Within the confines of Christian modesty, how does the Christian girl determine how she is to present herself physically to the world? Should this be discussed in terms of different interpretations of what the Bible says about modesty? Where does culture come into play? Does modesty encompass more than the covering of the body? Does drawing attention to oneself in order to dress in a way that is not culturally “normal” make you immodest (for instance, wearing floor length Jane Austen gowns to the supermarket, or wearing make-up that may be traditional in other cultures, but not in ours, to work)?
How do you define what it means to be feminine and modest in our culture? Upon what do you base your conclusions?
June 26, 2007 at 4:53 pm
Suddenly I remembered the Bobbed Hair, Bossy Wives, and Women Preachers book by John R. Rice on my shelf and all those “centerfold” pictures of women with hair past their derrieres!
June 26, 2007 at 5:11 pm
Ooh! This is a good topic.
There’s a book I’ve gotta get my hands back on. It’s been my favorite modesty source so far. It’s called A Return to Modesty, by Wendy Shalit.
June 26, 2007 at 5:26 pm
A Return to Modesty is EXCELLENT! She gets right to the heart of why this issue is practical for every woman in America, not just Christians and Orthodox Jews (Shalit is an Orthodox Jew). I loved loved loved this book.
Who defines feminine modesty is a tough question. Its easy to say “well, God does, of course,” but the Bible doesn’t really go into the ins-and-outs. The basic principle is not to focus too much on outward appearance and be sensible about your appearance. Contrary to what many “modestyniks” (a phrase coined by Shalit, I think) think, Deuteronomy 22:5 does not command women to wear only dresses and/or skirts. Considering that dresses as we know them today did not exist when Deuteronomy was written, I don’t see how it can mean that. Further, if women aren’t to wear men’s clothing, and vice-versa, does that mean we should wear shirts or socks or underpants? Men wear those.
Its just not a simple issue.
When I went through my “LAF Modesty Phase” as I call it (dresses/skirts only, long sleeves and whatnot), I did it because I wanted to try and bring out the feminine aspects of my appearance. I didn’t do it because I felt I could only wear those clothes as a result of God’s command but because I wanted to dress in a distinctly feminine way.
This should be a fun discussion. I can’t wait to see how you amazing ladies answer.
June 26, 2007 at 5:49 pm
I think the bottom left picture contains an eye-trap.
If you will all notice that the corners of where the gauzy (naughty!!) fabric meets the satin end? Well, that draws your eyes right to her bosom. And then the belt accentuates her bosom making them pop right out at you. The gauzy fabric just shows enough skin to make you want to see more skin and if you look closely you will ascertain that you can see the top of her breast.
I am thinking that the bottom right picture (Amelia?) shows a woman who did not have a good relationship with her father since she is wearing men’s clothing and has a bobbed haircut. She wants to be like a man she she dresses like one. Her mother probably wore the pants in the family and the father just got fed up and gave up and now their daughter is confused about her gender.
Need we say anything about the flapper in the upper right corner? Those shoes definitely draw your eyes up the length of her leg causing you to become trapped.
The top left one is a woman with her hair undone in her night clothes. It is a very sensual picture and causes one’s mind to wonder about what she is getting ready to do.
How did I do?
I have that book, A Return To Modesty, and I liked it, too.
Karen, I am sorry I missed that book by John Rice! Isn’t he the father of the author of “Me, Obey Him?”
I think I see a pattern emerging.
Truly, the word “modest” in scripture, according to Zhodiates, carries with it the connotation of not being the center of attention. The verses are about women who were dressing in a way to display their MONEY and WEALTH. I think we need to focus in on the real intent of that verse instead of twisting it to say that Paul was addressing women who were trying to lure men into thinking lustful thoughts. That isn’t the jist of that scripture at all.
The whole issue of lust had already been addressed over and over again in scripture. The sin of lust lies in the bosom of the lustee. There is no sloughing off that. The lustee is 100% responsible. Paul lived in a culture where some of the latest fashions were quite immodest. The pagan women in Crete wore gowns with cut-out holes that allowed their breasts to plop through and be displayed. People at the temples were engaging in intercourse and orgies right out in public.
We are in this world and if we have the Holy Spirit residing in us, self-control is not only possible but it is commanded. God does not tell us to do something we cannot do. He didn’t make us to be lusting after everything in a skirt. He gave us a cure for burning- marriage.
I think we must be modest and adequately covered. But, who defines modesty is a good question. I know people who feel that a woman nursing her baby discretely is being immodest if she isn’t doing it in a room behind closed doors.
When we went to ATI functions, I was NEVER with my husband because I always had a nursing baby. I had to be locked away in a room or below the stage looking at a TV screen. I could have just stayed at home and my husband could have gone by himself. When I was naive, I just started to nurse my baby under a blanket while sitting next to my husband at the Basic Seminar. I was quickly ushered to where I was supposed to do that sort of thing.
I know women who have been rebuked at homeschooling events for discretely nursing their babies because, they were told, that they could cause one of the teenage boys to lust in his heart.
I do not think they had nursing closets for the women when they were listening to the Sermon on the Mount. I think they nursed their children right there out in the open and no one gave it a second thought.
We, as Christians, have allowed everything to be sexualized.
June 26, 2007 at 5:50 pm
This is what dh and I spent the most time talking about when I showed him the video’s in the previous posts. “what is modesty?” What I found myself able to do was define what modesty was not…….such as, it is not modest to wear a short skirt and then sit with your legs open, or have a low cut shirt and do jumping jacks, or wearing a bathing suit to a nice resturant. What we kept coming up with was that modesty had a lot to do with the appropriatness of the the clothing based on the activity. I also think that we could talk about modesty and age, once I saw my 12 year old neice wearing an outfit to church that I was shocked at, if a 20 year old women would have been wearing it, it would have bothered me less.
June 26, 2007 at 6:43 pm
Our preacher once told us he was going to be preaching a sermon on modesty the following week.
When that week came he preached on….
Easter hats. He didn’t like them, found them flashy and destracting, and didn’t consider them modest.
June 26, 2007 at 7:02 pm
I had to go over to Amazon and read other’s reviews on “A Return to Modesty”, because frankly, after all the hearkening to the past that patriarchs are doing topped off with “Return of the Daughters”, I’m not all that eager to “return” to anything, unless it’s Jesus and His Word.
And so, while nearly all agree with her premise as do you ladies who’ve already posted (I’m with you there; I’m all for modesty), a few found her making the same type of blunders we’ve found with the Botkin girls; making grand sweeping generalizations, not seeking academic resources beyond fashion magazines (and for the Botkin’s, their father), and a lack of reality when looking at the past, instead choosing to adopt a romanticised idea of it. For those who are interested, I thought “Homeschooling Single Mom’s” review was very informative and thorough. And it seems that she also shares a lack of experience with the Botkin’s, being 23 when it was written.
In response to the question, “Who Defines Feminine Modesty?”, I, again, have to go back to Jesus and His Word. He gives plenty of direction, and for those who want specifics, Lemuel’s mother did a good job of giving some pointers.
Proverbs 31 has two verses that specifically reference clothing.
V. 22 – “She makes coverings for herself; Her clothing is fine linen and purple”.
So lets see: She puts time and effort into putting together a wardrobe that 1) covers, 2) is high quality, and 3) considered the finest clothing of her day (as was purple in her day).
I don’t know about you ladies, but to me, this clearly states that we do well to put time and effort into a nice appearance, and that a certain amount of focus to it is neither vain nor unwarranted (obviously if it becomes a higher priority in our thoughts over our attention to our Lord or the other activities prescribed to us in Prov 31, it needs to get back in line).
So while I love that verse, I love it even more in conjunction with Verse 25: “Strength and dignity are her clothing, and she smiles at the future”.
So while we do well to have a nice appearance, apparently our demeanor and attitude tell more about us and should be the first thing noticed! Our joy (smiles) should have an overshadowing effect to the material. And where do we derive our joy? “The joy of the Lord is our strength”! Again, it comes back to our standing as a child of God.
It seems to me that this verse proves true today by this: It still proves impossible to tell the heart of a sister by the clothing on her, since we’ve already evidenced that there are both genuine women and Pharisee’s at both ends of the spectrum. It is her demeanor, her attitude, and most of all her LOVE for God’s children that prove her to be authentic.
June 26, 2007 at 7:03 pm
Oh Deputy, thanks for the good laugh!!! Easter hats!!!!
June 26, 2007 at 7:04 pm
Amie, so true. Context is everything.
June 26, 2007 at 7:37 pm
Corrie on Ameila: “I am thinking that the bottom right picture (Amelia?) shows a woman who did not have a good relationship with her father since she is wearing men’s clothing and has a bobbed haircut. She wants to be like a man she she dresses like one. Her mother probably wore the pants in the family and the father just got fed up and gave up and now their daughter is confused about her gender.”
I know nothing about Amelia’s family life. I do know that she flew airplanes at a time when it was dangerous and cockpits were open. Not practical with long hair and a dress. . .perhaps it wasn’t rebellion or that mom wore the pants. Just that she flew airplanes. Feminine clothes for pilots weren’t exactly readily available, either.
A black suit is standard for lawyers. In the context of uniform and practicality, I am not trying to be male by wearing a black suit. It’s just the standard of dress in my profession (ok, gray works, too).
Context is key. My mom is the paragon of modesty. She usually wears jeans or capris – what else would you wear, if you were the mom to two active young boys and had three other kids at home who constantly needed driving or if you were working in your garden? Dresses just aren’t practical to her life.
June 26, 2007 at 8:05 pm
Oh, Corrie, now you are forcing me to tell my most favorite modesty story. It happened exactly as I am about to tell it.
20 years ago this summer, we attended an ATI conference in Bloomington, Indiana. We had an infant so, naturally, we were relegated to the nursing moms’ lounge. This year they introduced large screen TV’s and dad were allowed in the lounge with you. (I guess if you are the father of a nursing baby, the thrill of other nursing breasts looses its appeal?)
Anyway, it was so crowded and very noisy because there were many toddlers there, too. So, my husband, who was really annoyed that we had paid lots of money for this conference and toddlers weren’t supposed to be there, but were, decided to rent a TV on campus so we could watch the conference completely from the comfort of our air-conditioned room with only our own baby to be noisy.
He left to rent the TV and set it up while I stayed in the nursing moms’ room. While he was gone, I witnessed the most hilarous nursing mom story I have ever seen. This Amish woman who was wearing a dress held together with straight pins, was trying to catch her toddler, wanting to nurse him. He was running away really fast (probably the thought of those pins!) and she was chasing him, with the top of her dress undone and one breast exposed and held in her hand as she said, ‘Yes, I said, you will eat now.” Of course, there were several dads in the room who witnessed this madness and I was laughing so hard, I could barely speak when my husband returned.
June 26, 2007 at 8:07 pm
Corrie, “yes” to the “me obey him” book.
June 26, 2007 at 8:32 pm
Alisa, I just wandered over to amazon to check out the reviews, and I obviously need to go back and read the book again. It’s at a local library, and I’m hoping to have it in hand tonight…
June 26, 2007 at 8:35 pm
Do let’s talk specifics shall we?
If we take Prov. 31:22 and draw those three principles out of it (it should cover; it should be good quality; it should be the finest of the day), what is that going to look like? Is there a minimum that has to be covered to be modest? How good does the quality have to be? If I have limited resources for clothing, do I have to buy the finest quality?
June 26, 2007 at 9:49 pm
Specifics?
Personally, since the Bible doesn’t spell out specifics, I can only come to the conclusion that He was leaving us to enjoy and exercise our own unique wishes in these areas (because, come on, we all have a personal taste in our clothing).
As far as what qualifies as covering, I think Amie pointed it out quite beautifully above, that consideration of the context must be taken. I’m not as nit-picky about spaghetti straps vs. tank tops, but what is immodest to me is when a girl is OBVIOUSLY trying to get the guys to look her way, intentionally trying to get THAT kind of attention.
I just looked for a word search on “Modesty” in my Bible, but it wasn’t to be found, and since I don’t recall ever running into the word in Scripture, it doesn’t appear to be there. And so feel free to refresh my memory, because the only verse I can think of right now as far as our interactions with our brothers, well, is kind of just that; Paul exhorts us to treat them as brothers (I know the gist of the verse in my head, but am terrible at remembering it’s address). I wasn’t much help in this paragraph, was I? =o)
“How good does the quality have to be? If I have limited resources for clothing, do I have to buy the finest quality?”
My paradigm with these verses was this: I was conditioned to believe that any woman who put ANY attention to trying to have that “pulled together” look was vain and had completely wrong priorities in life. So imagine my shock to discover that the Proverbs 31 lady did just that! And to be honest, I think the fact that her clothing was “of finest linen and purple” does allude to a certain amount of fashion. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not making a case that we should all try to look like celebrities, because I’m not, but I also don’t see anywhere in Scripture, particularly here, that we should try to be plain.
I truly can understand having limited resources. Those were definately the conditions I grew up under, and so to compensate, I think the general attitude was “you shouldn’t want nice clothes, anyway, that would just make you worldly, so you’re better because you look awful!” A slight exaggeration, but not by much. =o) So I don’t fault those who can’t afford to look like a catalog, but neither does limited resources condemn us to look like bag ladies all our lives. =O)
June 26, 2007 at 10:48 pm
Sarah,
I was actually doing the eyetrap/shopping mall exercise as laid out in the Bill Gothard homeschooling material.
