This
document may be copied and freely distributed. This document may not be sold.
You may not change or alter any of the content without permission from the
author, David Valderrama. You may email comments, corrections, suggestions, and
any helpful information to: earlychristianlife@gmail.com
This book is
not finished. Some parts may be incomplete. However, I believe there is enough
information to stir your heart towards seeking the truth about modesty and to
communicate our beliefs. I hope to add other chapters, complete these chapters,
which would contain more Scripture, history, and reason.
Male
Modesty?
Though truth
may be difficult to recognize, and sometimes hard to find, these difficulties
and rarities, however, do not mean that what you see around you is the truth.
One man
stated, “Modesty is a controversial issue. No matter how the man of God
approaches this subject, he will be judged a legalist or a libertarian by his
audience. It’s inescapable. Speaking against current fashion and popular trends
is always difficult and costly for the man of God. Still, God has called him to
a course that divinely steers him toward a head-on collision with the thinking
and ways of the world. Vincent Alsop once said that a man must have ‘a very
hardy spirit, that shall dare to cross the stream or stem the current of a
prevailing luxuriancy. So that, to have a finger in this ungrateful debate,
must engage him in Ishmael’s fate—to have every man’s hand lifted up against
him; seeing it is unavoidable, that his hand must be set almost against every
man.’”
(Comments
from women about male modesty is the last section)
Men have
told women how to dress modestly without using a Scripture that specifically
supports their definition and design, namely how the body is covered or
exposed.
Yet, women
have responded to the men who tell them this by saying that they need to be
modest also, upholding a comparable standard to that which they require of
women.
Neither the
men nor the women have Scripture that specifically supports what they're
defining.
What are
your thoughts?
Is a
double-standard of modesty acceptable to God? Is this hypocrisy? Do women lust?
Are immodest men loving their sisters? Are they behaving themselves unseemly?
Is the lowering of the standard for women in order to eliminate the hypocrisy
of immodest men a sound Biblical conclusion and a step towards the doctrine of
godliness, or rather a failure to heed sound doctrine and the creation of a
carnal resolution?
Below is a
sermon that addresses these issues; it also covers foolish talking, joking,
riches, covetousness, selling what you have and giving to the poor, and
self-indulgence: To listen to the
sermon visit http://www.earlychristianlife.com/ and select “press on to
perfection, by David Valderrama”.
Below are
some basic facts:
1) Women and men both lust. Both are stimulated
by sight and touch. Some men and women are less stimulated by sight and touch
than others. [Genesis 39, Proverbs 7, 1 Corinthians 7)
2) As women should not sit with their legs
spread apart in front of men, neither should men before women. [Matthew 7:12, 1
Corinthians 13:4-5]
3) It is hypocrisy to define a standard of
modesty for women without specific scriptural justification, while
simultaneously not applying the same principles to yourself as a man in order
to avoid such hypocrisy and immodesty.
4) There are plenty of Scriptures which provide
a modest standard for those who truly desire to see them. [Genesis 3:21, Exodus
20:22-26, Exodus 28:42-43]
5) If we expect women to dress a certain way to
prevent men from stumbling, then we as men must dress a similar way to prevent
women from stumbling.
6) The attitude of “that’s a personal lusting
problem you have” which women display when confronted about immodest clothing
is an attitude that we as men we should avoid having ourselves. If that type of
attitude offends us, then as men we should not respond with the same rude
objection if confronted about our immodesty. (Matthew 7:12, 1 Cor. 13:4-8)
7) If men think of themselves as unattractive,
old and ugly, and that no woman would lust after them, and therefore do not
need to dress modestly, then they cannot be sincere while holding women to
their standard of modesty who view themselves the same way.
8) Modesty applies to all men and women,
regardless of how attractive or ugly they consider themselves to be.
9) Hypocrisy hardens the heart perhaps more than
any other doctrine.
10) Our lack of temptation towards an immodestly
dressed person doesn’t nullify the doctrine of modesty.
11) Because you have never thought about modesty
as a man, does not mean you do not need to be modest or that modesty is
unimportant to God.
12) There is a stumbling block of hypocrisy, and
a stumbling block of lust, common among the current practices of professing Christians
concerning male and female modesty.
13) Modest apparel is more than preventing the
opposite gender from stumbling sexually.
14) Men are partly responsible for much of the
rebellion presently demonstrated by women in regards to modesty.
15) The lack of Scripture concerning male or
female modesty does not grant to either gender a license of immodesty.
16) Because your ancestors have kept certain
aspects of the faith contained in the Sermon on the Mount, and you have held on
to these aspects, this does not mean you are complete and entire lacking
nothing; you may add to your faith virtue, and to virtue knowledge [2 Peter
1:5-8]; even if male modesty does not seem to appear as a central part of the
faith of your ancestors does not mean it is unnecessary.
17) If you research how holy men of old were
clothed (Yeshua, Simeon who prophesied concerning Yeshua, the apostles, Daniel
and the other prophets, and many others, the early Christians, even secular
movies and plays about these men), all wore modest clothing. Many men are depicted wearing multiple
layers. It is that common and universally understood. If one insists they were dressed that way
because of culture, I agree: Because it
is the culture of men and women professing godliness, with good works, to wear
modest clothing. Everything holy men and women of God do and do not do is with
purpose. To imagine and carelessly assume or assert that such men and women
took no thought about their clothing was to say there was no purpose behind their
clothing.
18) If we men defend our immodest apparel with,
"Those men of old times dressed that way because of their culture,"
remember that: women today say the same
thing to you when telling them to wear dresses; and that you are a hypocrite if
you insist on them wearing dresses while you wear western pants with your shirt
tucked in.
19) Men MUST not hesitate to dress modestly
because of the fear of men. Godly men do
not forsake truth because they might be associated with Muslims, Hippies, or other
men. It is better to be associated with
Muslims, Hippies, or other modest men who look more Christlike than to forsake
Christ-likeness in order to please men.
20) The Pharisees told Jesus, "We be not
born of fornication; we have one Father, even God." The way men mock the virtue of male modesty
is similar to how the Pharisees mocked Yeshua.
