cheeks are hanging out of the bottom of them. If guys can play basketball at the highest level wearing shorts baggy to the point of being ludicrous, I am pretty sure that high school girls can play volleyball without turning it into a peep show to draw in spectators. Unless of course you also think that women's beach volleyball gets so much airtime during the Olympics because of the riveting level of play rather than the non-existent uniforms. Try suggesting that certain articles of clothing that are designed and marketed to show off your hind end are maybe not in good taste and especially inappropriate for women who are followers of Christ and you have a crap storm on your hands.

Imagine flipping this around. Would anyone get upset if a wife suggested to her husband that going out in public wearing a Speedo, flip flops with black dress socks and a cut off t-shirt emblazoned with "Hot Stuff" might be inappropriate? I doubt it. Men ought to be dressed appropriately and even modestly. If I ever decided to trot down the street wearing this, please for the sake of humanity stop me. I would have no issue with a man or woman in the church writing about this topic and exploring why a Speedo is not a God honoring choice for men to sport in public.

Why do people get so incensed on this topic? I am not really all that concerned specifically here with the particulars of one item or clothing versus another. I continue to believe that this topic, which seems kind of silly (my wife and daughters don't wear anything like this in public so why should I care?), speaks more broadly to how believers who live in America approach issues differently than our predecessors or even our contemporary brothers and sisters in other cultural context.

There is an egalitarian autonomy in America that has bled over into the church, an attitude that co-opts the American Revolution era Gadsden flag and raises it as the banner of the church. We often approach it as a matter of liberty but I think it really is reflective of libertinism. For our reference:

Libertinism

A lifestyle or pattern of behavior characterized by self-indulgence and lack of restraint, especially one involving sexual promiscuity and rejection of religious or other moral authority.

Obviously I am not someone who is big on ecclesiastical religious authoritarianism. That doesn't mean and has never meant that I advocate an "anything goes" Christianity. Quite the opposite. I think that it is easy to let someone dictate to you the rules in a top-down religious setting. It is much harder to monitor yourself and think through questions on your own with the aid of the Christian community to help guide you through your personal blind spots. It is especially difficult when you live in a culture where the idea of an unchanging external authority is abhorrent. So the question I bring up is this, does the church broadly speaking as a family and community, have a voice in how we relate to one another and the broader world? Further does the church have the standing to speak authoritatively on certain issues or is this a "everyone does what is right in his own eyes" situation? I think Proverbs 12:15 and Proverbs 21:2 are applicable here.

When it comes to pornography I think generally speaking no one questions that the church should speak out against it in broad terms. When it comes to yoga pants all of a sudden people freak out. Is it a gender issue? Is this a backlash against centuries of repression of women, whether that repression was real or imagined? Maybe but I think that along with the perceptions of repression we are dealing with the combination of American notions of independence and contemporary libertinism creating a toxic mix that demands that my own opinion, my own desires are the highest authority on any topic. It is often remarked that men need to govern their own behavior and not blame women for dressing in an enticing fashion. Fair enough but I would ask yet again what motivates women to wear clothing that is intended to entice and further to ask all of us if we reject the role of the church as a whole in speaking to issues from a perspective that often (and necessarily) runs contrary to the prevailing cultural norms.

A Tempest In A Tight Pants Teapot

I apparently missed the initial outrage but a prominent blogger who happens to also be a woman and a Christian, Veronica Partridge, made the grievous error of posting a very short, very non-judgmental post about why she had made the personal, non-binding on anyone else, decision to stop wearing leggings and yoga pants outside of the house: Why I chose to no longer wear leggings. It drew over 800 comments on her blog and went viral (her prior posts drew single-digit comments). As you can imagine if you pay attention to the culture this post has caused a great deal of outrage.

If you take the time to actually read past the title you will see a prominent disclaimer where she specifically says that she is not intending to tell anyone else what they can or can't wear. On her facebook page she reiterates this and writes:

Whether you agree with me or not, that's okay. Like I said, this is just my personal journey I thought I'd share.

That is what blogging is for most of us that are not making a living from blogging, an outlet for us to write about what we are thinking about and thinking through. To some apparently her personal thoughts on a topic are tantamount to a condemnation of their own behavior. I suspect that a lot of the backlash has to do with a sense of guilt hidden by many that comes to the surface when anyone brings up the topic, which might explain why no one brings it up because who wants that sort of grief? Here is what she wrote that got everyone in a tizzy:

Was it possible my wearing leggings could cause a man, other than my husband, to think lustfully about my body? I asked my husband his thoughts on the matter when he got home. I appreciated his honesty when he told me, “yeah, when I walk into a place and there are women wearing yoga pants everywhere, it’s hard to not look. I try not to, but it’s not easy.”

I instantly felt conviction come over me even stronger. Not that I wasn’t feeling it earlier, or else I wouldn’t have thought twice about the conversation, but after talking to Dale, it hit me a lot harder. If it is difficult for my husband who loves, honors, and respects me to keep his eyes focused ahead, then how much more difficult could it be for a man that may not have the same self-control? Sure, if a man wants to look, they are going to look, but why entice them? Is it possible that the thin, form-fitting yoga pants or leggings could make a married (or single) man look at a woman in a way he should only look at his wife?

That this is even slightly controversial says a lot more about the state of our culture than it does about Victoria Partridge.

I have some thoughts on this topic. Go figure. I am sure that my thoughts will draw the ire of some so I will save you the trouble of shouting the following at me:

SEXIST PIG!

MISOGYNIST!

PATRIARCHIALIST!