Supposedly we could tell character and moral problems by the way people dressed and we could see people as Jesus sees them by ascribing motives to them based on how we viewed them.
I should have labeled it a “spoof” so as to be more clear.
June 27, 2007 at 12:53 am
Thanks for the explanation, Alisa. I was guessing that we were probably on the same page with this, but I just wanted to make sure.
So could we say then, that just as lust resides in the bosom of the luster, so modesty (or immodesty) lies in the intent of the dresser?
June 27, 2007 at 2:45 am
This is an area which I have only recently been delving into, so I can’t wait to see what everyone has to say…
I hadn’t put much thought into it, really. My mom always taught me to act “lady-like”, regardless of what I was wearing, so I never really got to thinking about what I was actually wearing as being immodest, if that makes sense?
But as I have gotten older, I realize there is a fine line. I am just not sure where it is! I have been told that some of what I wear is immodest, or “too tight”, or “lascvicious” which immeadiately made me think that I must have sat with my legs open or something. That was my first reaction! The outfit in question was a skirt that went just past my knees, and a beautiful (albeit, fitted, I guess) deeply purple shirt that I loved, that neither seemed too tight, or too short, or too whatever for me. I looked at my husband in shock. He couldn’t see for the life of him how any of my outfit was immodest, so we are both stumped.
I guess my go to answer, and this is probably a bad one…what does my husband think? And what would my mother think if she saw me in it? Awful, I know. But as I said, up until recently, I had never really contemplated what was immodest vs. modest.
June 27, 2007 at 3:56 am
I just saw this review of Wendy Shalit’s new book,”Girls Gone Mild”, on the Wall Street Journal site. Here’s the link:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118254928882245220.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
And here’s a paragraph from the review:
“In “Girls Gone Mild,” she claims that more and more young women today, put off by our hypersexualized culture, are reverting to an earlier idea of femininity. They wear modest clothing and even act with unbrazen kindness. They don’t mind abstinence programs at school, and they prefer a version of feminism based on self-respect rather than sex-performance parity. They also take matters into their own hands when craven adults neglect to object to the objectionable.”
Sounds like it is pertinent to the discussion here.
June 27, 2007 at 4:55 am
What a topic! Comments have been fun already!
I live in an area where the weather and temperatures can change drastically season to season. So…basically half the year you can go to the grocery store and see people covered up, and half of the year you can go to the store and see more of people than you wanted to….hmmm, maybe I should rethink sending my son-with-the-new-drivers-license on milk, bread, and eggs errands for me!
I think those ladies with husbands and sons or maybe brothers, who want to know what is modest or not should ask them, if they are willing to tell you. That is getting it straight from the horses mouth, in my opinion.
‘Appropriateness’ has its merit to an extent. And,if it’s border line, I think the best response is to take the higher ground and don’t wear it. Some others I have heard speak have said, “if a certain article of clothing makes you feel sexy when you wear it, toss it out.”
Let’s not forget the idea of girls and ladies dressing so as not to make their Christian brothers stumble. Teen girls I think are sometimes clueless in this regard. And then again some of them know exactly what they are doing. Many dress a certain way just to be trendy. They have little to no thought of what it might be doing to the boys/men who see them.
I recently read of a dad who told his daughter that males will ‘touch’ with their eyes…IOW, if you don’t want a guy touching you where skin is showing, or touching what tight clothing is formed over/around…don’t dress that way!
Summer swim season is always interesting, isn’t it? I’ve always thought that it would be totally obvious that a teenage girl shouldn’t sit next to a teenage boy in church on Sunday morning in her underwear. Wouldn’t most people be more than shocked if that actually happened? Yet, at our church swim party at the community pool last summer, the only difference was a pool deck exchanged for a church pew, and a bikini exchanged for underwear. What do you think on that one?
I really do feel sorry for the teenage boys and men, particularly Christian ones, who have to deal with this issue. My pastor gave the story last week of a young, married youth pastor he knew of, who said that most of the girls who came to youth group wore spaghetti strapped tops that were low and tight at the top, short at the waist, and jeans that were low at the waist and tight as can be. Worse yet was that the female youth leaders also dressed this way…and that if his eyes so much as accidentally fell upon the wrong area of these girls and a church elder or pastor saw that, he would be fired in a minute. Who is the offender? The girls? The female youth leaders? The youth pastor?
I also think the style of clothing is not necessarily a pass or fail test. What might look okay and pass the test on one person might not have the same affect when put on another person, depending on the body type. None of us can help how we are made, but we can help how we clothe how we are made.
As with so many other issues of life that we try to figure out, Ephesians 5:8-10 is a good guide: ‘trying to learn what is pleasing to the Lord.’ I think if we are truly willing to do this, if we sincerely and consistently ask the Lord what will please Him in the issue of dressing modestly, He will reveal that to us.
Susie
June 27, 2007 at 5:46 am
Corrie: “Truly, the word “modest” in scripture, according to Zhodiates, carries with it the connotation of not being the center of attention.”
I agree absolutely, Corrie, but that is because I just recently studied this for myself.
For the last 7 years, I have only worn very long, very full dresses or skirts, with knee-high socks to cover up what’s left of my legs, and at least short sleeves. My neckline was VERY high and my tops were very loose. I had a long list of little dressing rules that I followed. I thought I was being modest, but what I really was doing was calling attention to myself. When I was in public, I stood out like a sore thumb! So if the definition of “modesty” really means not to call attention to yourself, then I was actually doing the opposite.
A pastor recently invested many, many hours teaching me Scripture, which resulted in my realizing what a Pharisee I am. One of the first issues I looked at was “modesty.” Since it had been 7 years since I had put on a pair of pants, I was afraid God might strike me dead if I did. But I continued to think about this definition and I decided to try an experiment and just see how it felt, spiritually.
So I bought a pair of capris. I didn’t try them on for days. I didn’t wear them for days after that. Finally, I put them on and ventured out in public, to a place where I knew I would see “dresses only” ladies. And the most amazing thing happened. I went on an errand to a place I had visited several times before, but where I had never conversed with the people who worked there. This time I found myself easily falling into conversation with the very worldly men there (an auto shop). We didn’t talk about sinful things — that’s not what I mean at all. I realized later that I simply did not converse with people who didn’t dress according to my standards when I wore dresses, but when I looked like an average person in public, it was easy for both me and others to fall into a conversation.
Suddenly I knew that I had become very judgmental in my dresses and I could not even converse with those who were “beneath” me. That was about one month ago and I have not worn dresses since. I am not dressing to entice men now, but I am wearing clothes that do not stand out in a crowd. I think that most people (except other extreme legalists who look down on others for NOT wearing dresses) are going to be comfortable around me and that is what I see the Bible meaning by “modesty.” Do we make others feel comfortable being around us? That would include wearing the appropriate clothes for the occasion as well.
Great topic!
June 27, 2007 at 5:46 am
Corrie, I am growing very concerned about you. You are becoming an expert in these eye-trap exercises.
June 27, 2007 at 6:34 am
“So could we say then, that just as lust resides in the bosom of the luster, so modesty (or immodesty) lies in the intent of the dresser?”
Oohhh… Monica, I love the way you put that!!!!
June 27, 2007 at 6:59 am
“Let’s not forget the idea of girls and ladies dressing so as not to make their Christian brothers stumble. Teen girls I think are sometimes clueless in this regard. And then again some of them know exactly what they are doing. Many dress a certain way just to be trendy. They have little to no thought of what it might be doing to the boys/men who see them.”
Susie, you made many a good point, and this paragraph of yours is also one of my soap boxes!
As you pointed out, some girls are just plain clueless as to what their wardrobe can do to the male mind. These girls are generally good-hearted, and when this conversation came up with the girls in our youth group, they were eager to not be a stumbling block and to please God in this area.
I remember being a young adult and getting frustrated over what a certain girl would wear, because I felt for my male friends and their natural struggles. While my motives were out of concern for others, I can now look back at the certain situation and realize that this girl, while friendly and outgoing, was not out to get that kind of attention (and to be honest, she would look good in a paper sack). My internal fuss probably was over nothing, because the case really was so mild.
Your point about swim season is well taken. Any swim party our church has been even affiliated with has taken place with the request that girls wear only one-piece swim suits (I even heard one more liberal/clueless woman question why it was necessary). I think to ask them all to wear only t-shirts and shorts would have been a bit inconvenient to the girls families (not that that would/should be a determining factor), but would also have brought an added amount of attention to the subject, causing the boys/girls to act and feel even more uncomfortable ans unnaturally around eachother.
June 27, 2007 at 7:02 am
Jen, thanks for sharing, you made such excellent points!
Your story just goes to show that we are called to be IN, but NOT OF the world. To be honest, I’m suspicious of so many conservative leanings that make evangalism so hard or impossible.
June 27, 2007 at 9:32 am
Why is the question asked over and over and over “what is modest?”
I have oft wondered lately why the emphasis is placed on “modesty” rather than true beauty. Perhaps it is because so-called modesty more easily conforms to a set of rules, while true beauty (a reflection of our Creator’s glory) is not so quickly nailed down to a list of do’s and don’ts.
I think that to ask “what is modest” is to ask the wrong question. Perhaps it’s part of the question, but it isn’t the sum of what needs to be delved into.
The real questions to ask may be along the lines of the following: “What is beautiful? What is real beauty? How can I dress to reflect true beauty, the glory of God, and my God-given femininity?” I think we hesitate to ask these questions because they imply that beauty, then, is not simply ‘in the eye of the beholder’ (here’s a link to a fascinating article on beauty, objectivity, and desire). It also may point out that our standard to measure beauty may need to be changed. If beauty is objective rather than subjective, then some things are more beautiful than others.
Oooh. That’s judging. Well, sort of (as if modesty regulations weren’t!). Really, it is pointing out, recognizing, and appreciating what already exists. Granted, a discussion and consideration of necklines and hemlines may be in order at times, but I don’t believe that is where the heart of the issue lies and it certainly is the wrong place to set the whole of our focus upon.
June 27, 2007 at 11:40 am
Two aspects of modesty:
There are so many good points that have been made on this thread already.
I took a poll of the men in my home yesterday and asked them about modesty in women. Since I have 5 sons, 3 still at home, I thought I might get some good feedback so I asked them, and my husband, “What is a modest girl like?”
One of them told me that a girl dresses modestly when her clothing isn’t too tight. Another one said that dresses are more of a stumbling block to him than pants are. One of them said that any item of clothing that draws attention to the female body parts that most interest men in a sexual way is not modest clothing. They all agreed that women can be covered from head to toe in flowing gowns and still project a flirtatious air.
So, I came to the conclusion that there really are two aspects to this topic that men pick up on and that if we want to not be stumbling blocks to our brothers in Christ, we need to pay attention to these things.
The first one is how we dress. For all his weirdness, I think Bill Gothard did have a couple suggestions for modest dress that I think are good ones. The first one is to, as one of my family members suggested, not wear clothing that particularly emphasizes those female body parts that men find attractive. As sweet and charming as the Jane Austen characters are, those Regency dresses do emphasize breasts. In fact, as I recall, that style was made popular by Napoleon’s Josephine, not exactly a model of feminine virtue.
The other thing he suggested was wearing accessories or hairstyles that drew attention to your face rather than other parts of your body. This can be done, no matter what is in style at the moment and it can also be something that adds a feminine touch to otherwise gender-neutral styles, like a woman’s suit. (pins and flowers on the collar, earrings, scarves, etc.) I also think that a simple, not-too-expensive wardrobe could be built around a few good pieces by adding accessories. This is true whether you are wearing dress up clothes or casual outfits.
The second thing that my men talked about was the attitude that is projected. I think this can be problematic on several levels.
Scripture teaches that women are to have a gentle (meek and humble) and quiet spirit which, we are told, is pleasing to the Lord. (1 Peter 3) Christian women have often taken that verse and assumed and taught that that means women are to be quiet and reserved in their demeanor. I believe that is a wrong interpretation of that passage. God has made different people with different personality types. He has gifted some women to be outgoing and gregarious. Being so is not a sin, though it is often implied that it is. I think that when a woman is truly meek and gentle in spirit, she is content with the way that God made her, whether she is more reserved or more outgoing. She recognizes that her personality is a gift from the Lord, to be used, for His glory, to build the kingdom of Christ. A woman who is meek, which also implies submissive to the Lord, doesn’t try to stuff herself into any box just to be what she or others think gentle and meek might mean. For many years, I struggled with this concept (here is my testimony of God’s grace in my life in this area) until I realized how wrong I had been.
One thing I have learned to do that I think is important when you are a naturally outgoing person is to make sure that the message you are sending is one of genuine friendliness rather than flirting. (It may seem funny to you that a 53 year old woman thinks about this, but remember that the older age men in some of my circles of friends are in their 70’s and 80’s and to them I could be a sweet young thing!) I purposely go out of my way to begin my greetings to their wives or the other women in the group. I am demonstrating to them that I am a friendly person, interested in them as friends or brothers and sisters in Christ, and then I can feel comfortable being myself around men and I have put everyone at ease.