The attitude of some is this, "God, what are you doing sending your
Son to be born of a Virgin . . . don't you know Mary will look like a
fornicator, Joseph will appear unrighteous for not putting her away, and Yeshua
will be scorned [by the false accusation] for being born of fornication . . .
couldn't you have redeemed humanity another way?" Regardless of what it looked like, this is
what God chose and irrespective of what it looks like today, honest and sincere
men will put away the existing hypocrisy and immodesty present in their lives
and teach against it.
21) The early Christians not only had to forsake
family and friends, risk tortures and death, but they had to bear the reproach
of the false accusations of cannibalism, atheists, and incest. Yet, some
professing Christians today won’t do what is right in regards to modesty
because of what other people think.
22) Those who insist that pants are for men
presume that culture ceased evolving when men began wearing them. They say that
women wore dresses for thousands of years because of modesty, but men wore
robes and tunics not because of modesty, but because of culture. The idea that
pants are for men, and dresses are for women, and that these designs are for
the purpose of distinguishing between male and female, is preposterous. A primary ancient factor [besides color and
material] among the history of Israel is that men wore beards, women did not. Moreover,
a woman may go to her local mall and buy female pants, which, if a man wore, he
would be considered effeminate. If such is the case, then pants are not for
differentiating genders. If pants are
worn, they must not be form fitting, and the "area" (from the naval
to the knee) must be covered by more than just western pants.
23) Modesty is not a matter of conscience for a
man and a matter of morality for a woman; modesty is a moral issue for both men
and women.
24) You follow the Light of the World [John 8:12]
when you follow the Word of God [John 1:1], not merely the letters that talk of
Him.
25) You are not "right" if you need a
Scripture to specifically tell you what is right, before you will do what is
right. A sheep doesn’t need a Scripture to hear Jesus’ voice. A sheep
recognizes truth, and chooses both to speak and to do what is true, even
without a scriptural confirmation, as Jesus said, “My sheep hear my voice, and
I know them, and they follow me.” For example:
Scripture does not say, “Do not go to casinos and gamble.” If you insist
that gambling at casinos is not prohibited by God because no Scripture
specifically forbids it, as mentioned previously, “you are not right”.
26) If greed was not mentioned in the Bible would
it still be considered a sin?
Certainly! If your eye is single
the Holy Spirit will help you find the truth.
If your eye is evil, He may deceive you.
You see this happening with Balaam, Ezekiel 14, and the Book of Isaiah;
God deceives those whose eyes are not single.
27) If you are troubled by spiritual pride for
wearing a long shirt or tunic, and are afraid of being called a
"Pharisee" who, "loves to wear long robes," you must
understand that Christians are not accustomed to repent of what is good in
order to adopt that which is evil, and God is looking for men to be valiant for
truth on the earth. You must conquer
your pride with the assistance of God; you must through the Spirit mortify the
deeds of the body and live.
Let’s look
at the Scripture which mentions those who love to wear long robes: “Beware of the scribes, which desire to walk
in long robes, and love greetings in the markets, and the highest seats in the
synagogues, and the chief rooms at feasts; which devour widows' houses, and for
a shew make long prayers: the same shall receive greater damnation” (Luke
20:46-47). The character of these men is vain. They love the attention they get
for appearing religious and holy. Not only do they wear long robes but they
make long prayers and for what purpose? Show!
Laying the
axe to the root of the tree for them would not be to start wearing short robes
and offering short prayers. The root is not an external issue, but an internal
issue. If they really saw themselves as they really were: vain, proud, covetous, arrogant,
hypocritical, and self-centered, they would blush with shame at the thought of
being proud. I think a mighty blow to such a root would be to confess such
pride before those men whom they really desire to please and whose admiration
they seek to retain. They could confess, “I have loved wearing long robes and
have made long prayers for show.” That is laying the axe to the root of the
tree.
The Greek
word for long robes in the passage is στολή stole . Let’s see how this Greek
word was used in the New Testament. In Mark chapter 16, some women who followed
Jesus had bought sweet spices that they might go to anoint Him. When they
entered into the sepulcher, they saw a young man sitting on the right side,
clothed in a long white garment. We may not know who this young man was, but
he told the women He was raised from the dead, commanded them to tell Jesus’
disciples, and that they would meet Jesus on the way. This young man was holy.
Though he wore a long white robe, he was not troubled by it, nor did he wear it
for the same reasons as the scribes whom Jesus rebuked. Also, in Revelation
chapters 6 and 7 this is the garment worn by the redeemed.
28) 1 Corinthians 11:1-16 does not say that women
need to be modest and the men do not. Neither do these Scriptures say that the
glory of a man is his hair; they say that the glory of a woman is her hair.
These verses are not referring to the necessity of male or female bodies
needing to be covered; they are referring to the heads of both men and women.
It is unsound to assume or assert that because women need to cover their glory
(hair) as a part of female modesty, and because men are to uncover their heads
when praying or prophesying, that the men therefore may undress or wear tight
form-fitting clothing. 29) " A
bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of
good behavior, given to hospitality, apt to teach; not given to wine, no
striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not
covetous" (1 Timothy 3:2-3). The
Greek word in this passage for good behavior is κόσµιος pronounced as kos'-mee-os meaning orderly and modest. In fact, this is
the same word Paul used to instruct women in the previous chapter, “In like
manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel.” Leaders, be
modest and free from hypocrisy knowing that you will receive a stricter
judgment! (James 3:1). More is explained on this Scripture later.
30) Just
because the New Testament doesn't record Jesus teaching about modest clothing
does not mean it is not important to God. He also didn't teach about the head
covering, order of the home, the wearing of jewelry, or homosexuality. If you
take the line of reasoning that modesty is not important to Him because the
Gospels never recorded it, then to be consistent you must agree that the head
covering, order of the home, the wearing of jewelry, and homosexuality are not
important to Him either. The Old Testament teaches about modesty and the Jews
were familiar with those passages. Even Peter was ashamed to approach his Lord
wearing only his undergarment. Why? Because he knew modesty was important to
Jesus. Some may argue against this by stating that if the reason Jesus didn't
teach modesty to the Jews was because they were already dressing modestly, then
why didn't He preach this to the immodestly dressed Gentiles? It is true that the Gospels do not record
Jesus telling the Gentiles to put on a modest garment, but neither do they
record Him telling Gentiles to put away their swords, to sell their possessions
and to give alms, or hardly anything. He said, “I am not sent but unto the lost
sheep of the house of Israel” (Matthew 15:24). He trained His disciples, and
sent them saying, “Ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all
Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth” (Acts
1:8).