There, having that out of the way we can continue. It is odd that we can talk openly and frankly, even to the point of being awkward and creepy, about sex except if we suggest any sort of limitation or self-control. When someone suggests to college women that getting drunk to the point of being severely impaired in your ability to make rational decisions on actions you might regret later or even drinking to the point of passing out might just put you in serious risk, gets you labeled with all of he terms above and an apologist for the "rape culture". As others have pointed out this is like saying that the suggestion that you shouldn't leave your new car running with the doors open in a bad neighborhood is being an apologist for car theft. Saying "you should take reasonable and rational precautions to protect yourself" is not even close to saying "if you get drunk and get raped you had it coming" but you would think it was in our culture.

Back to the pants issue. The trend of wearing leggings and yoga pants has been a goldmine for many dudes like nothing men have seen since the advent of the bikini and the mini-skirt. Being uncharacteristically blunt, leggings leave pretty much nothing to the imagination and that is precisely what they are designed for. Every contour of her skin is on display under an awfully thin layer of fabric. Again, by design. I appreciate Victoria's  use of the word "entice" because I think it is an excellent word to label the impact leggings are designed to have.

I work in a place where the public comes and goes and a huge percentage of women are wearing leggings. I can watch my fellow men and you can see the heads swivel almost involuntarily. It is a cultural trend and it seems that a lot of Christian women are swept along by this tide just as so many Christians are by other cultural waves. Unfortunately we have come to a point where these sorts of conversations either don't happen at all because of a conservative setting where a sister wearing yoga pants in public is unthinkable or in the rest of the church where even the suggestion of common sense self-limitation is met with frothing at the mouth anger.

Before I get to the main issue, here are a couple of the most common responses....

You shouldn't be looking anyway, it is your problem!

Do you know why billboards along the highway have been an effective marketing tool for a long time? Because they work. Even if you aren't meaning to your eyes are drawn to a billboard because they are designed to attract attention. The same is true for neon signs. Also true for flashy jewelry. The same is true for any attention grabbing device. You get my point. Baggy sweat pants would be just as comfortable as leggings but they don't draw much attention. While some women clearly have not looked in the mirror before leaving the house in leggings you can't tell me that most don't check themselves out and wear leggings specifically because it shows off their hind end. Back in the 80's girls used to wear high-waisted (so their butt crack wasn't showing whenever they bent over) jeans that were so tight it had to be a major struggle just to get them on. Were they comfortable? I doubt it. Did they draw attention to their butt? You betcha.  It is absolutely true that I shouldn't be looking at other women. I think that most men struggle with this, that is why it gets special mention in the Bible. Turns out men and women are different and have different struggles and the Bible addresses those issues differently (but they are usually interconnected). It is almost like God is omniscient or something. I also have an obligation to not encourage my brother or sister to stumble. If they sin it is on them but I bear a different responsibility if I encourage it. I don't go to AA meetings and offer people there a beer. I don't leave a flash drive loaded with porn for someone I know is struggling with that issue. I don't leave stacks of money around someone who has a problem with stealing. You get my point. Life is hard enough to navigate in the old flesh with a new heart without intentionally and willfully making it harder for others in the name of "liberty". Paul had a lot to say about this and it is as true today as it was back then.

Well they are just comfortable!

Maybe, but so are lots of other outfits. To be blunt it might be comfy in the summer to wear nothing but my boxers but I don't do that, not around the house and certainly not in public. It might be comfy and convenient to wear your robe in the house after you shower but you don't go out like that (hopefully). It is about a sense of propriety. What you wear in public ought to be different from what you wear around the house and what you wear to bed. I am not advocating for a uniform or a burqa, nor am I a fan of forced formality in clothing, just some common sense and common courtesy.

Get ready, I am about to use the "M" word, the dirtiest word you can use in the church today. Leggings aren't really the issue. The ultimate issue here is about modesty and modesty is much more than not wearing revealing clothing. Or let me rephrase that. Modesty is more than not wearing revealing clothes but it is also not less than that. Paul wrote about modesty in a way that I think is profitable for the church today.

I desire then that in every place the men should pray, lifting holy hands without anger or quarreling; likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, but with what is proper for women who profess godliness—with good works. (1 Tim 2:8-10)

Paul isn't really talking about jewelry or braided hair here, nor is he setting a minimalist standard. My wife and I don't wear our wedding rings anymore partly because of this verse but it is about so much more than that. Why do women wear costly attire and jewelry and spend a ton of time on their hair? Why do men buy sports cars or wear gear from their favorite sports team? In short to draw attention to themselves.  That is what this is really about. Leggings and yoga pants are just the latest fad to draw attention to women by enticing men to look at them lustfully. Whether it is leggings or costly jewelry for women or a new luxury car for men, we like to be noticed even if we don't like the way we are noticed. We ought to expect this from the world but as the church we ought to try something different. We ought to be marked by humility, by our good works in response to the Gospel, for our self-control and sobriety and most of all for our love of one another and of all men, even our enemies. There is a reason that virtually all of the qualities to be demonstrated by an elder are based in our public witness rather than on charisma or public speaking talents. People should notice us for how different we are and how consistent we are, not thrown about by every wind of the culture but standing firm on the ancient teachings of God's revelation.

I don't know much about her other than this one post but thanks to Victoria Partridge for sharing what was on her heart and for standing firm in the face of the slings and arrows of detractors. I wish more brothers and sisters in  the church had the courage of conviction to stand against the cultural tide rather than seeking to accommodate in every sense of the word. 

When Did Modesty Become An Ironically Dirty Word?

We live in interesting times. Even as the religious culture collapses around us, the church is responding in wildly different ways. In some corners we have the church stubbornly insisting on doing the same things we have done for centuries and expecting somehow that the world will suddenly find it appealing. Other corners are hunkering down and withdrawing, content to be glad that we are not subject to the harsh reality of the world around us. An even larger segment, and one that seems to be growing, is the Quisling wing that has surrendered to the world and eagerly joined it, embracing every fad and whim of the world in a vain attempt to gain the approval of the world.