June 27, 2007 at 12:28 pm
Let’s talk about modest swimwear. Somecould argue that any swimwear is immodest–it is generally going to be tight-fitting and small. My niece is only allowed to wear once-piece bathing suits–that is her parents decision and fits with what their church thinks is appropriate. I only wear two-pieces. I wear tankinis. They are extremely modest–in fact way more so than most one-piece suits on the market. I just hate trying to go to the bathroom in a one-piece–LOL!
I would argue that it is much wiser to request that women wear modest swim suits than to set a legalistic requirement that the suit be one-piece. I know that for my niece, she is so frustrated by the legalism, the first thing she will want to do when she leaves home is buy a two-piece suit!
June 27, 2007 at 1:48 pm
I will admit that I have only been able to skim all the comments and I only have a minute while Caroline is napping. But here are my honest thoughts, directed at no one in particular…
I’m glad Kari brought up the issue of beauty. For the life of me, I cannot figure out why women who have been created as the more beautiful creature made in God’s image, try so hard in this day and age to be…. well… ugly. I don’t know how else to describe it. When God has given us the honor of being beautiful and lovely, why do we want to dress like men, go out in public looking like we just rolled out of bed, choose hairstyles that look like you just put your finger in an electric socket, etc.?
I also cannot grasp the fact that women are so passionate about their freedom in Christ to dress any way they want and they choose to look so ugly. I’m not talking frumpy even. I’m talking about the downright ugly clothing and hair styles that so many women, including Christian women, flock to. Women are so worried about not “sticking out” or “making others comfortable in for the cause of Christ” that they take on the trappings of our sick, sin-filled culture.
I realize these are fighting words probably with some, but those are my honest thoughts. Every day at home and especially when I go out in public for anything (church, grocery shopping, etc.) I make a point of looking nice. I make sure Caroline looks nice. Why? Because I reflect the image of God. Yes, I need to be beautiful in my spirit as well. I’m not talking about that. But when I live in a sin-sick culture, why do I want to look like just another resident of the cancer ward when I am eternally healthy?
June 27, 2007 at 3:16 pm
Thatmom in comment #27 made the point of our actions as well as our dress. Do we flirt?
Karen, you are right…we don’t know how our manner and conversation might come across to an older man, or any man I suppose. Even if ‘flirting’ is the farthest thing from our mind!! We need to MAKE it a thought in our mind…”how will this be taken if I say this or do that while I’m talking to so and so.”
I was reminded of that a couple of years ago. A friend about my age, maybe 47 or so at the time, attended a musical concert with her elderly mother, which is also attended by many other elderly folks. My friend is very friendly and outgoing, so she chats with everyone, waves across the room if she can’t get to them, makes another person feel like a million bucks in her presence. I don’t suppose that is so bad, BUT…when one of the elderly men (age 84) kept calling her and asking her to dinner…eee gads! And some men won’t take no for an answer. I knew another man in his mid-seventies, who, when told my a middle-aged woman, ‘no’, said she had no right to do that. He essentially became a stalker.
BTW, last year I had another single middle-aged friend asked out by a man from her church who was in his eighties!
Get this…a few years ago I use to get compliments from older men about my hair color! Once I was taking a walk in my neighborhood and a man, a total stranger,(I’d say mid 60’s or so…about twenty years older than me…and I tend to look younger than I really am) who saw me while he was putting his garbage cans at the curb, said to me, “You’ve got nice-looking hair, ma’am.” I was stunned, but just politely said ‘thanks’ and scooted home a little faster!
These compliments on my hair (usually it was specifically on the color) began to happen with some regularity. It started giving me the heebie jeebies. I told a friend about it, and she said she wouldn’t have believed it, but she was with me once when it happened! I ended up purposely changing my hair color!
Moral of the story is…it doesn’t take much sometimes, even when we don’t mean it to, to grab a man’s attention, so we need to think about how we come across, as Thatmom (you sweet, young thing, you!) said.
Please don’t think I’m suggesting that we all become sour, rude, and unfriendly, but there are ways to deal with situations, such as Thatmom said, like greeting the women in the room first, etc.
Susie
June 27, 2007 at 3:35 pm
Susie,
So, are you going to share the secret of your fabulous hair color…you told me once!
You are correct, sometimes it doesn’t take much to run a man’s head. One time, at least 20 years ago, I was sitting in the narthex at church for about 20 minutes while people came and went. I noticed something interesting…many men looked women up and down and the women they chose to look at weren’t necessarily gorgeous or young. At first, I was a little amused and then pretty disgusted. Truthfully, if a man is going to look and lust, the woman doesn’t need to be beautiful.
June 27, 2007 at 3:43 pm
Sallie said:
“I also cannot grasp the fact that women are so passionate about their freedom in Christ to dress any way they want and they choose to look so ugly. I’m not talking frumpy even. I’m talking about the downright ugly clothing and hair styles that so many women, including Christian women, flock to. ”
Sallie, I know this isn’t meant to be funny, but it did crack me up because I know just what you mean. There are lots of hair styles today I just don’t care for AT ALL.
My hair has a natural wave to it and it is complete frizzy in the Illinois humidity. (I thought I would die when my son was married in July in Miami. I had quite long hair then and spent a long time curling, only to reach the church and look like I’d been through a hurricane!) I would much prefer to have straight hair and spent many a night during my high school and college years sleeping with orange juice cans in my hair to try to make it happen!
Here is an interesting thing…we have a new mall in our area and after a couple years, many of the stores have gone out of business. Most of them have been the trendy clothing stores where you need to be a size 4 to look right in anything and even then I don’t understand what I am looking at when I go in the door. But I noticed last week that Coldwater Creek is increasing the store size by quite a bit. Most of those clothes could be worn for many years and not go out of style.
While I have some favorite places to shop that aren’t necessarily “classic” like Boden, I also love Eddie Bauer. Yes, Eddie Bauer sweaters and a straight bobbed hairstyle…now THAT is a look! (Remember, I am old now.)
June 27, 2007 at 3:48 pm
I am new to this blog and I am so happy to have found ya’ll!
I had to jump in on this subject, and I loved the comment about the “eye trap”. As a former homeschooler from one of the few non ATI families in our group, I have heard it all about modesty. My parents were very conservative and while my clothes were trendy and fashionable, they were very strict on skirt/short length, low cut tops and one piece bathing suits.
At 14 I was wearing a white Steven Curtis Chapman concert t-shirt that said “for the sake of the call” at a birthday party. My friend came out and told me that her father didn’t think that my shirt was appropriate because the writing on the front was an “eye-trap”. I responded that her father shouldn’t be looking at me anyway and called my mom to pick me up. I was so embarrassed that I cried all the way home. I understood that her father was looking at me in a sexual manner and it had nothing to do with my t-shirt. It took a lot of convincing from my own parents to realize that I didn’t do anything wrong. It wasn’t long until this man had spread rumors about me and another boy in our homeshcool group and his daughter wasn’t allowed to be my friend. I was also quoted “the hair is her crowning glory” scripture constantly b/c I had short or shoulder length hair.
While I think that some of these parents had good intentions, I think that by telling their very young daughters that boys were lusting after them if they wore anything other than skirts that they actually took away some of the daughters innocence. They were being taught that men only see women as sexual beings. A 13 or 14 year old girl should be taught to be modest b/c it honors God. She should be taught to honor her body because she is a girl of worth and different from the world. By telling her that it is her responsibility to keep men and boys pure she is hearing that she is a sexual being and when men do look at her she will feel dirty and wrong. Her self esteem and confidence will suffer b/c she won’t want any attention in case it is the wrong kind of attention. I could go on about what it does to the boys, they are not taught to honor and respect women, because it is the woman’s fault if they lust.
Sorry to ramble, I look forward to interacting with you ladies in the future.
June 27, 2007 at 4:19 pm
Chewymom wanted to talk about swimsuits, which brings up another question. Are there any items of clothing that are inherently immodest at all times (I’m excluding the marital bed here
)? If I’m on a beach and every other woman is wearing a bikini, is it still immodest? If we use the definition of attracting attention, a one-piece on a beach full of bikinis sticks out more than another bikini. If I’m really ugly and no one would want to look at me anyways, is the bikini ok then? 
June 27, 2007 at 4:31 pm
Great conversation. Jumping in here to comment on one piece bathing suits. I think its incongruous for that to be the standard for the various Gothard type groups, while for all other clothing, the body parts are NOT to be emphasized! The body parts are very emphasized in a one piece, as the fabric stretches and fits snugly over the body, as in a bikini. That said, my modest daughters ages 16 & 18 and I want to share what works for us: the Lands End or LL Bean tankini with shorts. The tankini top, esp made of heavier ribbed/faille fabric does not cling, nor fit skin tight at the waist, thus deemphasizing the bust compared to a skin tight fit. As long as one wears a top that is cut longer with bottoms that fit to the waist, no skin shows. If one checks their websites regularly, one can find these items discounted and eventually 1/2 price or less. Also, our newest find is – the rash guard. This top, made of swimsuit fabric, initially worn by surfers to protect the belly from board irritation, is worn over the suit and is the same as sunscreen factor 50. While any swim fabric will cling to the curves when wet, this fabric dries quickly and stops clinging much sooner than a t-shirt. And it is thicker than a t-shirt, so one can avoid the “wet t-shirt look”. Rash guards are available in short/long sleeves and the larger kids sizes at Lands End/LL Bean will fit women in the small-medium range. LLBean does have one top in women’s sizes. (A reason for choosing rash guards is also to save on Sunscreen use/application… my 12 yr old son can do all his own sunscreen if he doesn’t have to do his back… that just brought to mind all the commercials and beach movies with guys & girls rubbing lotion on each other!)
June 27, 2007 at 4:55 pm
Sallie in post #29 said, “I’m glad Kari brought up the issue of beauty. For the life of me, I cannot figure out why women who have been created as the more beautiful creature made in God’s image, try so hard in this day and age to be…. well… ugly. I don’t know how else to describe it. When God has given us the honor of being beautiful and lovely, why do we want to dress like men, go out in public looking like we just rolled out of bed, choose hairstyles that look like you just put your finger in an electric socket, etc.?
I also cannot grasp the fact that women are so passionate about their freedom in Christ to dress any way they want and they choose to look so ugly. I’m not talking frumpy even. I’m talking about the downright ugly clothing and hair styles that so many women, including Christian women, flock to. Women are so worried about not “sticking out” or “making others comfortable in for the cause of Christ” that they take on the trappings of our sick, sin-filled culture.”
I am curious what style you find to be so ugly? I will say, I think the Victorian look, with the waistline up under the b00bs is very unattractive. I also dislike really tailored looks. But I love the kind of baggy pants look, long “hippie” dresses. I don’t think women with cakes of makeup and platinum blond hair look good, either–it looks fake. (And I live in the south, where that is pretty much the uniform.) I think a natural look–less or no makeup, long natural hair–is pretty.
My point isn’t so much to make a judgment, but to point out that what you consider beautiful may be ugly to someone else.
When you follow what you say by stating that women are copying our “sick, sin-filled culture,” it comes across as you putting a moral or spiritual boundary on clothing. Pretty much every culture is sick and sin-filled, so I don’t think we can really elevate any one form of dress based on culture–nor can we denigrate it based on the culture from which it comes.
And back to the swimsuit issue again–I am fascinated by a friend of mine who has never stepped foot in a church, and who met her husband through a hook-up. She wears a racerback swimsuit top with board shorts (that are several years old and not nearly as low cut as newer styles). As she says, she’ll never go back to having a suit without shorts or a skirt, because she is happily married and doesn’t want to draw attention to that part of her body. I love that a non-Christian has values that are…shall we say more modest than that of many in Christian circles.
June 27, 2007 at 5:34 pm
I’m the poster who in another conversation here brought up the 50-something lady in my former church who wore nothing but skin-tight slacks and extremely low-cut spandex tank tops to church.
I mentioned that her clothing showed off her tattoos (sorry, Molleth!). (For the record, Molleth, because you said my comment bugged you, I have nothing against tattoos, per se, and I don’t think they are in and of themselves “immodest.” I’m sorry if it came out that way!
)
I also mentioned this lady’s hair (it was burgundy on the bottom and white on the top) and the fact that she’d had her figure surgically enhanced (that’s putting it politely…she actually made Dolly Parton look underdeveloped).
When some of the ladies here replied, they seemed to be saying that I was the one with the problem, because I said that this lady distracted me.
I only mentioned her because to me, she was the embodiment of our former church’s over-emphasis on our freedom in Christ. I found it highly irritating that she could dress as she did (I’m not exaggerating at how odd and improper the whole combination of ultra-revealing spandex and purple hair was, week after week…just about everyone I ever brought to church would ask me afterward who that woman in the front row was, because of her strange get-up) and remain in leadership. And yet…what was the church to do? Who would talk to her? How would they express what was “proper”? Would they approach her with some list of rules?
(And again, to reiterate, if you have purple hair, or have had plastic surgery, or if you have tattoos…it’s NOTHING against those things. It was the combination that screamed, “Look at me!!”)
I think modesty is a 2-pronged thing. Part one is covering oneself. The other part is not drawing attention to oneself.
June 27, 2007 at 5:36 pm
Oh, that phrase “sick, sin-filled culture” just rubs me the wrong way. It reminds me of my days in the spiritually abusive/cultish church and how everything was split into us vs. them. Those sin-filled people (everyone who didn’t agree with us and our standards) vs. the people who were biblical and right (found in our church, of course). It just smacks of moral superiority to me. Not that I think you meant it that way, Sallie. My experiences really color the way I interpret these phrases. I’ve seen this phrase used on other blogs and it always comes across that way to me.