31) It true
that Jesus taught His disciples saying, “Therefore I say unto you, Take no
thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for
your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body
than raiment?” (Matthew 6:25). However, Jesus was not dismissing gluttony,
lusts for dainties and various treats and drinks, and immodesty as sins that
are so trivial we ought not to even take thought about committing these
sins. Some actually use this Scripture
to encourage others to not make such a big deal about dainties,
self-indulgence, and immodesty. Jesus spoke those words because of the previous
verse, “No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love
the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot
serve God and mammon. Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life,
what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall
put on” (Matthew 6:24-25).
32) If upon reading this document you decide to
dress modestly and to take a serious stand against the hypocrisy and immodesty
presently demonstrated by men, some may accuse you of taking such a serious
stand because you are the one with the serious lusting problem, have been made
to stumble, and therefore need others to take your stand seriously for your own
sake. Who cares what other people think! Purge out the hypocrisy and immodesty
anyways. Be faithful to God and seek not honor from men, but the honor that
comes from God only (John 5:44).
33) As a teenager, do you remember being
self-conscious of your pants perching up around the zipper because you didn’t
want others to have the impression that you were ‘aroused’? Did you ever try to
fix the problem? If so, why? What was there to be ashamed of if you were
covered? Moreover, men have presented the idea that when women wear pants with
their legs spread apart, it is not difficult to imagine being between their
legs. However, when you wear pants, sit with your legs apart, and the pants
give the impression of ‘arousal’, consider that it may not be difficult for
women to have a similar trial. “Seriously?”, one may retort. Indeed! Consider
the words of the apostle, “We then that are strong ought to bear the
infirmities of the weak, and not to please ourselves. Let every one of us
please his neighbour for his good to edification. For even Christ pleased
not himself” (Romans 15:1-3). Let us behave then in a manner worthy of the love
of God, which is does not dismiss the weaknesses of others when choosing how to
dress and to behave.
34) Some who object to the doctrine of modest
apparel often base their objections on the fact that clothing is not an
internal but an external subject. They say that God doesn’t care about what is
on the outside but what is on the inside. If this was true, God would have left
Adam and Eve wearing loincloths of skin.
35) I have
heard many irrational objections to this teaching of male modesty, one being an
explanation of 1 Corinthians 7:1-2, which says, “Now concerning the things
whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.
Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let
every woman have her own husband.” This passage was explained to me that women
are turned on by touch (as if men are only stimulated by sight), not by
appearance, and that is why Paul said it is not good for a man to touch a
woman. This man insisted that women who are stimulated to lust by sight are
just perverted, and that it is now a sad world we live in if women are lusting
after men. Apparently, he forgot about Potiphar’s wife who casted her eyes upon
Joseph, the Proverbs 7 woman, the odious posters and magazines sold at adult
stores and gas stations. His understanding of the 1 Cor. 7 passage is what was
perverted. Men and women are both turned on by touch and sight; some men more
than other men and some women more than other women.
36) An even worse objection to this teaching is
calling a long tunic or shirt over baggy pants womanly. Some have mocked and
derided such clothing saying that you shall not wear that which pertains unto a
woman (Deuteronomy 22:5). These men have been so blinded by their culture and
opinions that they do not consider the odious blasphemies which they utter
against Christ, His apostles, the early Christians, the Patriarchs, and
prophets. Moses was wearing a robe when He told Israel not to cross dress. Was
he a hypocrite? I speak as a fool! Those
who mock and deride the tunic or long shirt disallow all of the below
Scriptures regarding God’s design for both Adam and Eve in Genesis, the
commands in the Law of Moses to Israel and the priests saying, “That is the Old
Testament.” Those who say such things are self-condemned. While they say it is
Old Testament, they twist the Old Testament passage from Deut. 22:5 to support
their own design of clothing.
37) I have heard men, impressed by what they
understand to be discernment, who are wise in their own conceit, use the fact
that in western culture the emblems on the men’s and women’s bathroom doors
have a man wearing pants and a woman wearing a dress. They say this is used to
distinguish between the sexes. Let’s go back to the Garden and look at God’s
design: the emblems would appear the
same, for God made them both tunics, coats, garments, robes, of skins. Even 500
years ago in western culture such examples as what they use would be
nonsensical, because men were still wearing tunics, robes, etc. That was the
design of God’s people for thousands of years.
38) It is a shameful hypocrisy for smooth shaved
men to bring the railing accusation of effeminacy upon modestly dressed bearded
men who wear manly tunics, long shirts, or robes. What resembles Jesus more, a
smooth shaved face with a shirt tucked into jeans or a beard with a long
tunic?
39) Pants do not contain the principles of
modesty God established in the Garden of Eden. Rather, they contain the
principles of boxer briefs and long underwear.
40) It may be the opinion of some, that the
Scriptures are silent concerning specific detailed commands and definitions
regarding modest clothing; however, the Scriptures are not silent with examples
and some specific details.
41) Some men object saying, “I feel that I am
modest wearing pants with a tucked in shirt”. However, women also feel they are
modest wearing pants and shirts. Men who tell women they are immodest for
dressing that way, while they themselves are wearing pants with a tucked in
shirt, need to cut off the beam from their eyes before they cause a woman to
stumble and trip over their hypocrisy.
42)
Centuries ago Jewish men were accustomed to “gird up their loins” when working.
Some have used this fact to justify their own immodesty. But why didn’t these
Jewish men wear garments that needed no girding up? Because either it was
considered an indecency in their society or they felt it was inappropriate to
dress that way outside of work.
I do not
believe women should wear pants with a shirt tucked in because I do not believe
that would be modest. I have no Scripture that specifically spells out my
belief. Yet, I will tell women they need
to be modest, and to not wear tight form-fitting clothing which clings close to
their bodies revealing their figure or shape.