This mindset tells us that whatever is traditional is bad and must be not only be rejected but the opposite is to be embraced. Far be it from me to discourage anyone from questioning tradition and rejecting what is not Scriptural but it seems many of us are missing that critical step of looking to Scripture.

One idea that is getting increasing attention is what I would call the "anti-modesty" movement. The thought process seems to be: dressing in skimpy clothing is considered "cute" and "normal" by the culture. Being counter-culturally modest is "traditional". Therefore no one dares imply that it is neither wise nor helpful for young women to dress in ways designed to be sexually provocative. I can sort of get some of it, there is a bit of an understandable backlash against the "modest is hottest" stuff, but what it has predictably turned into is a rejection of any suggestion of modesty as being a praiseworthy in spite of what seems to be pretty powerful and clear Biblical advocacy for modesty. We of course have 1 Timothy 2:9-10 which calls on sisters to be modest and respectable in their attire, which would seem to include both eschewing fancy clothing and jewelry but also  immodest attire. Then there is 1 Corinthians 11 commends not just women covering their heads but also condemns women wearing their hair short and men wearing their hair long. These are just a few examples but neither gets much play in the church. Can you imagine the average pastor suggesting that the women in the pews wearing expensive outfits, adorned with jewelry and make-up and with fashionably short hair cuts might want to rethink their ensemble? No better way to get a handful of change rather than a nice check in the offering plate doing that sort of stuff, not to mention the irate emails or awkward after sermon conversations!

My issue with this is that it is not just some fairly obscure theological position. I read the paper thin critiques of penal substitutionary atonement and while I think they are way off the mark and perilously so, the vast majority of Christians don't have an opinion one way or the other and those we are trying to reach with the Gospel don't have a clue what we are talking about. The anti-modesty movement? That has a very real and negative impact on young women in the church, women who are getting a message from the culture that is increasingly reinforced by vocal portions of the church that dressing in a sexually suggestive manner is not only OK but it is actually laudable.

We need to set aside the contemporary debate for a second and look to the Bible and what it has to say about modesty. As I am prone to do, crazy fundie that I am, I like to go to Genesis because there is nowhere in Scripture that we can get a better look at the foundations of virtually any issue. Of course if you are one of those that dismisses Genesis as an allegory that has no historical value and no relevance to the church, please feel free to skip the rest of this post. The very first thing that Adam and Eve did after eating the fruit was not to ponder their role in white privilege or how to advance social justice or advocate for increasing the minimum wage. No it was this....

Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked. And they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loincloths. And they heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God among the trees of the garden. But the LORD God called to the man and said to him, "Where are you?" And he said, "I heard the sound of you in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked, and I hid myself."  (Gen 3:7-10)

Their nakedness was the first thing they noticed. I think that might be important. Notice that in response God doesn't say "Hey drop those leaves and let it all hang out! If ya got it, flaunt it!' He instead does something that seems unexpected in our modern culture:

And the LORD God made for Adam and for his wife garments of skins and clothed them. (Gen 3:21)

He replaced their fig leave coverings with better garments made of skin. Presumably the animal had to die first and that has some interesting implications to be explored at a different time. More to the point here. God provided the means to cover their nakedness which would seem to imply that post-fall this was an important issue.

Yeah but we aren't talking about nudity, just tank tops and short shorts!

True but honestly the line between being nude and some outfits young women wear is getting pretty hard to distinguish. There was a time when it was called "underwear" because you would wear it under your clothing.

Now I am not a woman but I can't help but think that wearing the tiniest of shorts and shirts that expose a lot of flesh as well as most of your undergarments can't be that comfortable to wear. I am also pretty sure that the difference in comfort when the temperature rises between say a modest length lightweight skirt and tiny shorts is not that dramatic. So what is really on display (pun intended) is clothing that is designed to be sexually provocative being trumpeted as healthy for young women and that any man who notices the sexually provocative nature of clothing intended to be sexually provocative is a pervert or a Puritan or some combination thereof. Yes men need to be cognizant of the effect women in skimpy clothing has on them and it is a good idea to avoid settings where you are exposed to it but the idea that women should expose themselves at will and men just have to stare at the ground is ludicrous and one that in saner times wouldn't be given a reasonable hearing in the church. Alas we don't live in sane times.

Somehow much of the church has bought wholesale into the notion that any sort of restraint on baser human behavior is somehow repressive and unhealthy. If the Bible teaches anything, it teaches that the natural state of mankind is unhealthy and abhorrent to God. That is why Christ came, not to give us a "sin all you like" card but to redeem humanity, saving us from our own base instincts and the just wrath of God in response. To respond to our freedom in Christ by embracing that which is hateful to God seems like ingratitude to me.

What qualifies as modest is kind of a broad topic but using some common sense and some historical perspective broader than last week should help. Some would say women wearing pants at all is immodest. I don't necessarily agree but certainly skin tight jeans or those ridiculous leggings that serve as "pants" or the even worse jeans cut in such a way that your butt crack is hanging out are clearly not modest. Low cut tops that expose a lot of cleavage are the same. What purpose does a blouse that is low cut serve if not drawing attention to your cleavage? To get all outraged because men are looking where your shirt is designed to draw their attention seems just a tad hypocritical. Again I am not a woman but if you have to spend all day hiking up your jeans and tugging up your top, perhaps a more appropriate outfit might be in order? I am also pretty sure that young women who are wearing comfortable, modest clothes that don't expose the vast majority of their skin might have fewer issues with body image.