I think Chewymom makes a good point about beauty being an individual preference. I love boot-cut pants and clunky shoes. I’m sure there are others that don’t and think they are ugly. I think jumpers are ugly and frumpy, but that doesn’t mean that’s true or that I think everyone else should think they are unattractive.
Personally I don’t like that spiked-out shorter hairstyle that’s popular today, but I don’t think we can describe a Christian lady who has that hairstyle as imitating the world. Why can’t it be as simple as she likes that hairstyle and I don’t and that’s fine?
June 27, 2007 at 5:38 pm
Amen to your last paragraph, Kyla! I have thought about that too….
On the swimsuit thing, two peice, even not a tankini, does not necessarily mean bikini. It drives me crazy that they have bikini’s for toddlers (I have a 2 yo daughter) with the triangle peice of material and the strings that you have to tie. But I wouldn’t mind having a two peice for her (except that it is inconvient because I have to keep track of both peices
). Obviously (hopefully) most men are not lusting after her but it is another thing about age and appropiatness to me.
June 27, 2007 at 5:59 pm
My opinion about some of the current hair and clothing styles has only to do with preference. As I said, I am more aware all the time at how much older I am! (I hear my mother’s voice in my head and it is scary.) I have to be on guard to not think negatively about something just because in my generation it would have been considered inappropriate for a Christian.
So I guess this begs the question…are there certain things that a Christian ought to not wear or is there a certain look that Christians ought to avoid? What makes something worldly? And is worldly dress ok for a Christian?
I am asking because I really don’t know the anwer to these questions!
June 27, 2007 at 6:04 pm
Here is another thought, too.
I grew up in the 60’s and 70’s where certain styles of clothing were considered part of the hippy, drug-crazed, anti-establishment, socialist…well, you get my drift.
Now many of those same styles are in the stores, though I don’t think the granny dresses are nearly as cute as the ones I wore and might wear again, if I wouldn’t look the centerfold for the Jello cookbook.
Fashion tends to repeat itself so what might have been weird then, is now totally acceptable.
When I was in college, only druggies had long hair and tattoos.
Now the totally normal woman who cleans my teeth has one on her ankle.
So, again, how do we know what is wordly and what is not?
June 27, 2007 at 7:32 pm
Karen,
I have noticed that a lot of very neat, attractive and conservative looking women are sporting tattoos! I was just thinking of that today when I was at the park picking up my son from football camp. I would say that at least half of the women had a tattoo on their ankle or shoulder. I also see a lot of women getting one right in the middle of their back.
June 27, 2007 at 7:36 pm
“My experiences really color the way I interpret these phrases. I’ve seen this phrase used on other blogs and it always comes across that way to me.”
Anne,
This is such an excellent point. I have that same thing happen to me, too. When I hear a certain phrase it triggers all the memories of the false teachings when other believers would just let it slide off their backs like water on a duck.
June 27, 2007 at 7:43 pm
“I think modesty is a 2-pronged thing. Part one is covering oneself. The other part is not drawing attention to oneself.”
Joan,
I agree!
I saw a button on someone’s blog that said “Boobs not bombs.” This was in reference to plastic surgery and how it makes women look so VERY unnatural!
We used to have a spandex, pants wearing, low cut, tight shirt wearing in a church we went to, too. She didn’t have weird hair. It was died platinum blonde, though.
She hosted a baptism at her home and she was going to be baptised. She has a pool and the church didn’t have a baptistry. She invited everyone over before hand to go swimming. She wears a bikini. My husband was a deacon at the time. He went to the leadership and said that this swimming party beforehand might detract from the worship and solemness of the baptism. He also said that from past pool parties, this woman wears a string bikini and we really shouldn’t be having a pool party because it just would not be fitting with the event of baptism.
Now, my husband wasn’t lusting. This woman was tanned and her skin was like leather and she was MUCH too old to wear a bikini. His point was about the solemnity of baptism and it seemed almost like a mockery to be frolicking around in the pool in our bikinis beforehand, call everyone out of the pool all dripping wet and then basically re-wet them.
The elders told my husband that because he was the weaker brother that they would not do the swimming party!
They totally didn’t get the point.
June 27, 2007 at 7:44 pm
Karen,
That is a hilarious story about the nursing woman, pins in her dress and getting your own TV!!! LOL I guess they nixed the men in the room by the time we got in because no men were allowed in there.
June 27, 2007 at 7:46 pm
“Corrie, I am growing very concerned about you. You are becoming an expert in these eye-trap exercises. ”
LOL!! Jen, I get a lot of practice! I get to Walmart about 3 times a week!
June 27, 2007 at 8:31 pm
I like Joan’s comment “I think modesty is a 2-pronged thing. Part one is covering oneself. The other part is not drawing attention to oneself.”
In answer to Karen’s “So, again, how do we know what is wordly and what is not?”
For me, I think what helps me define modesty and less worldliness is the question, “What is sensible?”. For example- someone above mentioned their mom wears capris (which are helpful/not hindering) in caring for younger children. When I was nursing babies/young children I didn’t wear dresses, because I would have had to undress to nurse; I wore sensible tops & skirts/bottoms and nursed discreetly wherever I was, without leaving the room/pew. Except for a swimsuit, I rarely wear a sleeveless top of any kind because, for me, I don’t want to mess with hiding/arranging bra straps or worrying about underarm gaps… it is simpler for me to always wear any length of sleeve… and sensible for my budget, as I don’t need any special undergarments. I am more comfortable when I don’t have to worry about constantly adjusting my clothing and I am not distracted by it in public, so I can pay full attention to who I am with or what I am doing, a sensible decision. Because we watch our budget, I rarely buy fabric/styles which must be dry cleaned. Neither do I spend good money on clothing made of cheap fabric which is not going to last more than a couple of months… it is amazing to go to “better” department stores and see the current fashions, especially tops, made of such cheap, lightweight fabric that it looks like it already belongs in the rag bag. It isn’t sensible to pay $20 for a thin bedraggled looking top at Carson’s/Macy’s OR $5 for a similar item at Old Navy/Walmart. Sensible for me, is usually not “the new style/fad”, but neither is it something so old that it screams for attention. Regarding how garments fit, it is sensible to wear clothing that fits properly so that it stays in place on the body without restricting some part of the body; the restricting is usually because the garment is too loose or too tight. We have probably all seen young men trying to walk down the street slouched in the middle or putting their feet/knees out to hold up those oversized/falling down the hips-style jeans. And we have probably all seen people with jeans so tight, that we wonder how they got them on and how they can move. (There’s a Seinfeld episode where Kramer wears too tight “Calvin’s” (Calvin Klein jeans for those who missed early ’80s) and walks without bending his knees, like Frankenstein’s monster.) Yesterday I was websurfing and found a video of 1948 sewing instruction of Simplicity patterns/home ec class. That reminded me of the “ease” which is built into patterns according to the fit required to keep the garment on the body and so that it hangs properly. It used to be that the only garments that fit tightly were undergarments, swimsuits and strapless gowns. Everything else had “ease”. Men’s clothes, for example, still have “ease”… Eddie Bauer & Land’s End sell all pants in 2-3 fits, such as Classic, Relaxed, and Loose. One could make a sensible choice of a fit for any occasion. In the summer, for example, is it more comfortable to wear skin tight clothing or draped fabrics which cling to the body or looser fitting crisp styles which skim the body? It seems that people used to know the answers to these questions, even secular women’t magazines had pages devoted to photos showing what NOT to wear for whatever occasion… I know Glamour magazine did 25-30 yrs ago, because I always read it at a friend’s house, while babysitting. The things Glamour said “NO” to, (some have been mentioned in one way or another in comments here)– ugly combinations, poor fabrics, bra straps hanging out, too tight-bulges showing, too formal/too casual, wearing a style that looks better on different body type, etc…. People used to have an understanding of what was sensible to wear to any occasion from everyday to formal… now it is common to see blue jeans/western shirt/cowboy boots at a funeral for someone who didn’t “dig country” or cleavage accented strapless “Frederick’s of Hollywood” style dress at a Catholic wedding… used to be you knew to have your shoulders covered and wear a hat as well, to show respect, even if you weren’t Catholic. Obviously some clothing standards needed to change… wearing 2-7 petticoats(2-10 lbs worth of fabric) under long, full skirted dresses and lacing corsets until ribs were broken/damaged was NOT sensible. What do you think? Is common sense/sensibility a factor? And where is common sense in fashion now?
June 27, 2007 at 8:33 pm
“At 14 I was wearing a white Steven Curtis Chapman concert t-shirt that said “for the sake of the call” at a birthday party. My friend came out and told me that her father didn’t think that my shirt was appropriate because the writing on the front was an “eye-trap”. I responded that her father shouldn’t be looking at me anyway and called my mom to pick me up. I was so embarrassed that I cried all the way home. I understood that her father was looking at me in a sexual manner and it had nothing to do with my t-shirt. It took a lot of convincing from my own parents to realize that I didn’t do anything wrong. It wasn’t long until this man had spread rumors about me and another boy in our homeshcool group and his daughter wasn’t allowed to be my friend. I was also quoted “the hair is her crowning glory” scripture constantly b/c I had short or shoulder length hair.”
Oh, MY, Kyla!!! You were so smart for your young years! Good for you!
I guess you enjoyed my eye-trap exercise then?
I hope it highlighted the ridiculousness of such a thing in that anyone who purposefully lOOking will find something sexually stimulating. After all, there is no way to hide the very fact that women have breasts and hips and crotches. If those things are always on your mind you will be drawn to those areas no matter what the person is wearing.
I am so proud of your parents that they supported you and told you the truth that the problem was with your friend’s father and not you.
How very creepy!
June 28, 2007 at 12:04 am
You know, there seems to be an awful lot of focus on what modesty looks like. But like I said before, isn’t there an element of what modesty acts like? I mean, couldn’t you technically be wearing the most “modest” dress by anyone’s standards, and not act accordingly? And then the question becomes, can someone dressed immodestly act modestly? There seems to be more to it than just the way a person dresses. An aspect of it is beauty, as Kari and Chewymom have pointed out…another aspect is that we should be “covered”, but there is heavy debate on how covered is covered…it seems like modesty is as much a mindset as it is a putting on of clothes. Am I totally off here?
And if so, what does that mindset look like, and how does one cultivate it, without getting too “boxed in” by legalism? Thoughts?
June 28, 2007 at 12:44 am
Joy, that’s a very good question! (“What does a ‘modest’ mindset/behavior look like?”)
A long time ago, I read this book (I think it might have been Anne Ortlund’s “Disciplines of a Beautiful Woman,” but I can’t remember for sure) where there was a chapter devoted to grooming and appearance. One of the main thrusts was, if you take enough care so that you’re neatly groomed and stylish enough to fit in, you won’t be self-conscious. And self-consciousness makes it difficult to be modest and humble, because a self-conscious person is too focused on herself.
I thought that was a wise observation.
It seems to me like a modest mindset would begin with being more preoccupied with others than with oneself. It would involve giving at least some thought to how one’s physical presence affected others. And it would also include not attempting to draw attention to oneself.
June 28, 2007 at 12:58 am
This is a random thought, although it somewhat dovetails with what Karen asked earlier. And that is, what do you all think of designer clothing and purses?
This has been a huge deal in certain Christian groups I’ve been a part of. I was guilty of it for awhile…I had a few designer purses (all of which were gifts from my husband, by the way!), and I must admit, I took a certain pride in having these status symbols. For awhile, I didn’t recognize it as pride, though.
Then one day, I bought a nice but inexpensive purse at Kohl’s (a mid-level department store), and it suddenly hit me in the funniest way that after a certain point, there’s virtually NO difference between the quality of a mid-priced no-name purse and the more expensive designer bags.
So why in the world would you be willing to spend ten times as much money? It had to be purely for pride, to show others that you have the money to dump on a designer purse.
Since that point, I have had a bizarrely tender conscience about my designer bags. If you’re going to talk about an attitude of immodesty, for me at this point, lugging around a showily expensive purse would be immodest.
(And now my poor husband has said that I took all his best gift ideas away…
)
June 28, 2007 at 2:19 am
Joan, That’s what I am thinking. I mean, the way my mom taught it to me, “lady-like” was lady like no matter what you had on. Burlap bag or pricey Prada dress.
I guess where I have gotten confused is that there are so many differing “definitions” of what modesty looks like, that I am still going to offend someone. Like someone who takes a very restrictive view, as in, a woman should always be in a dress, and that dress should always hit near the ankle, and no upper arm should ever show…I am going to offend that person. But yet on the other side, I am going to offend a more “modern” person who thinks it strange that I won’t wear shorts that hit above the knee, or strappy tank tops, claiming that I “stick out like a sore thumb”.
Considering that both these situations (which I have experienced in real life) were among stated Christians…could my dress or actions been considered immodest? That seems to be the crux of the matter. If immodesty is calling undue attention to one’s self, or ‘not being covered enough’ then in both cases am I not guilty of some immodesty? Each to a varying degree, granted, but I am still offending people. Yet, if you asked me, I was in modest dress and hopefully exhibiting modest actions, being “lady-like”. That is what I find confusing.