If we do not
consider it modest for women to dress wearing pants with a shirt tucked in,
because it reveals the form of their bottoms, and, if they were to sit with
their legs opened or to bend over, we men would feel uncomfortable, or it would
be unseemly, or ungodly "for women professing godliness with good works”,
then we MUST avoid it ourselves as men! Men have justified themselves by using
the silence of the Scriptures. However, the Scriptures are clear and loud concerning
pride, hypocrisy, laying stumbling blocks before others, and being holy in all
manner of conversation as God is holy. The Scriptures are also full of examples
of modest clothing and how God feels about nakedness.
On social
media, one asked whether or not communion ought not to be administered to an
immodest man, even as it should not be to an immodest woman, “Let us ask God
for wisdom and avoid hypocrisy. If a woman should not be immodest, nor should a
man. If a man rebukes women about modesty, he had better make sure he is not an
immodest hypocrite.” A woman responded to this saying, “Amen! So often I see
plainly dressed women with head coverings and with them is their husband who
looks just like the world wearing their name brands. Even worldly people know
this is hypocrisy. I am beyond tired of this double standard among supposed
Christians. It's like the men want the women to look the part but they don't
want to do it themselves. I think they must enjoy still turning heads.”
In Genesis
chapter three there was no double standard in God's design of clothing for both
Adam and Eve (Genesis 3:21).
Thus,
Christian men wear long tunics, long untucked shirts with baggy pants, or
articles of clothing which contain the principles previously mentioned.
The
Struggle
One asked,
"Do we struggle too much about clothing instead of placing our focus
elsewhere?"
The struggle
with clothing is with those who are immodestly clothed, and are unwilling to
change. It is a very simple and easy thing to do. It is not nearly as difficult
when compared to what we tell others to do when preaching: to separate from an adulterous marriage which
many claim destroys families, leave the military, lose your life, love your
enemies, sell what you have and give to the poor.
For
example: I was preaching at a university
in Arkansas, and I met a young lady who was excited about several things I was
teaching. I noticed she was wearing a gold ring. I asked if she would take it
off for a moment. She removed the ring with little effort and no difficulty. I
asked if the ring was hard to remove. She told me it was not. I then read to
her a passage from the New Testament, such as, “In like manner also, that women
adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with
broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array” (1 Timothy 2:9). Even though
the ring was easy to remove from her finger, she refused to stop wearing it.
This command from Paul is easy to obey, yet many today refuse to stop wearing
their jewelry. Likewise, modesty is easy for both men and women to obey yet
many refuse to dress modestly. With little effort and no difficulty men and
women could put on modest garments. Yet many, who refuse to put on modest
garments, though it takes little effort and no difficulty, preach to others
many things that require enormous amounts of effort, and create much difficulty.
That is not right!
The aim of
modest clothing is to: Cover the shame of your nakedness, and to do unto others
as you would have them do unto you, specifically if you don't appreciate seeing
the form of a woman's bottom and legs, as men you should cover those areas on
your own body. The comments later in
this blog post make it evident that some, if not all of these women would
appreciate that.
Their
reasons?
1) Many
confessed to having struggles with lust:
(a) when a man's legs are spread apart when he sits (western pants,
though baggy, would still be a distraction if the shirt is tucked in and the
legs are spread apart), (b) when a man bends over and the form of his bottom
seen because it is not covered; an untucked shirt, tunic, or some other design
would be needed to cover it, the specific design is unimportant, (c) a man’s
tight shirts and pants, (d) a man who is shirtless.
2) Not only
did many women confess to struggling with lust, but some are simply distracted,
embarrassed, and uncomfortable by men's immodesty. Men pursuing holiness of
mind feel the same way by women's immodesty. The Bible teaches that "Love
doth not behave itself unseemly" "Love is not rude" "Love
is not self-seeking" "Love is not puffed up" (1 Corinthians 13),
and, "But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner
of conversation; Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy" (1 Peter 1:15-16). A man or woman is puffed
up when they disregard how their clothing or lack of clothing affects other people.
They are puffed up if they dismiss the Biblical standard simply because there
is no explicit commandment spelling out every article of clothing which is
Biblically compatible. “And this I pray, that your love may abound yet more and
more in knowledge and in all judgment; that ye may approve things that are
excellent; that ye may be sincere and without offence till the day of Christ”
(Philippians 1:9-10). This prayer of Paul resonates with a modest heart.
3) Not only
did many women confess their struggles with lust, while some were distracted,
embarrassed, and uncomfortable, and others, in fact many, have voiced in those
comments, on the streets, in my own family, namely, that it is hypocrisy to
tell them they need to wear a dress or some other design to be modest when men
cite no specific Scripture; while men (for the most part) dress however they
want, and men have no better defense
than women, that is, that there is no specific command in Scripture spelling
out every specific detail of what modest apparel looks like. The modesty issue
has been a one-sided, double standard doctrine of hypocrisy for many years.
Though the customs of this world have changed, God has not and will not! If
Jesus, when teaching on marriage, referred to the beginning of creation, why
not follow His example and refer to the beginning of clothing, and stop
pretending that there is no Biblical example which contains any definite
principles of modesty which the church may use as a godly standard?
The
Doctrine According to Godliness
“If any man
teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our
Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; he is
proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words,
whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, perverse disputings of
men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth” (1 Timothy 6:3-5). We have
the words of our Lord Jesus Christ but where is the epistle of the doctrine
according to godliness which Paul was referring to? Are we missing a book of
the Bible? Paul brings some serious accusations against those who do not
consent to the doctrine according to godliness but are these accusations
unfounded? What source was Paul referring to when he wrote the above passage?
To be sure, such a book was unknown to the early Christians and remains unknown
to scholars today. This is because Paul was not referring to an epistle; he was
admonishing people to consent to what was godlike, namely, to be imitators of God.
A plain example of this is found in Ephesians 5:1, “Be ye therefore followers
of God, as dear children”.
Based on
experience, we could safely assume that many people, if not most have some
standard of modesty. For example, how many would serve communion to a man
wearing only speedos or to a woman wearing only a bikini? If you would refuse
to share communion with a man or woman wearing only a speedo and bikini, by
what authority would you refuse? Where does it mention speedos or bikinis in
the Scripture? Or where does Scripture tell us that we must refuse men and
women wearing only those articles of clothing or those who are not dressed
modestly, communion? Many agree that it is important to have a standard but
who’s standard should we apply? If a man
or a woman is not troubled in conscience concerning their clothing, would this
alone provide us with a standard acceptable to God? Is it up to every man to
decide for himself what clothing is modest and as long as he reckons something
to be modest and abides by his own principles then does that make him modest?