My intent here is not to create an exhaustive list of what Christian women can or cannot wear. In fact this is not an exclusively female issue, although it is more obvious with women. Men can certainly dress immodestly as well, although dressing in poor taste is probably a lot more common than dressing immodestly. Modesty is also more than just showing skin, Paul is at least as concerned with women wearing expensive clothes, jewelry and styled hair as he is with fleshly immodesty. There is, or ought to be, something jarring about a gathering of the church where men and women alike are wearing costly garments and jewelry, where women are wearing make-up and styled hair, in order to demonstrate just how serious they are about following a King who rode a donkey in Jerusalem and spoke favorably of the poor and not so much of the rich. Try going to a nice suburban conservative church some time in ratty, dirty clothes and see how you are welcomed. As it applies to clothing that is revealing however I am deeply concerned by possibly well-meaning (and quite possibly less than well-meaning) folks who are exhibiting knee-jerk reactions to any hint that women, especially our daughters, should consider their own dignity and safety when choosing the clothes they wear. As parents get pushed out of the lives of their children in ever more comprehensive ways and at earlier ages, the church should be the exception rather than a willing participant. Parents, mothers and fathers alike, should be comfortable in saying "Uh no, back upstairs and try again" when our children are dressed in ways that dishonor God and themselves. We should be just as comfortable in gently saying no to the latest request for a brand new phone or expensive tennis shoes or any of the other worldly, immodest trappings of the modern world. Being a parent is not a spectator sport. Parents ought to model modesty for their children and expect it from them as they grow old enough to start making decisions on their own. We aren't doing our children, our witness or ourselves any favors when we intentionally dishonor God with our attire and do so in the misguided name of "Christian liberty".

Repost: On The Wearing of Wedding Rings

Back in 2010 I wrote a post about the wearing of wedding rings. It was a topic that had come up so it was on my mind at the time. It still gets a lot of hits. In the two and a half years since I wrote that post my wife and I have thought about the topic now and again. About a month or so ago we stopped wearing our rings. I would like to sell them, along with our class rings which are also gold, and give away the proceeds. I figure wearing a ring don't make more married than I already am and an orphan in Haiti could use the money. My wife isn't quite to that stage yet but it has been a while since we stopped wearing them and no one has tried hitting on me (maybe because my finger has a permanent line where my ring used to be or maybe because my grey beard makes me look like I am 60). So we are still working though it but I thought I would put the post back up.

----------
So this is an interesting conversation that has come up among some friends and one that generates a visceral reaction when broached.

Wedding rings are firmly entrenched in our culture. The exchanging of rings and wearing of them to signify that the wearer is married is part of our cultural heritage even to the point of being the focal point in a whole bunch of country music songs (“I put that little golden band on the right left hand this time….”). Removing a wedding ring can be an indicator of a marriage that is broken. Cultural nostalgia is a big deal when it comes to these small symbols of marriage. Getting an engagement ring is a huge deal for women (if you have ever worked with a young woman who gets engaged the next day at work is filled with her friends and co-workers ooohin and aaaahing over the diamond)

Here is the question. Should Christians wear wedding rings or for that matter should Christians wear any sort of jewelry at all? My wife wears a modest wedding ring and has a couple of other pieces of frankly fairly inexpensive jewelry that she rarely wears. Should she? Why not you ask? Because it certtainly seems that Scripture doesn't permit this tradition.

Scripture seems pretty clear on this, generally in the idea of meekness and humility which seems ill served by a ring made out of a precious metal and often adorned with a pricey diamond as well as more specifically in two passages. I copied the whole section, not just the verse in question to give us a more full view and highlighted the particular verses:

Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands, so that even if some do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives, when they see your respectful and pure conduct. Do not let your adorning be external—the braiding of hair and the putting on of gold jewelry, or the clothing you wear—but let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God's sight is very precious. For this is how the holy women who hoped in God used to adorn themselves, by submitting to their own husbands, as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord. And you are her children, if you do good and do not fear anything that is frightening. (1 Peter 3: 1-6)

I desire then that in every place the men should pray, lifting holy hands without anger or quarreling; likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, but with what is proper for women who profess godliness—with good works. (1 Timothy 2: 8-10)

The principle invoked here is of not being adorned with attire (which would include jewelry) that is prideful and designed to draw attention to the external but rather women in particular should be adorned with good conduct, good works, a gentle spirit and submission to their husbands.

This of course raises some questions. If we are not supposed to wear wedding bands because they are costly adornments, what about a plain band? What if the band was plain and also not gold? Should we eschew any sort of accoutrement that sets us at all apart from someone else? I also note that these two passages apply to women, so is it OK for men to wear wedding bands but not women? Is the wearing of adornments something of particular prideful temptation for women but not for men?

What about name brand clothing with logos ? Clothing companies put their logos on the outside both as an ad for their product as well as to let the wearer signify that they are wearing something more costly than you are. The horse and rider on Polo brand shirts is a great example. I used to sell The North Face jackets to rich kids because the logo tells people that this is not mere fleece or rainjacket, it is a $300 North Face jacket! I think the principle might hold true here as well.

I wonder if we should wear anything that is not plain and handmade. I need to wear suits and appropriate business attire for my job but outside of work, what about that?

There is a real issue and an important principle here that we don’t seem to address in a straightforward manner in the church. I think it might be for the same reason headcovering is glossed over, because it flies in the face of our cultural expectations. On the other hand, this can turn into a point of pride. It is easy to see your own plainness as a point of pride, that I am more holy than that person because of the manner of my dress. Those sorts of heart issues are far more troubling than external obedience and that is true not just about adornment or modest dress or headcovering but also wearing suits to church or lengthy prayers or being contentious or giving our of obligation. It is not difficult at all to be externally pious but have hearts in rebellion.