June 28, 2007 at 2:19 am
whoops, forgot to close the italics! Sorry!
June 28, 2007 at 4:30 am
Joan,
It is funny that you bring up purses. I usually buy my purses at Kohls. I could never imagine spending more than $50 for a purse. I thought that was expensive.
In the last year or so I learned just how much Coach purses were. I was STUNNED. I showed my husband when we were at the mall and he couldn’t believe it.
I think what you are saying is more in laying with what the verse concerning modesty was all about. Designer bags that cost $500 or more are very popular. Once you know how much these purses cost and what they look like, you can spot them everywhere. This is one way that ladies display their wealth. Not all do, of course. Some get them off of ebay for only about $300.
On the other hand, I know women who are proud that they have used the same purse for the last 20 years. It is in sad shape by this time.
So, again there is a balance. Are we displaying our wealth in status symbols such as jewelery and purses? Are we taking pride in our purses that are falling apart and simply disgusting because they are a symbol of how “thrifty” we are?
June 28, 2007 at 4:46 am
With the two definitions we’ve talked about for immodesty: calling undue attention to oneself and not being covered enough and I’d like to add wearing VERY form fitting clothing to that as well…yes, it can get confusing, especially when we end up offending one group of people by what we’re wearing, because we don’t want to offend the other group of people by what we wear! ha. Sorry I don’t have the definitive answer, but general common courtesy might tell us to not dress a certain way if we KNOW we are going to be in the presence of those it may very well offend. Example, though this doesn’t relate to female clothing, my pastor gives the example of the fact that at his sister’s church the standard dress for men is jacket and tie even at Sunday evening service. So, whenever they visit that church, he simply wears a jacket and tie, without getting all bent out of shape about it. Thinking ahead, showing common courtesy…should be helpful I’d think.
I think common sense is a good determiner or at least a good start to a determiner. But how many teen girls have common sense these days! I know I didn’t as a teen…I can remember the tighter the jeans, the better, so we lied on our backs and sucked the tummy in to zip up those Levi’s! How smart is that, not being able to barely breathe!
I’ll watch my college-aged niece who dresses very trendy like all her friends and she is constantly pulling up the garment at the top and pulling it down in the back. Hello…there is a way to avoid that! Apparently the common sense factor hasn’t set in with her or her friends yet. (by the way, she’s a girl who loves the Lord and is going to Bible college next year)
Let me ask y’all this: do you think teen girls realize how much they are showing when they bend over in a low cut top? I really don’t think many of them do. I think many of them would be quite embarassed to know what others see when they bend over. Okay, ladies…keep those camera phones handy at all times! just kidding. I would do that with my own daughter (and then delete it), but not with someone else’s daughter. However, if I were teaching a teen class, I wouldn’t hesitate to have them think about what the camera could catch at just the right moment.
Having said that I know we all mess up from time to time. I made the mistake of letting my daughter wear a top grandma had made her to church once. I hadn’t seen it on her, since the family always waits on me to get to the car on Sunday mornings (I’m running all over the house turning out lights, fans, don’t you know!) I didn’t realize it was NOT a good fit…oops! Grandma since has tightened it and added a slight panel.
June 28, 2007 at 5:43 am
Joy asks, #49, if someone can be dressed modestly and not act modest. Good question.
I’d say yes. I’m thinking that a woman who may be very outwardly modest in her appearance, can be, to use the word again, ‘flirty’. The conversation, the touch, the eye contact.
She can also be dressed appropriately modest and be boisterous, bossy, rude, condemning, haughty…you name it. I’ve seen that in the church as well as in the workplace.
Clothes will not cover a multitude of all sins! I was quite convicted one day when one of my children kept saying ‘gosh darn it!’ about something. I don’t consider that a swearing phrase…yet..it sounded so ugly coming out of their mouth, and I was convicted because I know it came from me. ouch. I’m working on that one.
Developing a total package of attire, actions, and attitude that will be compelling to others and honoring to Christ is not always easy whether inside the home, in the church, at school, in the marketplace or workplace, but it is what we are called to as Christian women…no matter what our age. Like many other qualities this package may need to be fine tuned, sharpened, and explained from time to time throughout our lives. And it will need to be taught to the younger women as well.
As our culture and society changes around us, things can get weird and confusing. The crass sailor’s tatoo has now become colorful body art to anyone who takes the fancy and wants to endure the pain!
I will come down on the side of the non-negotiable truths of Scripture such as not being conformed to this world, but being transformed by the renewing of my mind and loving not the world or the things that are in the world.
I’ve certainly benefitted from many of the thoughts given here! And….Karen….I think I’ll laugh myself to sleep tonight thinking about you and others i know who used to go to bed at night with small orange cans in their hair!
June 28, 2007 at 6:44 am
I was hesitant to add anything to this discussion, for fear of merely repeating what someone else has said more eloquently, but I haven’t seen this word, and I believe it is vital to any discussion about modesty.
“Shamefacedness.” I think our culture has lost sight of this word and the significance it plays for a woman. The Old Testament provides the letter of the law, the New Testament provides the spirit. The Old Testament laid down the dogmatism- “long, loose, flowing” (on both men and women), no mixed fibers, yadda yadda. The New Testament refocuses that attention on the heart, as Jesus did with his sum-up of the 10 Commandments, equaling them with an attitude of love. When the New Testament talks about “modest apparel” (which is found in 1 Timothy 2:9, for someone who commented that she couldn’t find it) it then directly links “modesty” to “shamefacedness.”
It’s ALL about the attitude. I saw two attractive young women in the same church. Both were wearing basically the same thing: button-up shirt, knee-length skirt, heels, a few pieces of jewelry..
However, one girl displayed an attitude of “shamefedness” (a sense of honour, modesty, bashfulness, reverence, regard for others, respect, according to Strong’s), and the other girl was clearly the worst kind of flirt. What was the difference? One was engaged in a lighthearted conversation with a friend, maintaining a correct, yet ladylike posture and gestures. The other- she was constantly touching herself; running her hands down her torso, smoothing her skirt over the reverse side of her anatomy, lifting her hair or her neck, licking her lips…
The Bible may not define specifics, but it does do a bang-up job of revealing a pretty good picture of the proper, modest attitude . And since Christ placed all of the attention on the heart, shouldn’t we?
June 28, 2007 at 3:42 pm
You know, ladies, I think you all are AMAZING, the way you’ve put down your thoughts!
I find myself learning a lot from this discussion.
Corrie, in your comment #54, I think you clarified EXACTLY what I was trying to put into words.
Susie, the whole form-fitting thing is sure a biggie! My sister and I were marveling just the other day how clothing now is cut SO snugly compared to just 5 years ago. We had a garage sale recently, and as we surveyed some of our old clothes, it was bizarre to see how giant armholes used to be, how loose and long shirts were. One old t-shirt was HUGE, and it was a size medium. I wonder how many women just go to the store and grab the same size they’ve always worn, without considering how much more form-fitting everything is right now?
I wonder when designers and manufacturers will start a “new” trend and bring back looser styles?
June 28, 2007 at 4:10 pm
Lani -#57 (hi!),
Shamefacedness was a much-celebrated Greek/Roman attribute for women. In fact, some scholars would say that shame was the number ONE attribute for women in that highly patriarchal world. It is amazing how many instances we have recorded where shamefacedness/shame is lauded in women during that time period. Shame was a feminine virtue as much as boldness was a male virtue. (Lots of reasons why, but I’ll be brief here!)
I recall listening to an audio sermon from Charity Gospel where the speaker said he always knew a godly woman by the way they would greet him—that a godly woman could barely stand to look him in the eye due to her shamefacedness, whereas the lesser women would look him right in the eye while greeting him.
I agree that a godly heart is not going to be sexually flaunting his/her body. But I can’t help cringing a little whenever I hear the word, “shamefaced,” probably due to sermons like that, where much ado is made out of that one word, and where I learned that a firm handshake and a bright-eyed smile of greeting were ungodly—not for my husband, of course, but ungodly for ME, a woman. (I am a woman. Because of that, I must operate in the world of men only under the banner of shame—shame for who I am, not for anything I’ve done).
The Greeks (and then the Romans) lauded shamefacedness because they felt a woman OUGHT to be filled with shame in the presence of men—what with her inferiority made visible in the presence of superior beings. They also highly prized the silent woman—to be ashamed and to be silent: the best wife a man could have. (She is too timid to ever question him due to her shamefacedness, and since she never talks, she wouldn’t question him anyway).
These were hallmark qualities in Roman times, but I don’t think they are indicative of God’s heart for women when He fashioned Eve.
June 28, 2007 at 4:38 pm
“I recall listening to an audio sermon from Charity Gospel where the speaker said he always knew a godly woman by the way they would greet him—that a godly woman could barely stand to look him in the eye due to her shamefacedness, whereas the lesser women would look him right in the eye while greeting him.”
Molly,
Oh boy! I am in trouble!
I was brought up to think that it is rude not to look a person in the eye when they are greeting you or talking to you!
Now, what am I supposed to do? I am so confused.
I guess I am a “lesser woman” but that was only because I was obeying my parents and the etiquette people.
I wonder if the opposite is true? Should a man look at a woman?
How does that all work? A man looks at a woman while he is greeting her but she looks away with downcast eyes? And what is the point of doing this? What does it mean in the scheme of things? It shows her submission to all men by her downcast eyes? Kind of like a dog who bares its neck to the alpha male? I know there are these sorts of rituals between animals but I didn’t know that it was a biblical thing for humans to partake in.
Is there something sexual that I should know about concerning looking a person in the eyes when you greet them?
June 28, 2007 at 4:48 pm
“The Greeks (and then the Romans) lauded shamefacedness because they felt a woman OUGHT to be filled with shame in the presence of men—what with her inferiority made visible in the presence of superior beings. They also highly prized the silent woman—to be ashamed and to be silent: the best wife a man could have. (She is too timid to ever question him due to her shamefacedness, and since she never talks, she wouldn’t question him anyway). ”
Molly,
SHHH!!! Don’t say that so loud! We don’t want anyone to get any funny ideas in their heads!
June 28, 2007 at 5:04 pm
Karen,
I just want to commend you for allowing comments from all angles on your blog and for being willing to discuss these issues with people of differing opinions.
I had noticed that Stacey McDonald was talking about a comment you made on this blog. It was in regards to the belly-button pierced young girl.
I started reading and saw that she had started a discussion of modesty, too.
I thought she made some very good points and her questions at the end of her post were very good. Every woman should ask themselves those questions. I posted a response but she did not approve it. I have no idea why and I never received any information that would cause it to not be approved. I reread it and I don’t think it was offensive? Sometimes I can be pretty dense, though.
I will put my response here. You can go to the discussion:
http://yoursacredcalling.blogspot.com/2007/06/can-pants-be-considered-modest.html
”
Stacey:
“” And for all those patriarch hunters out there: Does that mean I think overalls are sinful or that I get to decide how loose is loose enough? No.”
Corrie:
LOL!
Crikey, Mate! We patriarch hunters have found some beauts!
My own patriarch is a particularly wonderful specimen!
I am glad to see much needed balance and that you do not feel that pants are men’s wear and that they are immodest. That is very encouraging.
You asked some very good questions at the end of this post and I hope that every woman answers them from the heart. I know it was edifying for me to answer those questions.
It is so very hard to define what is acceptable and modest because everyone has so many opinions on this subject. But, we can’t be blown about and held captive by the opinions of others.
If I had my way, I would dress like I was off of a Jane Austin set. My husband might think I needed immediate “help”, though. I just try and dress in modest, feminine, attractive clothing that does not draw unneeded attention to myself. I have the ability to stick out in a crowd, especially when I have my last 20-30 lbs of baby/nursing weight off. Even though I wear modest dresses, I have found that I can turn quite a few heads at the local Walmart. So, I try and blend in without becoming like the “unlovely” you talk about. That means, I don’t go to Walmart in my pajama pants and slippers.
I look like pretty much like a mom. I know that bothers Mark Driscoll. He once preached a sermon and told how he made his wife go shopping because she was looking “too much like a mom”. Well, she had 4 kids at the time. What else is she supposed to look like? She is a beautiful woman and I am quite sure that she was not dressed in sloppy attire. He wanted her to look sexy and not “matronly”.
It is so hard to please everyone!
I agree with Martha above. All I see are skirts out in the stores. Do you have a Kohls Dept. Store near you? JC Penneys? They have some beautiful skirts, just below the knee that are very attractive AND modest and are nice for those hot summers. All you need is a nice, clean feminine t-shirt and a pair of sandals and you are good to go.
I have six daughters and we are constantly examining our clothing choices and we are not afraid to peck at each other when it comes to something that might be iffy.
And you are right about modesty. I once went to a Mennonite meeting and the young girls were strutting about with their tight fitting cape dresses and they were obviously showing off for the boys. I, on the other hand, was deemed “immodest” (yes, the bishop used those exact words) because I was in my homemade ankle-length jumper with a long sleeve shirt underneath. Because it wasn’t a cape dress, it was worldly and therefore “immodest”. Even though cape dresses showed off much more skin and much more “form” than what I had on.
I think the thing that really got me thinking way back in my dresses only days is that all the stuff I heard about women who wore pants was just not true. Some of the godliest, most meek, most humble, most submissive women I know wear pants. What I was being told was not jiving with reality.