When Adam and Eve knew they were naked they covered themselves, but were their
coverings sufficient? If modest clothing has any significance to God, if God
cares about modesty and the Bible doesn’t specifically spell out what is too
tight or too short, then as Christians, what may we glean from the Scriptures
that could provide some assurance that how we are dressing is pleasing to God
as any sincere Christian would desire to know? At what point does something
become immodest? Does the Bible have any standard to offer us? These are
reasonable questions which deserve reasonable answers. Consider the following:
When Adam
and Eve sinned, the Scripture says, “And the eyes of them both were opened, and
they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made
themselves aprons” (Genesis 3:7). The Hebrew word translated into English as
“aprons” is ,חגור which is pronounced as: cha
gôr, meaning: girdle, belt, or
loincloth. Of the seven times this word is used it is only translated once as
aprons. Instead of aprons, other translations use the words loincloths and
girdles. A loincloth according to some definitions is a one piece garment,
sometimes kept in place by using a belt, which covers the groin and
occasionally the buttocks. What was God’s response to their aprons? “Unto Adam
also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them”
(Genesis 3:21). Were the coats of skins
only different from the aprons in that the aprons were made of fig leaves and
the coats, of skins? The Hebrew word translated into English as “coats” is ,כּתנת which is pronounced as:
keth-o'-neth , meaning: coat, garment,
or robe according to Strong’s Hebrew dictionary. It comes from an unused root
meaning to cover.
Brown
Driver Brigg’s defines this Hebrew word as: tunic, undergarment; a long
shirt-like garment usually of linen; from an unused root meaning to cover. Now
some encyclopedias describe the coats or tunics of skins as being a shirt like
garment with sleeves that extended to the ankles but sometimes only to the
knees; for example, the workman’s tunic was sometimes more abbreviated. Others
describe the coats or tunics as some being sleeveless and others with sleeves
extending below the knees and sometimes to the ankles. It is certain however,
that simply because some workmen wore their kethoneths more abbreviated (to the
knees) that this doesn’t mean that God’s design for Adam and Eve did not extend
beyond the knees, especially when the prophet Isaiah called it nakedness for a
female virgin’s leg, thigh, and hair to be exposed, and since Moses said for
male priests to expose their thighs was an iniquity worthy of death.
Rarely does
a society, culture, or civilization become more modest with the passage of
time. A brief look into western “Christianized” civilization will teach you
that men went from wearing robes and tunics (1st century to 16th century,
though more devout and conservative men still wore tunics and robes), to coats
over breeches (late 16th to early 18th century), then to shorter and open
coats over tighter breeches (mid 18th to early 19th century), to tucked in
shirts with tight pants (19th to 21st century), to tank tops and shorts as
casual wear (early to mid-20th century), to shirtless in shorts (early to
mid-20th century. As a consequence of protesting, in 1936 it became legal for
men to expose their paps in New York State. The first protests occurred on
Coney Island in the early 1930’s, where men gathered to fight for the right to
swim and sunbathe in shirtless swim trunks. In 1935, a group of male protesters
got themselves arrested in Atlantic City for hitting the beach while baring
their torsos. In 1936, these men legally gained the right to show their paps in
public, laying the foundation for existing New York state laws that allow women
to be topless wherever a man is legally allowed to be), to topless speedos (In
1935, the first bare-chested male swimsuits were worn in the United States), until
ultimately walking around bare naked in legalized areas, particularly nude
beaches (i.e. Florida 2015, Governor Rick Scott approved the bill passed by the
state legislature making public nudity at state-owned beaches legal). (I have
omitted my resources as I would not refer someone to the sites because of their
immodesty. However, if you really desire to verify my statements it would not
be very difficult to confirm them)
The powers
of darkness could not easily introduce such a starkly contrasted concept such
as nude beaches into a 16th century culture that still had some weighty
measure of light in it. However, little by little the world was enjoyed,
defended, loved, and eventually granted to sit in the place of Jesus the Christ
in the so called churches. The same spirit that makes light of modesty in the
churches is the same spirit in the world that legalizes nude beaches.
I am
convinced that the tunics of skins God made for Adam and Eve extended beyond
the knees, and that with the passage of time it became more convenient for the
workman to wear them more abbreviated which is the same line of reasoning
secular men used when they forsook the doctrine according to godliness for
worldly aims. Where do I derive my certainty that the tunics God made for Adam
and Eve extended beyond the knees? The following Scriptures reveal why: Exodus
20:22-26, 28:42-43, Isaiah 47:1-4. For brevity’s sake these Scriptures are
explained a few pages later, instead of both then and now. Knowing what the Hebrew word keth-o'-neth
is makes us accountable for what we know about the word. This word was
translated as coats centuries ago but in the 21st century when we think of
the word coat, we typically think of what we wear during winter to stay warm,
and such coats usually have nothing to do with covering the shame of our
nakedness and we would not think of a western coat extending beyond the knees,
except for perhaps a trench coat. That being said, it is important to know what
words mean if we are going to understand what someone is saying to us. If we
care about what someone is saying to us and we are unsure about a word or the
meaning of their words, naturally we would ask them for explanations or
clarifications because we sincerely want to understand them. If the principles
of the keth-o'-neth were comparable to shorts and a tank top some would
heartily approve of such clothing and consider the meaning of the Hebrew word
to be of utmost significance. If the meaning of the word keth-o'-neth
supported what they were doing they would whole-heartedly embrace its meaning.
However, the principles in the keth-o'-neth conflict with the principles of
shorts and a tank top, and do not support how many are dressing; therefore many
could care less about its meaning and render it altogether insignificant.
If a Russian
woman explained to you that traditionally Russian men wear a kosovorotka with
pants you might ask her what is a kosovorotka? To which she would reply a
shirt. Assuming you understood her, you might explain that American men dress
the same way. But if you searched a little deeper you would learn that a kosovorotka
is not a tight, short sleeved shirt tucked into pants, but that “It is a
traditional Russian shirt, long sleeved and reaching down to the mid-thigh”,
and that “It was worn loose and was not tucked into the trousers, but instead
belted either with a conventional belt, a rope, or a rope-like tie. The tails
of the garment hung over the trousers” (Online Wikipedia Encyclopedia). If he
who translated Genesis chapter 3 in the King James Version centuries ago would
have translated the word kosovorotka they might have used the word shirt or
coat. However, we would not know what a kosovorotka was until we looked a
little deeper into what that Russian word really is.