Peter and Paul are both unanimous and unambiguous about this issue. This strikes me as a topic where the text is clear, so rather than trying to prove from Scriptures that we cannot wear wedding rings, we should see this as explaining why from Scriptures that we can.

There is also a stewardship issue, is the buying of $1000 golden ring topped by a diamond foolhardy in light of the very real temporal needs of our brothers and sisters, of orphans and widows, of missionaries? That is an ancillary topic but a real one.

Is it a coincidence that the One Ring, a golden band that looks suspiciously like a wedding ring, is the embodiment of evil in The Lord of the Rings? Hmmmm…..

Seriously though. Should we give up the wearing of wedding rings or am I making too big of a deal about it? Is this an issue of hyper-literalism and legalism or are we resistant to the idea of eschewing rings because we have been so heavily marketed to by jewelry companies that we have bought into the idea that we simply must wear rings if we are married? Maybe someone more familiar with the Greek text (Alan?) can help us out here, is there something in the context that I am missing.

Broaching The Bikini Question

As summer starts to wind down, Eric Carpenter raises the heat with a discussion of swimwear. His initial post, Two Related Questions About Bikinis for Christian Women Who Wear Bikinis, was directed at Christian women who wear bikinis and asks for their input. Alas he got none. His second post, Bikinis Part Deux, opens the floor to the general public. I am hoping he gets more interaction on the second post because this is an important topic.


I see this question going far beyond bikinis. Sure they are the low hanging fruit in the debate but the issue doesn’t stop there. Certainly you can see “more skin” when a woman is in a bikini but even a modest one piece suit leaves very little to the imagination. What about shorts, how short is too short? Tank tops, low cut or sleeveless shirts, skirts that are too short, pants that are too tight? To state it more broadly, is modesty a discussion about swimwear and hemline or does it go much deeper? It is easy to get mired in a morass of specifics and miss the proverbial forest for the trees.

The question of modesty is one that gets a lot of people pretty riled up. It runs smack dab against our culture self-reliance and independence. Perhaps even more so it makes us standout from the culture. Women in denim jumpers are just weird in our super casual culture where people go out in public looking like they literally just rolled out of bed. Wearing pajama pants to the grocery store? Really? We live in a world where women in lingerie prance around in commercials during prime time and the Olympics feature women playing beach volleyball in the most ridiculously tiny outfits imaginable to try to attract male viewers.

You may be thinking: “Bah. Don’t we have more pressing issues to worry about like preaching the Gospel and feeding the poor? When we get the ‘big stuff’ figured out we can worry about the ‘little stuff’!”

To be blunt, which is really out of character for me, that is nothing less than a cheap dodge. This isn’t really an “either-or” issue but a “both-and” one. I am of the opinion that when the Bible speaks on a topic it deserves our attention and reflection and Paul addresses the issue of modesty (albeit without much detail) quite directly.

…likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, but with what is proper for women who profess godliness—with good works. (1 Timothy 2:9-10)

If Paul thought it was worth the time to bring up in a letter to Timothy, isn’t it worth our time to ask the hard questions as well? In other words, there are no "little issues"!

I have heard it argued that a woman can be modest depending on the culture wearing virtually anything. That is perhaps true but for my purposes I am talking about the Western, and more specifically American, culture. In our culture, at best, the bikini serves the purpose of enabling vanity by facilitating a more even tan. At worst it feeds into the “if ya got it, flaunt it” mentality that has been embraced even by many religious folks. The “safest” way to ensure modesty is the method adopted by certain conservative Christian groups including many of the more traditional Anabaptist circles with rigid rules of dress. A woman in an ankle length dress that is cut intentionally to not be form fitting, wearing no jewelry and with her head covered is about as safely modest as you can get. I don’t know that it has to be quite to that extreme. Is a jumper with a short sleeve blouse underneath it sufficiently modest? What about pants? You can see where this goes.

Here is where we get into trouble. Paul is speaking pretty generally here and his silence doesn’t tend to lead us to humble reflection but instead a contest between a camp on one side of legalistic rules and an opposing camp of libertinism. Either way this has to be one of the worst cultures around in which to have this discussion. You can find church-going women who wouldn’t think of wearing a bikini out in public but show up to church with their hair done up in an expensive dress wearing lots of jewelry, thinking they are pleasing God by dressing up for church. It is tragically ironic that we embrace our cultural notion of pridefully dressing up for church when that seems to fly right in the face of what Paul is saying (of course so is bowing our heads and closing our eyes to pray when he says right before these verses: “I desire then that in every place the men should pray, lifting holy hands without anger or quarreling” (1 Tim 2:8) , but I digress).

What Paul is describing here goes well beyond simply avoiding bikini swimsuits, although that is a good place to start. Some things are so egregious and obvious that they don’t really require discussion and bikinis, essentially quick drying underwear, fall into that category. The real issue is a heart issue, as so many of these issues are. A woman in a plain dress with her hair severely pulled back into a bun and under a bonnet who harbors an angry and prideful hart toward women who are less pious than she is not modest in any sense of the word. A sister wearing pants and a blouse yet is humble in heart and reflecting the love of Christ in her words and deeds certainly is modest in a more meaningful way. At the most basic level a modest heart is one that sees others as more valuable than one’s self. Clothing that distracts or causes stumbling, whether  because that clothing is revealing and intentionally provocative or because that clothing is designed to demonstrate one’s class and wealth, is immodest because it places my need for approval above my brother or sister’s needs.

Modesty is much more than avoiding revealing clothes although real modesty will certainly arrive at that conclusion. We should be spending our efforts not in making rules for others to follow but instead by demonstrating through the manner of our lives what modest living looks like. I once dreamed of having a fancy sports car but now that idea and what it would say about me is abhorrent, not just because it would be an enormous waste of money that could go to the cause of the Kingdom but because it would be something designed to attract envy from others. I am hardly a model of modesty but I am trying and I often look to my wife in this respect as someone who reflects a simple modesty in far more than her clothing.