And, about the course talk. The Bible contains many references that are VERY course! My, OH! But, please remember that not all of us were raised in a Christian home. Some of us were raised on a bar stool. I know I have learned a lot about what is proper and what is not but most of the time when I was violating some Christianese standard, I had NO idea! Speaking frankly is not always a sign of immodesty. It might be more of a sign of that person’s personality or that they are just clueless because they didn’t have the luxury that others enjoy.”"
June 28, 2007 at 5:14 pm
So then, my next question? What in the world are you supposed to do when you don’t know where you are going (referring to Susie’s response about dressing appropriately when going to the church that had certain expectations)?
It seems that you will ‘draw attention’ either way. I guess that is why I keep coming back to the thought that modesty is more an action than a clothing style in many ways, and that a woman exhibiting modesty would be exhibiting many of the fruits of the Spirit. Not that we don’t have our bad days, or the days that we walk around without realizing that we have toddler goobers stuck to our bum. But I guess I am hoping that if a woman were to catch me at a supermarket, my clothing would neither call undue attention to my body or face, nor be gaudy or flashy, and that they would “catch” me speaking and acting with kindness and humility. That I would truly be pleasant to look upon. Not good looking, but with “a pleasant face and demeanor” as my Grandma used to be so found of saying. That they would catch a glimpse of the King of Kings. I guess that’s my definition of modesty.
June 28, 2007 at 5:49 pm
Joy,
I like your definition of modesty!
I also am glad Corrie shared that even Mennonite girls can be running around in their tight fitting cape dresses, showing off for the boys, trying to get their attention. Gasp! Are any of us so foolish to think that doesn’t happen!? I don’t want to bash the Mennonites though. No doubt many of their women are lovely-spirited. (hey, and I really like the Rod and Staff math books we’ve used in our homeschool, too)
I also appreciate the fact brought up that many women have not had the advantage of being raised with any concern for appearance or actions. That’s a good reminder for me. Thanks.
June 28, 2007 at 8:32 pm
To reply to #59, “shamefacedness” isn’t merely shame. And shame doesn’t exactly equal with embarrassment. Shame is an attitude of acknowledging your shortcomings (Webster’s-Merriam)- and it is never equated with the thought that women are somehow less then men. Not in the Bible, at least.
As Christians, we must acknowledge our shortcomings because they are many, especially in light of Christ.
Shamefacedness was to counter an attitude Paul had had reports of among the women- they were openly mocking and causing dissension in the church using extreme tactics, something I’m sure none of us here are guilty of. What is the definition of this word?
“A sense of honour, modesty, bashfulness, reverence, regard for others, or respect.”
Does that even remotely resemble the idea you pictured, that women are supposed to not even meet the eyes of men? I’m sorry that this word has been twisted in this way, we aren’t supposed to “reverence” just men- but human life. We are supposed to respect authority. We are supposed to regard our elders. The word has a much broader application than just a woman’s relationship with a man.
I’m truly sorry that people can twist a verse out of context and make it mean anything they want it to mean.
June 29, 2007 at 2:17 pm
Could someone give us a rundown on the differences and similarities between ATI and Vision Forum?
On its face, ATI seems like a normal organization, but I know that some think its weird and cultic. Any clues? THANKS!!
June 29, 2007 at 4:02 pm
This is a fascinating discussion! I do feel compelled to clarify one thing on the topic of fashions, though, because there seems to be some confusion both here and on a previous thread on the matter of Jane Austen and Victorian fashions.
Jane Austen dresses, as in the lower left picture above, were from the Regency Era, circa 1810-1830. These are the styles you would see in any of the recent Jane Austen movie adaptations. Personally, I find the style attractive or not, depending on the dress – some of Elinor’s frocks in Sense and Sensibility are downright dowdy, and often the high waistline (or empire waist) suggests a maternity look. Some of Emma’s dresses in Emma I consider very pretty. The plunging necklines certainly tended to show off one’s bosom, even if one covered up actual skin with lace and feathers. These styles reflected the French influence coming over the Channel, and drawings from this period involved the low necklines, high waists, long billowing skirts, and filmy dancing slippers. In America you see this style in the lovely illustrations by Kate Greenway.
Victorian fashions were patterned after the adored Queen Victoria, who ascended the throne in 1837 and began to have an amazing impact on fashion. Her reign was long and styles changed quickly, so it is difficult to put an exact description to the Victorian look, but in a nutshell, it involved a minimum of skin showing, high necklines, lots of fussy details (often with ruffles and lace), a very shaped bodice (everyone wore a corset), and very full skirts. During the early Victorian Era (think ante-bellum and Civil War South), wide hoop skirts were the fashion, but by the 1870s and 1880s the look had moderated to full skirts with a bustle. Anne Shirley wore long sleeves with puffs (leg of mutton); Laura Ingalls wore hoops on and off through the 1880s; Anna (of The King And I) wore hoops so wide you had to turn sideways to go through a doorway. These were all variations on Victorian fashion, but the waistline stayed pretty much at the natural waist throughout, although, thanks to corsets, the natural waist was about half as big around as it should have been. J
Hoopskirts + tiny waist = Victorian
Long billowy dresses + empire waist = Regency = Jane Austen
Whew, thanks for humoring me on one of my favorite topics! Now we can all get back to discussing the relative merits and modesty of said fashions.
June 29, 2007 at 7:44 pm
Lani,
“Shamefacedness was to counter an attitude Paul had had reports of among the women- they were openly mocking and causing dissension in the church using extreme tactics, something I’m sure none of us here are guilty of. What is the definition of this word?”
This is very interesting. Wouldn’t it be neat if we could go back in history and actually see what it was Paul was addressing? I am sure that a culture steeped in paganism and sexual immorality as worship was bound to be a very rowdy culture! I can imagine unsaved women, coming to hear the gospel shouting and being loud like their pagan religion taught them. Maybe they were even antagonistic and like you said mocking the preachers right during the sermon.
I have been a Christian since 1989, and I have never experienced that sort of disorder but I would think a talk like Paul gave them would be in order if that was going on.
I really think a lot of our questions could be cleared up if we UNDERSTOOD the culture at the time Paul was writing. We can still apply his words today but it seems people are misapplying them and turning them into things that they were never meant for.
June 29, 2007 at 7:54 pm
Hebrews 12:28
Wherefore we receiving a kingdom which cannot be moved, let us have grace, whereby we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear:
The word “reverence” is the same word for shamefacedness in the Titus 2 passage.
I wonder why they didn’t use reverence in both places or shamefacedness in both places? It doesn’t make sense.
June 29, 2007 at 8:15 pm
I know this isn’t even the whole purpose of those pictures but do you all think the flapper is immodest? Is her dress immodest? Is her hair too short? How about her shoes? Should she be showing that much leg?
June 30, 2007 at 2:46 am
To Kyla: I think you really hit something with your comment about taking away a child’s innocence. I’ve thought that, I guess, but couldn’t haven’t said it as well before. All this emphasis on a “woman’s body parts” and “men’s sexual thoughts”… isn’t there a better way to train young women? The story about your friend’s father is incredibly sad and disturbing. Three cheers for godly parents who counseled you wisely.
To Joan, on the designer purses: I appreciate your frugality and agree that there are a lot of budget-friendly purchases that rival or surpass the quality of big-name labels. However, we have to be careful about assuming we know what women are thinking by buying their Coach or Prada bag. We cannot judge motives (I’m not saying you were… just a reminder generally). I have a Coach bag someone gave me five years ago, and I use it regularly. It was a lot of money and it’s still in great shape.
This whole discussions has been interesting. Coming from a very conservative background though, I’ll admit aother part of me is very nervous as I read because I sense a human tendency to draw lines or make rules that God didn’t. Is it wrong to wear a bikini? A tattoo? a nose ring?
Well the Bible doesn’t draw those lines, so we can’t either. Of course we make those decisions for our individual lives–by applying Scripture to the best of our ability. But I cringe inwardly when I hear people tell me about “that girl’s dress” or the “immodest” styles of someone else.
Personally, I wish dress wasn’t such a big deal in today’s church. As someone who has felt reprocussions (sp?) of ATI and other hard-line movements, I know how detrimental and off-putting to hurt Believers it can be.
I feel very strongly about this: if you are bothered by a young girl in your church’s dress, rather than judging her or assuming her motives, get to know her and attempt to reach her heart. The men in our churches will view “immodest” dress every day in this world; maybe gaining the young woman’s heart is more important than making sure she has a long enough skirt on.
I’m sure I sound defensive about this. But really, please believe me: this whole modesty thing can be so detrimental, I cannot even tell you!
A five-year-old who had been indoctrinated in “modesty” once told me she thought a man at a restaurant was looking at her in attraction. I was shocked!
June 30, 2007 at 7:32 am
Shanna: “All this emphasis on a “woman’s body parts” and “men’s sexual thoughts”… isn’t there a better way to train young women?”
Excellent point!
That about sums it up, I think, although maybe we could amend it to say, “Isn’t there a better way to train young people.”
That leaves the very complicated question of how to train young people. You’d think we’d be able to discern the appropriateness of our dress in various situations without black/white rules, like slits are eye traps and such. I do think almost any normal woman knows when she is dressing in a fashion to attract particular types of male attention. Sure, I bet some of us are taken by surprise at times, but I doubt it’s very often.
I am sad to say, however, that I had to wear frumpy, awful clothes for the longest time for the sake of modesty – and it was all for naught, really. Some Christian attitudes about female dress and casting the female body as a source of male sin certainly led me to feel that I should be ashamed of my body.
June 30, 2007 at 11:03 am
Corrie,
About that flapper look…
If I could choose one style it would be light colored stockings and Mary Jane shoes along with a mid-calk length dress. Do you remember the ATI nonsense about colored hose vs skin toned hose? Gothard polled the young men at headquarters to find out which was more alluring (oops, tempting) and they voted that colored stockings were so skin-toned became the standard. So, my question was think…I am very light skinned and off-white stockings were much closer to my own skin tone than Suntan. What’s a woman to do?
I really like the look on the flapper….this is totally personal preference.
July 1, 2007 at 5:42 am
One of the things I don’t like in some circles is the thought that women are not to wear any sort of bright color. I wear brights and jewel tones. Wearing pastels washes me out and from a distance, some pastels make me look as if I have nothing on.
I think having people wonder if you do have clothes on is immodest-much more so than wearing color. And if we are to reflect our gratitude for how God made us, then why not wear colors that flatter you-which for me are the bright and deep colors.
AS has already been pointed out, the Proverbs 31 clothed her whole house in scarlet and purple, and they wore that in the wintertime! So, not only did they wear bright and deep colors, but they wore it int he wintertime, when those colors stand out even more against the barreness of sand and bare leaves-or white when they have a bit of snow.
Sallie,
I had to laugh at the light socket hair comment. I never understood why folks want their hair to look that way either, esepcially since there were times in my life my hair would look like that, and I didn’t want it to!
July 1, 2007 at 9:08 pm
Thatmom (#40) asks, “What makes something worldly?”
I’ve just begun reading John MacArthur’s book, Ashamed of the Gospel, which he wrote in 1993. In the preface he asks the question, is worldliness still a sin?
He says this about worldliness: Worldliness is the sin of allowing one’s appetites, ambitions, or conduct to be fashioned according to earthly values. He then quotes 1 John 2:16-17.
His application is to ‘church programs designed explicitly to cater to fleshly desire, sensual appetites and human pride.’
I suppose we can run our questions about dress or anything else through this same grid and decide…worldly or not worldly?
Susie
July 1, 2007 at 11:33 pm
“I know this isn’t even the whole purpose of those pictures but do you all think the flapper is immodest? Is her dress immodest? Is her hair too short? How about her shoes? Should she be showing that much leg?”
I see nothing immodest about her. And I wonder….where did people ever get the idea that short hair is immodest anyway? The Bible doesn’t say that.
July 2, 2007 at 2:45 pm
Some good thoughts being shared on here. The answer to this question is, of course: “God is the one defines feminine modesty”.
We all know (hopefully) the 1 Tim. passage about modesty: “women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire…”
also the passage:
“…our unpresentable parts are treated with greater modesty, (1 Cor. 12:23)
What if each believing woman looked into God’s words about modesty with an open receptive heart, asking God to show her and her husband what is pleasing to Him in her apparel? If when she puts on her clothing, she is careful to do so in fear of the Lord and love for her brothers and with a spirit of modesty – ashamed to display in any way intimate parts of her body, and if in doubt she asks her husband – how can she wear something immodest? It would be rather difficult. (If someone grew up in an unbelieving home where the standard of dress was very bad, they might need some more specific instructions, since they might be so accustomed to immodest clothing that they don’t notice it.) If a woman has a surrendered spirit about her clothing, willing to give up anything she thinks is cute or comfy in order to honor God, she has made the biggest step to being truly modest in her dress.
July 2, 2007 at 3:45 pm
“If a woman has a surrendered spirit about her clothing, willing to give up anything she thinks is cute or comfy in order to honor God, she has made the biggest step to being truly modest in her dress.”