Again, if
the KJV translator would have translated Kaftan into English he perhaps would
have used the English word coat. Again, in the 21st century we would not
understand what this “coat” would look like or the principles it contains from
only reading the word coat. We would need to see what the original word for
coat is and research what that word means. In this case, the original word
would be kaftan, Persian in origin but partly influenced by French, “A kaftan
is a variant of the robe or tunic, versions of which have been worn by several
cultures around the world for thousands of years. The kaftan is often worn as a
coat or overdress, usually reaching to the ankles, with long sleeves. It can be
made of wool, cashmere, silk, or cotton, and may be worn with a sash. The
caftan is of ancient Mesopotamian origin, and was worn by many middle-eastern
ethnic groups. Through its dissemination and evolution, the kaftan has acquired
different styles, purposes, and names depending on the culture. In many regions
with a warm climate, the kaftan is worn as a light-weight, loose-fitting
garment” (Online Wikipedia Encyclopedia). We have learned that our 21st
century understanding of the word coat would not be a correct translation for
the Hebrew keth-o'-neth , the Russian kosovorotka, or the Persian kaftan. So
what did the 16th century coat look like? According to various resources
which one needs not to look hard to find you will learn that the 16th century
coat extended to the knees, under which, breeches were worn. Though this would
still be more modest than the American’s typical winter coat, this word still
did not accurately represent the Hebrew keth-o'-neth , which extended below
the knees. All this is said to explain the seriousness of understanding
different words.
CONCLUSION
FROM the Genesis account of EDEN:
1) Based
upon what the Hebrew word for coat means we can safely assume that God clothed
both Adam and Eve from the neck to closer to the ankles.
2) Though
historically, workmen may have worn their tunics more abbreviated for the
purpose of work, this does not mean that this was God’s original design, and if
men did gird up their loins to work women should not be watching. Furthermore,
if men used to gird up their loins (the fact they needed to gird them up) means
that they were wearing a garment extending beyond their knees and that perhaps
it was unacceptable in the society in which they lived or at least the
individual himself was uncomfortable bearing his lower legs in public apart
from working.
3) God made
tunics for both Adam and Eve. There was no double standard.
God did not
do away with both Adam and Eve's loincloths of fig leaves, and then give to Eve
a tunic of skin, and to Adam a loincloth of skin: He gave them both tunics of
skins. Unless we are willing to assert that God’s provision of tunics was
arbitrary, then we must conclude that God does nothing without purpose, and
that the principles of modesty contained in the tunics was a standard He
established; hence, we have the doctrine according to godliness pertaining to
modesty. For the same reasons God gave one to Eve He gave one to Adam.
If you have
read this far you may be thinking, “Well, the design of clothing God made for
Adam and Eve is thousands of years old, and after all, that design was part of
the Old Testament so it is not relevant for us today”. However, as men and
women professing godliness with good works it seems most reasonable, seeing
that we use both “clear” and “unclear” Scriptures to define sin, morality,
good, evil and numerous other things, that instead of following the blind
leaders of the blind, listening to church politicians, following solely our own
inclinations, or looking to this present evil world for a godly example of
modest clothing, we ought instead to look to Christ, His teachings, both Old
and New Testaments from which we derive much of our faith, the apostles, and
even consider how the second and third century Christians understood and
applied modesty.
CONTINUING
THE DOCTRINE ACCORDING TO GODLINESS FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT:
Some totally disregard the Old Testament and render it altogether
useless, except for that which serves to establish their own ideas. The Old
Testament speaks plainly about modesty and nakedness, and though its teachings
pertaining to modesty do not conflict with the New Testament, but rather
agrees, confirms, and further establishes it, they write it off as something
old and ready to vanish away, as having been stripped of all authority.
However, there are certain laws and principles contained in the Old Testament
that are eternal, and as the pillar and ground of the truth (I speak of the
church), we must rightly divide the Scriptures lest we become ashamed at the
judgment bar of God. For the Scriptures which say, “Thou shalt not covet thy
neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant,
nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy
neighbour's”, “Thou shalt not commit adultery”, “Neither shalt thou lie with
any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a
beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion”, “Also thou shalt not approach
unto a woman to uncover her nakedness, as long as she is put apart for her
uncleanness”, “The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man,
neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are
abomination unto the LORD thy God”, these few laws from the OT are eternal and
as Christians we must not violate them. Now many would readily agree that these
laws are in fact eternal even though the last three are not mentioned in the
New Testament. That being said, the following Scriptures from the Book of
Exodus present a clear revelation of how God thinks and feels about male
immodesty, and as mentioned earlier, there is nothing in the New Testament that
would conflict with these passages from Exodus. Therefore knowing how God
thinks and feels, we as dear children ought to take these thoughts and feelings
into account in how we clothe ourselves; and following the doctrine according
to godliness become imitators of God.
Leaving the
Genesis account, from the following Scriptures from the book of Exodus you will
see God designing and instituting clothing adapted to the environment of
specific situations for holy and moral reasons.
“And the
LORD said unto Moses, Thus thou shalt say unto the children of Israel . . .
Neither shalt thou go up by steps unto mine altar, that thy nakedness be not
discovered thereon” (Exodus 20:22-26). Many professing Christ today have little
to no conviction of exposing their legs and thighs. The thought of God caring
at all about this seems absurd to them. They have been told that God doesn’t
care about the way they dress, but that He only cares about the heart. The
common Jewish man during the time of Moses was wearing a kethoneth/tunic so how
would his nakedness be exposed? Well, if he were to climb up the stairs to
where the altar of God was those below him might have seen underneath his
kethoneth. What if today’s generation would have been there when the LORD spoke
to Moses? What would their response be to Moses if he told them not to go up by
steps to the LORD’s altar lest their nakedness be exposed? Would they contend
with Moses? Would they say, “Naked? Only our legs and maybe our thighs would be
exposed . . . that isn’t naked! Who made thee a ruler and a judge over us?”