Wearing modest clothes and avoiding bikinis does not make you modest but a Christian with a modest heart will dress, speak and live modestly.

A Modest(y) Proposal

Eric Carpenter has opened a seasonally appropriate can of worms on the topic of modesty, more specifically the wearing of bikini swimwear by Christian women. His post, Bikinis? , started as a Facebook post and drew quite a few comments. His post is brief but certain to draw a lot of comments because as he says there are quite a few professing Christians who fervently defend the alleged “right” to wear revealing swimwear.

My stance on this issue is probably not much of a surprise. I find it incomprehensible that a woman who claims to be a follower of Christ would intentionally choose to go out in public wearing next to nothing to be ogled by strangers, exposing herself in a way that is appropriate only within the bounds of marriage. Even more boggling to the mind is that parents seem OK with their young daughters wearing bikinis out in public to be subjected to the leering of strangers. Context aside, a bikini is functionally not covering more than underwear but women seem to think nothing of wearing a bikini to the beach. Of course we also live in a culture where you can’t really watch TV for very long without being subjected to a Victoria’s Secret commercial with women in various states of undress and many women, even in semi-professional workplaces, seem oblivious in their clothing choices that makes Victoria’s Secret into public knowledge.

This question reminds me of the events of 2009 when beauty pageant contestant and church going Carrie Prejean was asked a loaded question about “gay marriage” during the Ms. USA pageant, an event featuring her and the other young women sauntering about in high heels and bikinis for the prurient pleasure of viewers. She gave a clumsy defense of traditional marriage in response to a loaded question from a judge with an agenda and subsequently came in second place, a snub attributed to her defenders as the result of standing up for traditional values (I blogged about this event here). She immediately became something of a celebrity in the evangelical culture.

For a short time, Ms. Prejean was exalted as a role-model and a champion of Biblical values and courage. Then the revelations came out of some topless photos of her done “professionally” as well as some video footage of an unsavory sort and a lawsuit over a loan for her breast implants and she sort of faded away, although not before penning a book, Still Standing. The irony is that when she clumsily stated her opposition to “gay marriage” she was in a pageant where she was wearing not a whole lot more than she was in her topless photos. Her bathing suit as I recall from the endless footage shown on TV about the issue was barely there and designed to accentuate her artificially enhanced chest. Not exactly the sort of traditional values that people traditionally understand but the hypocrisy on display was missed by most of the evangelical community. A woman on stage in front of millions wearing an outfit that leaves 90% of her body exposed is not exactly living out the spirit of 1 Tim 2:9. Yet many Christians seemed oblivious to raising her up as a champion in a tiny bikini but tossing her aside for wearing slightly less.

Modesty in attire is an issue that gets bandied about in the church a lot but with virtually no consensus. I don’t think many Christians would say that modesty is irrelevant given the Biblical evidence but what that means is pretty broad. Does it mean ankle length dresses and no pants? Does it mean almost anything goes under the banner of “Christian liberty”? Is it simply an individual issue that doesn’t get addressed in the church? We really need to have serious conversations about this because it definitely impacts how the world sees us. If the world sees us talking about sin and redemption but then walking around in a bikini our message gets lost in the rightful accusation of hypocrisy. Run over to Eric’s post and jump in the discussion, I hope it will provide light and not just heat.

On The Wearing of Wedding Rings

So this is an interesting conversation that has come up among some friends and one that generates a visceral reaction when broached.

Wedding rings are firmly entrenched in our culture. The exchanging of rings and wearing of them to signify that the wearer is married is part of our cultural heritage even to the point of being the focal point in a whole bunch of country music songs (“I put that little golden band on the right left hand this time….”). Removing a wedding ring can be an indicator of a marriage that is broken. Cultural nostalgia is a big deal when it comes to these small symbols of marriage. Getting an engagement ring is a huge deal for women (if you have ever worked with a young woman who gets engaged the next day at work is filled with her friends and co-workers ooohin and aaaahing over the diamond)

Here is the question. Should Christians wear wedding rings or for that matter should Christians wear any sort of jewelry at all? My wife wears a modest wedding ring and has a couple of other pieces of frankly fairly inexpensive jewelry that she rarely wears. Should she? Why not you ask? Because it certtainly seems that Scripture doesn't permit this tradition.

Scripture seems pretty clear on this, generally in the idea of meekness and humility which seems ill served by a ring made out of a precious metal and often adorned with a pricey diamond as well as more specifically in two passages. I copied the whole section, not just the verse in question to give us a more full view and highlighted the particular verses:

Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands, so that even if some do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives, when they see your respectful and pure conduct. Do not let your adorning be external—the braiding of hair and the putting on of gold jewelry, or the clothing you wear—but let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God's sight is very precious. For this is how the holy women who hoped in God used to adorn themselves, by submitting to their own husbands, as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord. And you are her children, if you do good and do not fear anything that is frightening. (1 Peter 3: 1-6)

I desire then that in every place the men should pray, lifting holy hands without anger or quarreling; likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, but with what is proper for women who profess godliness—with good works. (1 Timothy 2: 8-10)

The principle invoked here is of not being adorned with attire (which would include jewelry) that is prideful and designed to draw attention to the external but rather women in particular should be adorned with good conduct, good works, a gentle spirit and submission to their husbands.

This of course raises some questions. If we are not supposed to wear wedding bands because they are costly adornments, what about a plain band? What if the band was plain and also not gold? Should we eschew any sort of accoutrement that sets us at all apart from someone else? I also note that these two passages apply to women, so is it OK for men to wear wedding bands but not women? Is the wearing of adornments something of particular prideful temptation for women but not for men?