Perhaps… but logic and commonsense are just as important here — God gave them to us for a reason, and He gave us liberty in this area for a reason. If our bodies are not comfortable in our clothing, then we doing something wrong. God made our bodies with a built in temperature regulation system, which operates by means of perspiration and evaporation, and in high humidity, this means baring more skin. I’ve seen women in Florida in honest-to-goodness danger of heat stroke, because they were brought up up north in homes where anything less than full coverage from head to toe was held to be immodest. Imagine long sleeves and heavy tights in 90 degree, ninety percent humidity weather — yet there are women with “surrendered spirits” who dress this way, to the detriment of their comfort and their health.
It is possible to be sincere, and still be sincerely wrong.
July 2, 2007 at 5:18 pm
God made our bodies with a built in temperature regulation system, which operates by means of perspiration and evaporation, and in high humidity, this means baring more skin.
This is not necessarily true, however. I lived for a summer in Pakistan, where the daily temperatures often reached 115 or higher with 100 percent humidity. I was covered from head to toe in what is called a shawar kamise. (This is not to be confused with the burka, which truly is unbearable on so many levels). These outfits, which are worn from Pakistan all the way over to Saudia Arabia, are made of an extremely light breathable cotton, with very loose pants and a tunic. Women would add a veil to this, men do not. We Americans figured out really quickly that the native dress was so much more comfortable and breathable and cool than our thick cotton t-shirts and thick denim pants and skirts that not one of us stayed in American dress much longer than a day or two. As one of our hostesses pointed out, we were much more “modest” in our kameeses than in our t-shirts and our ankle length denim skirts. So it truly is a matter of perspective!
July 2, 2007 at 6:05 pm
GOD defines modesty? Where? God does define sin, but I see no similar passages on what is modest. Just like He doesn’t define “corrupt communication.” There’s no modesty dictionary in the Bible. We’re supposed to be wise in this case.
July 2, 2007 at 6:05 pm
People often use the costume of desert peoples to show how people can be all covered up in very hot weather and still stay cool, but in the desert, there is very little humidity. In Florida, the humidity is 95%, and perspiration does not evaporate from fabric quickly enough to cool the body. If you are wearing multiple layers, it doesn’t evaporate at all and you risk heat stroke. That is why people in hot, humid parts of the world traditionally wear very little clothing, and this is what gives the lie to the idea that modesty is in some way tied to some prescribed amount of skin that we may or may not show. God would not design human beings to cool themselves by means of perspiration in hot, humid climates, and than make it a sin for them to do so. The idea is ludicrous.
July 2, 2007 at 6:37 pm
“GOD defines modesty? Where? God does define sin, but I see no similar passages on what is modest. Just like He doesn’t define “corrupt communication.” There’s no modesty dictionary in the Bible. We’re supposed to be wise in this case.”
Agreed, 100%. God knows everything, and He knew that His church would span all cultures, all eras and all climates. So He gave us the Holy Spirit, some good old fashioned horse sense and the “renewing of our minds,” and allowed us to figure it out.
July 2, 2007 at 11:50 pm
where the daily temperatures often reached 115 or higher with 100 percent humidity.
I thought I’d repeat this point…what you said Cynthia, is actually a common misconception about most of the lands within the middle east. With the exception of the desert that runs through parts of Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Iran, the rest of the land swelters under very high humidity (particularly the areas close to the coast). And in India, and most of Southern Asia, they wear a very similar outfit.
But my point wasn’t about the humidity. My point is that “modesty” is a matter of perspective. My unspoken question was how much of our definition of modesty is a cultural thing? Like Cynthia pointed out, ladies in Florida have an entirely different definition than ladies say, from Maine.
July 3, 2007 at 12:38 am
I also think that a simple, not-too-expensive wardrobe could be built around a few good pieces by adding accessories. This is true whether you are wearing dress up clothes or casual outfits.
I’d say that a very simple wardrobe can be brought up to “WOW” status with a few pieces of really great jewelry!
Seriously – there are a few things that should be (but evidently are not) obviously immodest. Any tight anything with anything written across the behind. And yet I saw a couple of those at my daughter’s youth group. Boys – if we can see their boxers – immodesty runs in both directions.
July 3, 2007 at 1:05 am
Ellen: “Boys – if we can see their boxers – immodesty runs in both directions.
”
LOL. Except – that’s not immodest, that’s eeeeeeeeeewwwwwwwwwwwww gross. I am laughing so hard, thinking of my 5 brothers and the hygiene habits of most younger teen guys. Eeeek. I don’t even want to think the last time those boxers got washed.
As ThatMom says, don’t get too excited when your boys discover showering – it means they’ve also discovered girls.
July 5, 2007 at 12:04 am
To understand the call to modesty, one must first understand the motive behind that call. If the motive is so that everyone around you, especially at Church will think you’re a good, humble Christian, then this is false modesty. But as in all things, the motive must be Love, Agape’ Love to be precise. Therefore I suggest you meditate on how your Love for others and for God compells you to dress. If you want to be perfect, then give no thought to what others will think of how you dress and dress as a slave to Christ.
Another point here is that we’re all too often looking at eternal Perfection, that is God, and the way it (He) is described in many facets throughout the Bible and we are trying to figure out how we can live that way… or, if we’re slightly more honest with ourselves, how we can appear to live that way.
Dressing modestly will not make you more spiritually alive or Spirit filled. Praying, trusting, meditating, studying, but most of all Loving God will make you more Spirit filled. And being more Spirit filled will answer the question (more closely): What should I wear?
You can practice all the fine points of the law, but if you do it to fulfill the law and not our of a pure heart (Love) then it is vanity and sin. (ref: 1Cor 13:1-3)
July 6, 2007 at 1:26 pm
It is so interesting that this issue was posted about here the day I left to attend Cornerstone Festival in Illinois, where the most interesting discussion I attended was about modesty.
My 20 yod and I were interested in this particular exchange because recently our youth group had to endure the annual purity month. I was so frustrated that the first week, guys and girls were separated with the issue of modesty being addressed with the girls and lust being addressed with the guys. I believe that the heart issue of modesty can be applied to both … and please, can’t we address lust with the girls as well. It is very confusing for a female to be given the message that only males struggle with lust and then to have very real physical feelings and thoughts to deal with … I remember thinking something was wrong with me, something dirty and shameful.
The speaker raised some very important points as well as read some disturbing quotes from typical “Christian” books that deal with purity and modesty issues for young women.
I believe, as she, that the church has mishandled this issue to a point that we are sending very dangerous messages to both males and females.
The world tells a woman, “you are a sex object and we will praise you and exploit you.”
The church tells a woman, “you are a sex object and we will shame you and blame you.”
One of the quotes she read from a popular book said that if a young woman dresses as a plaything, then boys will be boys, and play with that toy and God will blame her for his sin.
I literally gasped when I heard this and almost burst into tears. This is a frightening message!
I am so sick of the boys will be boys message. My husband and I will not let our sons believe that they are slaves to their animal instinct that is controlled by what a woman wears or doesn’t wear or how a woman acts or doesn’t act. They should be offended by that message and they are. They own their responsibility to be pure in heart.
That doesn’t give our girls a license to dress or act in an immodest way but we have focused on the heart, not on the outward. The rules of dress can be too arbitrary and we worry about what are the consequences of placing this type of responsibility on the woman and her body.
During the modesty talk to the girls, the youth pastor’s wife basically held a fashion show illustrating what is modest and what is not. Of course, this is all according to her size 4 body. One of her rules, if you can look down and see cleavage … the shirt is too low cut. My goodness, my best friend would have to wear a turtle neck! Again, though the rules do not address the heart.
She told them that not only do they need to be concerned about how the youth males were looking at them but how older men were looking at them. So, we are placing the responsibility of a pedophile on a 14 yog? This is problematic as it makes the woman’s body the origin of sin and causes huge shame issues regarding the female body.
If modesty is freedom from vanity and boastfulness, doesn’t it apply to male and female? It is culturally acceptable for a young man to go shirtless. But what is his heart motivation? Is he just trying to show off his wide shoulders and six pack abs?
Well, the morning is getting away from me and children need their mommi’s presence . . . if you would like to read an article by the speaker I heard at Cornerstone, visit this link:
http://www.cbeinternational.org/new/E-Journal/2007/07winter/07wintercwik.html
July 6, 2007 at 2:59 pm
“We should encourage young women to dress in a way that reflects their own worth and dignity and encourages respect from the rest of the Church.”
The above quote from that CBE article, too me, is the crux of this whole issue as far as dress is concerned. I agree with much that the article said, but, it still doesn’t address some of the overtly sexual ways Christian women dress that ARE a stumbling block to men, both young and old.
While Christian men must learn to control their lust issues and to look upon all women as their sisters in Christ, the message that some Christian women send through their behavior, their manner, their actions and their dress does convey their sexuality in an overt manner that does anything but illicit respect from others.
In the past few weeks, with summer upon us, I have witnessed some things that have really boggled my mind in this area. Having recently read the Modesty Survey, I couldn’t help but think about how many things they discovered in that survey that were stumbling blocks to young men that are a part of normal summer dress for many Christian women.
Honestly, I did not find that survey to be that alarming and really didn’t seen many things on the list that were surprising to me. However, I think we also need to see someone address the other issues regarding modesty that have been brought up here….men’s clothing and demeanor, a girl’s mannerisms and actions that convey immodesty, etc. Maybe a survey or two that asks those sorts of questions?
I also wanted to comment on this statement:
“She told them that not only do they need to be concerned about how the youth males were looking at them but how older men were looking at them. So, we are placing the responsibility of a pedophile on a 14 yog? This is problematic as it makes the woman’s body the origin of sin and causes huge shame issues regarding the female body. ”
I don’t believe that women will believe that their bodies are the origin of sin if they are taught that their sexuality is meant only for their husbands within the context of marriage. I also don’t think it if fair to label an adult man who experiences lust toward a 14 year old girl a pedophile. Many girls that age look much older and, because they enjoy male attention, dress and act in provocative ways.
July 6, 2007 at 5:26 pm
Thatmom, I appreciate the attempt to make sure both views are balanced and equally represented.
I have to admit to having been apart of this judgemental attitude that the author of the the article spoke of, and it can become pervasive.
I’ve seen families torn over this issue because some women didn’t want their husbands around the other women in the family, saying that these women dressed to snare and stumble other women’s husbands. The truth was that these other women were doing no such thing, being properly covered, but EXTREMELY beautiful, and the wives insecurities couldn’t handle it. It was a problem within themselves, then they go and place the blame, responsibility, and not to mention the very idea into their husbands and other women’s heads. And all this is done in the guise of bringing a sister out of her sin, and turning her onto the right road (I’m not saying there may not be a proper time and place for this, but the potential for abuse of it is great). These wives made such a big deal out of this issues, did not act charitably, and basically burned their bridges so that these families can no longer BE family.
Yes, we should dress in a way that promotes respect. Frankly, what promotes respect from my husband is a woman who takes care of herself and her appearance, and isn’t hiding behind a dowdy outfit and attitude and sends out the signals that she has something to be ashamed of, but who shows that she respects HERSELF enough to take proper care of her body, appearance, and bearing around others. To him, that is a woman that a husband can be proud of. So that’s just one opinion.
July 7, 2007 at 3:40 am
Alisa, you have a goot point. A couple of weeks ago, my husband rather bluntly pointed out that the women who are most worried about modesty and attracting undue male attention, are those who are least likely to attract said attention in the first place…
July 7, 2007 at 4:07 am
Re #87,
WELL SAID. I think that about sums up why I’m tired of the subject of modesty altogether (okay, in honesty, the word makes me cringe-no joke!).
From my view (as one who lived wholly in the Christian ultra-conservative subculture-lol), it has been done, done, and over-done.
Personally, I think we are guilty of making WAY too much of it simply because it’s so easy to focus on (being that it’s usually seen as a very outward thing and thus very easy to measure with our eyeballs). It’s a MUCH easier thing to focus on then, say, being patient or being gentle (both of which are stressed WAY more than modesty is in the Scriptures, btw)…
I think the actual issue of dressing modestly falls to both men and women, meaning that we should communicate basic concepts to our adolescent kids (ie, your body is a temple, we are the hands and feet of Christ, please don’t go sauntering around with your body to allure and attract others as that pretty much goes against being the hands and feet of Christ–lol, etc).
I mean, that is a message for both young men AND young women. So let’s not forget to share that…but then LET US MOVE ON to the great deeds of the Kingdom (ie, actually *being* His hands and feet, instead of just talking about what other people should wear).
July 7, 2007 at 4:23 am
“Alisa, you have a goot point.”
Cynthia,
That should be “gut” without an umlaut.
“Alisa, hast du einen guten Punkt.”
July 9, 2007 at 5:43 pm
Summer must be upon us… everyone’s on vacation!!!!!! ;o)
July 10, 2007 at 1:06 am
It was 97 degrees here in PA today….
July 13, 2007 at 7:41 am
[...] Who Defines Feminine Modesty?is a great question by Mollie at true womanhood in the new millennium. With 95 responses. [...]
July 13, 2007 at 7:57 pm
Cynthia,
I spent last week in Bakersfield, CA with my son and his family….127 on their backyard thermometer. I thought I would die, hormones not withstanding.
July 15, 2007 at 12:31 pm
If immodesty is behavior that calls attention to yourself, what other kinds of communication — other than attire — could/should be described as immodest? *Anything* that puffs up the self, that puts the creature above the Creator.