However, was this law from Moses or from the LORD through Moses? What has
changed? Has the New Testament redefined nakedness to mean only entirely naked?
Apparently the children of Israel were wearing clothing. Would their clothes
fall off from their bodies simply from going up those steps causing them to be
naked? No, God considered what would have been revealed as nakedness. He
expressly commanded them, “Neither shalt thou go up by steps unto mine altar,
that thy nakedness be not discovered thereon.” Their nakedness was not
discovered beforehand because they were clothed with tunics. However, by
climbing up the stairs, once they ascended high enough their body underneath
their tunics could become exposed and this alone God said was the reason why He
didn’t want them going up by steps to His altar.
This passage
provides one reason why the Israelites were not permitted to go up by steps to
the altar of God: That their nakedness
would not be exposed. The altar was higher than the eyes of men. If the
children of Israel ascended up these steps wearing only a kethoneth/tunic and
no breeches, one may see the skin, “And these are the garments which they
shall make; a breastplate, and an ephod, and a robe, and a broidered coat, a mitre,
and a girdle: and they shall make holy garments for Aaron thy brother, and his
sons, that he may minister unto me in the priest's office” (Exodus 28:4). “And
thou shalt make them linen breeches to cover their nakedness; from the loins
even unto the thighs they shall reach:
And they shall be upon Aaron, and upon his sons, when they come in unto
the tabernacle of the congregation, or when they come near unto the altar to
minister in the holy place; that they bear not iniquity, and die: it shall
be a statute for ever unto him and his seed after him” (Exodus 28:42-43).
Notice that the breeches were to be worn by the priests when they went in unto
the tabernacle of the congregation, or when they went near unto the altar to
minister. These garments were not needed for ordinary persons whose work was on
the ground.
(I am not
done with this section, but desired to publish what I have so far until Lord
willing I finish the book.)
This is an
important aspect of God’s "And the LORD said unto Moses, Thus thou shalt
say unto the children of Israel, Ye have seen that I have talked with you from
heaven. Ye shall not make with me gods of silver, neither shall ye make unto
you gods of gold . . . Neither shalt thou go up by steps unto mine altar, that
thy nakedness be not discovered thereon" (Exodus 20:22-26). The altar was
higher than the eyes of men. If the
people walked up the stairs to the altar then their nakedness would be
discovered by those below: their thighs
and groin might become exposed. God gave
a specific command expressing His thoughts and feelings about it. He simply does not approve of it. This was not arbitrary but God plainly
explained why He ordered breeches for the priests. God actually has reasons as
to why He designed certain clothes. “But
as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of
conversation; Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy” (1 Peter
1:15-16).
This is why
God ordered breeches (pants) for the priests to wear underneath their
robes. "And thou shalt make them
linen breeches to cover their nakedness; from the loins even unto the thighs
they shall reach: And they shall be upon Aaron, and upon his sons, when they
come in unto the tabernacle of the congregation, or when they come near unto
the altar to minister in the holy place; that they bear not iniquity, and die:
it shall be a statute forever unto him and his seed after him” (Exodus
28:42-43). The LORD calls it
iniquity. He previously commanded Israel
not to go up the stairs to His altar that their nakedness be not
discovered. However, He ordained the
priests to go up these same steps to the same altar where their nakedness might
be exposed, but not without wearing pants underneath their robes. He said, "They (the pants) shall be upon
Aaron, and upon his sons, when they come in unto the tabernacle of the congregation,
or when they come near unto the altar to minister in the holy place; that they
bear not iniquity, and die" (Exodus 28:42-43).
God hates
iniquity, and He plainly calls it iniquity to expose your loins and thighs as
men. Men have taught women that to
merely cover the skin is not a real covering. If the form is exposed then your
loins and thighs are not covered. Hence, men have preached against women
wearing pants because the form of their legs and bottoms are exposed. I agree
with their application for women, but not with their personal practice, for
they treat female modesty as a moral issue and male modesty as a matter of
conscience, when apparently, God treated the principles of modesty as a moral
issue for both men and women (Genesis 3:21).
Now some may
contend that God accepts pants from this scripture, because as long as the
flesh could not be seen, exposing its form did not matter. That is not true. Otherwise Israel could have worn pants and
walked up the steps to the altar and been blameless. Also, the priests wore long robes over these
pants. Typically, their loins and thighs
could not be seen, but if someone happened to be directly underneath or a
strong wind blew, the pants were instituted to avoid their flesh from being
seen. It was a step further in modesty. This is why the sisters we fellowship with
wear pants, bloomers, or some form of leggings underneath their dresses in
similar situations and if they find themselves unprepared for a particular
situation (as women seeking to be modest) they don't behave themselves
unseemly, they take thought about possible wind gusts, when sitting down with
their legs spread apart, or when bending over, etc. They do this because they
are modest at heart.
Also, the
modest at heart are not offended about modesty so that all they hear when it is
preached is, “Line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little there a
little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and
taken” (Isaiah 28:9-14). However, the modest in heart even subject themselves
to unnecessary regulations to avoid causing others to stumble (1 Corinthians
8:13). Therefore, if charity subjects itself to unnecessary things to avoid
stumbling others, how much more does it keep the necessary commands and
examples, modesty included.
One may say,
“This research is interesting, and I do see some principles I can glean, but
what should I follow as far as an example? These passages still provide no
answer as to what is too tight and too short. Also, the encyclopedias seem to
suggest conflicting explanations concerning the lengths of the coats or tunics.”
The doctrine
according to godliness in regards to modesty is following the order or
principles of God. It is following the divine arrangement in regards to
clothing. To this the reply could be, “The doctrine according to godliness
didn’t begin and end with what God provided for Adam and Eve in the beginning.
It continued and developed all the way from Genesis through when God Himself
was manifested in the flesh. The New Testament command to not look upon a woman
with lust was given by Christ in the New Testament. With this teaching on
adultery the standard of modesty ought to be taken more seriously.
Firstly, in
answer to this, if we have decided that modesty is a moral issue for both male
and female, then we need to recognize that we ourselves have a minimum
requirement in regards to clothing from which lines of fellowship would be
drawn. Secondly, it is not reason that we should lower the standard of modesty
for women to accommodate the immodesty of men. Some who have been preaching
that women need to wear dresses to be modest have gone backwards in their
judgment after being confronted about their lack of modesty as men, and have
said that a woman dressed wearing pants with tucked in shirts can be modest.