What about name brand clothing with logos ? Clothing companies put their logos on the outside both as an ad for their product as well as to let the wearer signify that they are wearing something more costly than you are. The horse and rider on Polo brand shirts is a great example. I used to sell The North Face jackets to rich kids because the logo tells people that this is not mere fleece or rainjacket, it is a $300 North Face jacket! I think the principle might hold true here as well.

I wonder if we should wear anything that is not plain and handmade. I need to wear suits and appropriate business attire for my job but outside of work, what about that?

There is a real issue and an important principle here that we don’t seem to address in a straightforward manner in the church. I think it might be for the same reason headcovering is glossed over, because it flies in the face of our cultural expectations. On the other hand, this can turn into a point of pride. It is easy to see your own plainness as a point of pride, that I am more holy than that person because of the manner of my dress. Those sorts of heart issues are far more troubling than external obedience and that is true not just about adornment or modest dress or headcovering but also wearing suits to church or lengthy prayers or being contentious or giving our of obligation. It is not difficult at all to be externally pious but have hearts in rebellion.

Peter and Paul are both unanimous and unambiguous about this issue. This strikes me as a topic where the text is clear, so rather than trying to prove from Scriptures that we cannot wear wedding rings, we should see this as explaining why from Scriptures that we can.

There is also a stewardship issue, is the buying of $1000 golden ring topped by a diamond foolhardy in light of the very real temporal needs of our brothers and sisters, of orphans and widows, of missionaries? That is an ancillary topic but a real one.

Is it a coincidence that the One Ring, a golden band that looks suspiciously like a wedding ring, is the embodiment of evil in The Lord of the Rings? Hmmmm…..

Seriously though. Should we give up the wearing of wedding rings or am I making too big of a deal about it? Is this an issue of hyper-literalism and legalism or are we resistant to the idea of eschewing rings because we have been so heavily marketed to by jewelry companies that we have bought into the idea that we simply must wear rings if we are married? Maybe someone more familiar with the Greek text (Alan?) can help us out here, is there something in the context that I am missing.

I don’t often agree with Muslims

But I again find myself sympathetic with Muslim women in France. The latest case involves a woman being banned from a public pool because she was wearing a modest, head to toe bathing suit that allows her to swim without violating the tenets of Islam, or at least as some Muslims interpret the laws of Islam.

PARIS – A Muslim woman garbed in a head-to-toe swimsuit — dubbed a "burquini" — may have opened a new chapter in France's tussle between religious practices and its stern secular code.

Officials insisted Wednesday they banned the woman's use of the Islam-friendly suit at a local pool because of France's pool hygiene standards — not out of hostility to overtly Muslim garb.

Under the policy, swimmers are not allowed in pools with baggy clothing, including surfer-style shorts. Only figure-hugging suits are permitted.

The reason is completely ridiculous. The suit might be unsanitary? In a pool full of chlorinated water?

An official in charge of swimming pools for the Emerainville region, Daniel Guillaume, said the refusal to allow the local woman to swim in her "burquini" had nothing to do with religion and everything to do with public health standards.

"These clothes are used in public, so they can contain molecules, viruses, et cetera, which will go in the water and could be transmitted to other bathers," Guillaume said in a telephone interview.

"We reminded this woman that one should not bathe all dressed, just as we would tell someone who is a nudist not to bathe all naked," he said.

Which is more unsanitary? A woman in a tiny bikini that covers virtually none of her body or a woman in a full length suit? A fat, hairy French dude in a speedo or a modestly dressed woman in full-length swimwear? Swimsuits very similar to this were common in the not too distant history of Western civilization. It is hardly a sign of "progress" that men and women have been racing to see how small suits can be without completely uncovering the wearer.

She is not “fully clothed”, jumping into the pool in jeans and a sweatshirt. This is a specifically designed outfit for swimming. The only difference is that it leaves some of her body covered. Even most modern commonly available one-piece bathing suits are pretty revealing. When you get into two piece suits, in many cases there is a negligible difference between wearing a swimming suit or wearing nothing but underwear. I would rather see women at a pool dressed in this sort of suit than seeing women dressed in suits that are immodest and, ahem, inappropriate for their body type.

The law in France basically states that if you want to swim in a public pool, you have to immodestly expose yourself (“Only figure-hugging suits are permitted”). We could certainly all do with more modest dress in the world instead of banning women who want to swim without stripping down. As much as I think Islam is a religion that condemns people, I also dislike seeing Western democracies imposing punitive rules that are aimed at religious freedom. As if I needed another reason to dislike France.

Headcovering article from USA Today

As I was stumbling around on Google, I came across an article from 2006 in USA Today on the resurgence of headcovering, Traditional living takes modern spin. Ironically, in 2006 I would have dismissed this article and the people interviewed as some weirdo kooks! I liked this comment...

Bill Leonard, dean of the Wake Forest University Divinity School, says, "It's possible that we could see a renewal of this distinctive dress in Christian families because it becomes its own kind of witness in a highly plural and increasingly secularized culture."

It is a two-part thing in some ways, first and foremost head covering is an issue of obedience, modesty and submission and also a counter-cultural statement. It leads to odd looks from people in modern, institutionalized Christian churches. It raises questions. What is unfortunate is the way many look at a woman covering her head as some sort of threat and many husbands reject head covering as well.

Like almost all women who cover, Catherine Levison of Tacoma, Wash., came to her decision through Bible study. She wears a scarf or hat anytime she prays.

Her husband "was pretty Switzerland about it," supporting her conviction. Others haven't been so accepting. She says she was attending a home prayer group, and when the pastor leading it realized that she hadn't just forgotten to take off her hat, he preached for weeks afterward on how women aren't required to cover.