So maybe immodesty is not an accidental slip peeking out from your skirt or the band of your knee-highs falling down. But intentional self-aggrandizing in any kind of communication.
July 16, 2007 at 1:53 pm
Huh. Here’s an interesting thing:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19762075/site/newsweek/
July 20, 2007 at 11:41 am
“I had to go over to Amazon and read other’s reviews on “A Return to Modesty”, because frankly, after all the hearkening to the past that patriarchs are doing topped off with “Return of the Daughters”, I’m not all that eager to “return” to anything, unless it’s Jesus and His Word.” (Alisa, #7)
I know this wasn’t meant to be funny, but it really made me laugh, Alisa! Such a true comment though as well
July 20, 2007 at 4:32 pm
“Do we make others feel comfortable being around us? That would include wearing the appropriate clothes for the occasion as well.” (Jen, #21)
This is an excellent point, well done Jen
. I’ve always been a bit baffled why some Christian ladies go around wearing Jane Austen style dresses in the name of “modesty”, when they are actually drawing attention to themselves and probably make people feel a little less comfortable. *Shrugs*
July 29, 2007 at 4:15 pm
You should all try a topfree or nudist beach
for a day or two and get over it. Christians use the word modesty or indecency when they really mean body shame.
Clothing does not make you superior to someone
who is naked. This is nothing but Puritanism
and has little to do with Christianity, Islam
or Judaism. What is a real shame is that you
have to spend the rest of your lives hating
your bodies. Why do males get to take off
their shirts at the beach and females do not?
To dominate and make money off of females.
It never used to be like this. Both sexes
wore little or no clothing through out 98-99%
of human history.
The Church and State make a lot of money off
of your shame. The Church uses nudity as a
device to lay guilt on everyone about sex.
The State gets large sums of revenue from the
the sale of pornography, while saying that
they have passed laws to fight it. The worst
thing that females could do to combat pornography would be to go nude at the beach.
Nudity is the major draw for pornography.
Females should at least go topfree. Just like
males do. I’ll bet that if you did for 10 or
15 minutes you would probably do for the rest
of your life. Turn back the clock to way it used
to be. Start asking the males around you why
their chests are considered normal and decent
and yours is not. It would be great if every
State would encourage females to go one summer
topfree. Most would never put that top or one-
piece back on.
July 29, 2007 at 5:39 pm
*scratching head* I can follow the logic, but I like wearing shirts, lol!
August 13, 2007 at 11:14 am
I disagree with R’s comments and underlying reasoning.
The Bible most often talks about (public) nakedness in a shameful context. The exception seemed to be before The Fall. Private nudity is a different story. Proverbs 5 comes to mind.
How come you’re advocating exposure of bodies, but not your last name (or your first)? Using your logic, you’re hiding it because you’re ashamed of it.
Using your logic, we should also defecate in public, for the sole purpose in getting rid of that shame. Apparently we’d be better off.
Using your logic, if paedophilia has happened for 98-99% of human history, does that mean we should also continue that as well for the sake of historical continuity?
I am a man, and I don’t take my shirt off in public. I have never made money by telling a woman to keep her shirt on, either.
August 13, 2007 at 2:02 pm
I’ve tried to read through most of the posts(it took me a few days!!LOL!!), and I just have to put in a couple of thoughts.
I spent nearly 15 years in a “frumpy” state. I was finally “released” a year ago, and enjoy my new wardrobe. Just to let you know where I’ve come from.
My concern from reading the posts is that it seems many are saying we sisters in Christ don’t have a responsibility concerning our brothers in Christ. Almost an attitude of “if they lust, well that’s their problem”. I do agree that if they lust, it is “their” problem, yet we also have the responsibility to not put a stumbling block in their way. Our brothers in Christ get bombarded with sexual images all day long, is there a safe haven for them?
We want men to be attracted to our character, our thoughts, our intellect, etc. Then wouldn’t it be best to NOT “accentuate” bodily “assets”(o.k…maybe some of us don’t have too many to accentuate?LOL…but you know what I mean!!)
I am married to a man who struggles with lust(he also counsels men in this area, and you many be surprised at how many men struggle in this area). He appreciates a well dressed woman, who takes care of herself, yet doesn’t “accentuate the positive” if you get my drift. I believe it’s different for every female…some women can wear certain things I can’t based on my build. It’s a heart issue for sure, but let’s still be mindful that lust is still a huge stumbling block for men…and the enemy knows this all too well!!
August 13, 2007 at 5:45 pm
“My concern from reading the posts is that it seems many are saying we sisters in Christ don’t have a responsibility concerning our brothers in Christ. Almost an attitude of “if they lust, well that’s their problem”. I do agree that if they lust, it is “their” problem, yet we also have the responsibility to not put a stumbling block in their way. Our brothers in Christ get bombarded with sexual images all day long, is there a safe haven for them?”
Lynn,
I fully agree with you. We shouldn’t be a stumbling block and should pick our wardrobe with that in mind.
I think this is what so many women run into when trying to aid our brothers in this area: we, as women, cannot possibly foresee everything that might be a stumbling block. We are bound to miss something, since we are not mind/heart readers to detect what attracts the eyes and attention of each one. How are we to know which brother has a thing for ankles??? We can’t.
It just seems impossible to know where that line is for every man, and so short of wearing a brown paper bag or a burka (which really draws attention to the subject more than anything else; they might as well read across the front “You have a loose imagination that you don’t have any control over, so I must do it for you”… and that would be the nice version), there is bound to be someone who has a thing for something we thought was safe. There are just some things that are out of our control, and we cannot walk around feeling guilty for some brother’s hidden sin, when we DID do our part of the equation.
I don’t think it’s a matter of not being willing, but more of realizing that despite our best efforts, some men will have allowed their thought life to to venture places that we cannot know of.
I honestly feel for many of these men, and sometimes ask God why He created them this way if it will be so hard for them to focus it where it’s intended. But then, God created women with emotions with the need for attention and love that is harder for some than others to only yearn for it from where it’s allowed. And it takes the same lesson in self control to have victory over it that it does for men.
I can relate in the wardrobe area… I went through years of frumpiness that I have only recently been “released” from as well. I’ve learned that, while the world still has some styles that are out of the question, it is definately possible to be modest AND fashionable. I’m glad you’re there too!!!!
Blessings,
Alisa
August 14, 2007 at 2:30 am
I honestly feel for many of these men, and sometimes ask God why He created them this way if it will be so hard for them to focus it where it’s intended. quote Alisa…
I just wanted to point out something that was told me once when I asked some one wiser this question.
God created these men with free will and choices. It is the men’s choice to exercise their will or not exercise their will. They can choose to avoid temptations. Or they can choose to not avoid temptation. The more they choose not to avoid, the more twisted and deeper into certain thoughts they find themselves. There is the threshold effect, where constant exposure to something that was arousing will lead to a need to increase or raise the levels of exposure to receive the same arousal.
God knows how these men will choose. But God, in His awesome wonder, has not chosen to command their actions. So its not that God created them to do these things, but that God gave them the option to say no.
To say God created them this way, is to almost say God created sin. If you take the first thought to an extreme way of thinking.
I constantly have to remind myself of this thought and idea. It is how I choose to answer the “Why does God have bad things happen to me?” question.
I answer that with the explanation that bad things happen as a consequence of sin, mine or other people’s sins. What is amazing is that God can use the bad choices and effects of sin to His glory. He choose to give us choice. WE choose wrong and there are consequences to our actions. And through all of that, He loves us enough to guide, care, provide and protect us, while still allowing us to freedom of choice.
Sorry, I know off topic but I wanted to share what someone else shared with me on this question because it really has impacted my faith and awe of God. I didn’t say it the same way, but hopefully some of what struck me will speak to you as well!
August 14, 2007 at 5:01 am
“To say God created them this way, is to almost say God created sin. If you take the first thought to an extreme way of thinking.”
Songbirdy,
I fully understand what you are saying, and would have said the same thing. I realized as I wrote it that the way I phrased that sentence might be taken that way.
I loved what you had to say in the first paragraph. It was what I meant when I said “I don’t think it’s a matter of not being willing, but more of realizing that despite our best efforts, some men will have allowed their thought life to to venture places that we cannot know of.” You just said it much better. =o)
August 14, 2007 at 2:16 pm
It’s good Alisa!
You know, one thing I love about this blog is that it shows some of the continuity of the family of Christ! We don’t focus on which church we go to or which doctrines we hold. We allow those two factors to enhance our discussion and help us study away at the Word of God. Our backgrounds are enhancing our knowledge.
And there is unity of thought!
I love it! I don’t think I’ve ever had the privilege of having a group like this ‘in real life.’ I just don’t see how we’d get together!
October 15, 2007 at 12:21 am
I like to make my own style! I gather from a mix of contemporary clothing- some tops and long enough shorts with some medieval like accessories(sashes and pouches) and jewelry in the summer, and for colder weather, I wear skirts based on Victorian and Renaissance patterns. I also wear vintage ’40s, ’50s, and ’60s dresses, or vintage inspired patterns. These outfits, while unique, are also modest.
March 2, 2008 at 1:33 pm
Teen Girls Black Teens Kiss Lesbian Teen
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 13, 2008 at 12:03 pm
[...] “A staff woman had been doing some internet research on modesty, and she came across this blog post at ‘True Womanhood.’ And there was a comment you made there: ‘This is so [...]
May 8, 2008 at 4:39 pm
Mary in Tennessee’s New Rules for Modesty
1. Dresses. If they cause me to trip, I’m not wearing them.
2. Dresses. However, they must be long enough to cover my hiking boots.
3. Tops (sleeves, sleeveless, low-cut, etc). If nothing that belongs to me shows, I’m wearing it.
4. Jeans. If they’re so baggy I can hear a swishing sound when I walk, I’m not wearing them.
5. Jeans. As long as I can still breathe when I walk and they’re not cutting off circulation, I’m wearing them.
6. Headcovering. I’m wearing one to church. If you think it’s wearing me, tell me and I’ll get something less flashy.
7. Headcovering. If you’re not wearing one to church, I don’t care.
8. Headcovering. If I think it’s wearing you, I’ll probably judge you throughout the church service. Then I’ll have to go to confession. Again. So please leave your sanctimoniousness at home. For all our sakes.
9. Shoes. Forget “balanced and feminine”: I am not wearing feminine shoes so that I can kill my feet. These feet have to last a few more decades. Hiking boots it is.
10. Swimming suits. They don’t really go with hiking boots, but I wear what I have to.
May 8, 2008 at 6:02 pm
ROLFLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Mary, you are a HOOT! Well said!
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
June 29, 2008 at 9:33 am
Noticed this was a top post and thought I’d add my two cents:
Here’s my policy (and the one I’ll use on my daughter, but now she’s just a baby):
No chest, tummy, or rear end hanging out.
I think that pretty much sums up my standard.
July 1, 2008 at 12:33 pm
A post about FLDS fashion:
http://jezebel.com/5021056/#viewcomments
Be warned: “Jezebel”, as I’ve mentioined in a previous comment on this blog, is called that for a reason. Yet this article (and some of the comments) are worth a look.
August 4, 2008 at 3:14 pm
FWIW:
http://jezebel.com/5032775/sue-the-pants-off-them#viewcomments
August 10, 2009 at 1:44 pm
I realize this thread has been dead for awhile, but I’m new here…and just wanted to agree with the sister who posted this:
“I don’t think it’s a matter of not being willing, but more of realizing that despite our best efforts, some men will have allowed their thought life to to venture places that we cannot know of.” -Alisa
And add an story for illustration:
Lesson From A Professor-
Think of yourselves as a young child and of me as your parent.
Let’s say I made a rule that NO food is to be eaten in the family room.
On day I return home to find food spilled on the family room carpet. It turns out that you were watching a favorite TV show and got hungry. Knowing my rule, you stood in the doorway dividing the kitchen from the family room and the food slipped from your hand and on to the living room carpet.
So now I make a new rule. Using masking tape, I create a sort of “No
Fly Zone” on the floor around the door and demand, “You may not stand in the ‘No Fly Zone’ to eat”.
Again I return home to find food on the floor. I turns out that you had been SITTING in the NFZ.
New rule–”You may not eat while making bodily contact with the NFZ.”
Again I return to find spilled food, this time with a chair in the NFZ.
New rule…
I then asked the students what this little exercise reminded them of. As I had hoped, one of the students answered saying that it sounded like the Sadducees and Pharisees of the New Testament, making rules about how far you can walk on the Sabbath and which kinds of knots may be tied, etc…
Sometimes things aren’t spelled out in black and white and you have to make judgments. There is a real danger in trying to govern spiritually by rules because you can NEVER cover ALL possibilities.
“Walk by the Spirit, and you will not carry out the desire of the flesh” Gal. 5:16
August 10, 2009 at 2:14 pm
Kay, welcome and thanks for that great illustration. I hope you will continue joining the conversation.
August 10, 2009 at 4:00 pm
I laughed until I cried over Corrie’s remarks dated 6-26-07. By the time she asked, “How did I do?” my LEFT side was killing me!
There was a time in my life that I wished following God meant following a list of do’s and don’ts – but that was mostly to keep all those “other” Christians in line – my “line” to be exact. Thankfully, I have since come to know the God of all grace and mercy and longsuffering and you get the picture.