Of all the things to preach about, preaching in opposition to women honestly seeking to follow Scriptural commandments? There are plenty of things to preach against, but women following the plain commands of Scripture and seeking to exhibit Biblical submission isn't one. Maybe this guy should have preached about the women in his church who dress like they are going to a nightclub or the beach instead of the woman dressing modestly and covering her head?

What I found especially interesting was the sidebar quotes in the article from scholars to get their spin on headcovering. Neither scholar quoted supported headcovering, and neither gave a terribly good answer. One of the scholars quoted was Wayne Grudem, someone I respect a lot. His work on the ESV and his ministry on the Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood are wonderful and have done a lot to stem the tide of feminism and egalitarianism that pervades and weakens much of the church. But I disagree vehemently with his assessment of why head covering is not valid today.

Biblical scholars say the New Testament does not require women to cover their hair while praying.

"I think it's mistaken but I appreciate (hair-covering women's) desire to do what they think the Bible is telling them to," says Wayne Grudem, research professor of Bible and theology at Phoenix Seminary and a past president of the Evangelical Theological Society. He says covering the hair was a sign of being married among women in the Roman empire.

Grudem, who was on the translation committee for the recent English Standard Version of the Bible, says, "In light of that evidence, when we came to 1 Corinthians 11, in every verse that had to do with head covering, we translated it as wife and not as woman."

So the verse became "but every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head." Today, a wedding band identifies a married woman, Grudem notes.

Rebecca Denova, professor of religious studies at the University of Pittsburgh, says Paul is telling the women of Corinth that "if you're going to stand up in church, look like nice, decent, matronly women," and in that time and place, that meant covering your head.

But they were wearing veils "because the culture said to, not because they were Christians," Denova says.

In the USA Today article, Grudem repeats the oft asserted contention that the headcovering was merely a cultural sign in Corinth and that the sign is replicated in the West today by the wearing of a wedding band. A wedding band in no way symbolizes the same thing as a headcovering and few people in any church would view the ring as a symbol of a wife's submission to her husband. A head covering should be indicative of a wife in submission to first her Lord and His commands in His Word and second to her husband as her covenant head. There are lots of married Christian women in churches who have wedding bands on their left hand who are anything but submissive in their recognition of the headship of their husband. Joyce Meyer wears a wedding band on her left hand (I went to her website and looked, I need to repent) and then gets up on stage and "preaches" while her husband dutifully sits in the audience under the teaching, and false teaching at that, of his wife. Even if you question, with some justification, whether Joyce Meyer is a Christian or not, you have to admit that there are plenty of homes where at least the husband has not stepped into leadership in the home and the wife has moved into the vacuum, as well as homes where the husband is cowed by his wife and exhibits no sort of headship at all.

I went to the CBMW webpage regarding headcovering to see if their position had changed. It hasn't. This is a long quote, but I wanted to post in its entirety so I am not accused of selectively quoting them:

Question 32: But doesn't Paul argue for a head covering for women in worship by appealing to the created order in 1 Corinthians 11:13-15? Why is the head covering not binding today while the teaching concerning submission and headship is?

The key question here is whether Paul is saying that creation dictates a head covering or that creation dictates that we use culturally appropriate expressions of masculinity and femininity, which just happened to be a head covering for women in that setting. We think the latter is the case. The key verses are: "Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering" (1 Corinthians 11:13-15).

How did nature teach that long hair dishonored a man and gave women a covering? Nature has not endowed women with more hair than men. In fact, if nature takes its course, men will have more hair than women because it will cover their face as well as their head. There must be another way that nature teaches on this subject! We believe custom and nature conspire in this pedagogy. On the one hand, custom dictates what hair arrangements are generally masculine or feminine. On the other hand, nature dictates that men feel ashamed when they wear symbols of femininity. We could feel the force of this by asking the men of our churches, "Does not nature teach you not to wear a dress to church?" The teaching of nature is the natural inclination of men and women to feel shame when they abandon the culturally established symbols of masculinity or femininity. Nature does not teach what the symbols should be.

When Paul says that a woman's hair "is given to her for a covering" (v. 15), he means that nature has given woman the hair and the inclination to follow prevailing customs of displaying her femininity, which in this case included letting her hair grow long and drawing it up into a covering for her head. So Paul's point in this passage is that the relationships of manhood and womanhood, which are rooted in the created order (1 Corinthians 11:7-9), should find appropriate cultural expression in the worship service. Nature teaches this by giving men and women deep and differing inclinations about the use of masculine and feminine symbols.

Set aside the issue that Paul's intro to 1 Corinthians explicitly states that while he is writing to the church in Corinth, his message applies to everyone, everywhere who calls on the name of Christ (see 1 Cor 1: 1-2). The key verses in this section are NOT 13-15, 1 Cor 11: 13-15 build upon the actual key verses of 1 Corinthians 11: 3-10. 13-15 come after and build upon the main point, that the man is the head of the woman, it is disgraceful for a man to cover his head when he prays and for a woman to uncover her head when she prays. Would we apply this and say it is OK for men to wear baseball hats in church while praying? I think not but it is apparently permissible to cavalierly dismiss Paul's admonition as a cultural construct replaced by a wedding ring. A covered head is a sign of submission and modesty, a recognition of the headship of a husband over his wife. That is not a cultural issue, it is a covenant and obedience issue.

The best part of this article is that it points out that the internet, that most modern of inventions, is allowing Christians to find others who are like-minded and support one another in the realization that there are other people out there who have read God's Word, read Paul's admonition and are seeking to live that out. Ironic and a great blessing at the same time!

Christian modesty

Great post from the northwoods on modesty. It is short and to the point, and it is advice that we should all heed. More on this later, this is an issue that is causing all manner of turmoil in the church.