Thirdly,
Jesus was clothed with a ποδήρης which being translated from Greek is
pronounced pod-ay'-race (Revelation 1:13). This is a garment or dress
reaching down to the ankles. Even if this garment was merely symbolic, if you
understand the language of Scripture, you will know that this garment
represented something holy and good. This foot length garment was given to
Joshua the high priest (Zechariah 3:4), the man who had the writer’s inkhorn at
his side (Ezekiel 9:2, 3, 11), and to the priests that ministered to the LORD
in the priest’s office (Exodus 25:7, 28:4, 31, 29:5). The Greek word ποδήρης
which is pronounced pod-ay'-race, was used once in the New Testament, and
eight times in the Septuagint, which is the Greek translation of the Old
Testament. The Septuagint was created in the 3rd century B.C. by seventy
elders of the Jews (for more historical information research the Septuagint in
Justin Martyr’s dialogue with Trypho and Irenaeus’ against heresies). To get a
better understanding of the meaning of Greek words I look up how the New
Testament Greek was used in the Old Testament writings. What is significant of
the foot length garment which Jesus and the priests wore? 1Pe 2:9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal
priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the
praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light.
Rev 1:5 And from Jesus Christ, who is
the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of
the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in
his own blood,Rev 1:6 And hath made us
kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for
ever and ever. Amen. Some sincerely
believe that Jesus would wear shorts if He was born into western culture. They
imagine His character to be of such a nature so as to blend in with society.
However, nothing regarding Jesus blended in with the Jewish culture He was born
into. If you are one of those who sincerely believe He would wear long shorts
consider that breeches were instituted for the priests to wear underneath their
robes. These breeches completely covered the thighs, yet nowhere in Scripture
is Jesus recorded wearing breeches. Was this because He didn’t want to create
conflict with the Jews? Was it to please the religious elite? You would not get
such an impression by reading the Gospels. Jesus clearly justified His
disciples for plucking heads of grain on the Sabbath Day which was not lawful;
He worked on the Sabbath, He didn’t have His disciples wash their hands before
eating, He went into the temple and drove them all out of the temple, and the
sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the
tables not fearing the repercussions He may incur from the Jews, He didn’t go
to the feast with his brothers, He did not fast as did the Pharisees and
disciples of John fasted, therefore wearing shorts would have been no problem
for Him. Jesus came to set men free from religious bondage. If modesty was an
oppressive form of religious bondage, Jesus of all people would have worn
shorts/breeches as a testimony against it. A good way for him to break the yoke
of modesty from off of the neck of poor oppressed modest sinners would have
been to wear shorts/breeches in public. All the other occasions I mentioned
above were reasons why the Pharisees hated Jesus and sought to kill Him.
Wearing shorts would merely have presented another reason which would mean
little to Jesus.
Another
thought to consider is that if God or any of His people would have been
comfortable wearing breeches in public, reason dictates that they would have
preferred to save money on fabric by simply using enough to make breeches.
Paul
exhorted Titus, "But speak thou the things which become sound doctrine,"
and Timothy, "If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome
words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is
according to godliness, he is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about
questions and strifes of words" (Titus 2:1, 1 Timothy 6:3). It is the
doctrine according to godliness for both men and women to wear garments that do
not break the principles of modesty which God established in the Garden of
Eden. One may ask, “Does Scripture say
that God was establishing His principles of modesty in the garden?” I would
then ask, “Does God do anything without purpose? Is God vain?” Again, I speak
foolishly. Some may irrationalize that we must follow the exact style and
material of clothing if we are to truly be imitators of God. I disagree. Jesus
did not wear a tunic of skin. The sound conclusion therefore regarding the
doctrine according to godliness pertaining to modesty is that the principles in
the clothing are what God was establishing, not the material or fabric. The
principles covered the “area”, that is, the thighs and loins of both men and
women.
If we were
to follow only the clear and direct commands from Scripture, our conclusion
would be as some say, "wearing gold, pearls, and expensive clothing"
is what matters. That does matter a lot. It is not however, the only
application of what it means to be modest. Modesty is a condition and attitude
of the heart that works its way out practically in doing unto others as you
would have them do unto you; by not being rude, puffed up, arrogant, unseemly,
indecent, inconsiderate, or insincere in practical ways, dress and behavior
being two of them. Those who only apply the direct and clear commands from
Scripture, and neglect examples from Scripture, reject the counsel of God. “For
even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us
an example, that ye should follow his steps” (1 Peter 2:21). Having to study
commands and examples places a necessary burden on souls, for all ought to,
“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be
ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth” (2 Timothy 2:15).
Modesty of
heart destroys an ungodly double standard that turns people away from the
truth.
Modesty of
heart does not ignore the facts: 1) Women lust, as well as men; 2) women are
embarrassed, distracted, and made uncomfortable by how men dress or don't
dress; 3) women's hearts are hardened because of the hypocrisy of men.
As men
professing godliness with good works, as the city set on a hill which cannot be
hid, and as the light of the world we need to take responsibility and do
something about modesty. Our silence, hypocrisy, negligence, indifference, and
irresponsibility God will judge.
Paul said
that the church is the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Timothy 3:15), not the
Bible. There was no Bible then, only letters, scattered throughout the world.
It is the church's responsibility to judge and to do what is true. With God's
grace and the guidance of the Holy Spirit we can both recognize and "speak
the things that become sound doctrine" (Titus 2:1). If the Bible does not
provide a clear revelation of the will of God, we need to seek God, and He will
help us judge what is true, if we will indeed be the "pillar and ground of
the truth”.
"Now
the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication,
uncleanness, lasciviousness, Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance,
emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, Envyings, murders, drunkenness,
revellings, AND SUCH LIKE: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told
you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom
of God" (Galatians 5:19-21). Notice that Paul ended the specific works of
the flesh with revellings, and then follows with, "and such like."
These “such like things” he said are evident, and will keep you from inheriting
the kingdom of God. It is the church's responsibility to judge these things and
Paul expected Christians to be able to judge “matters pertaining to this life”
(1 Corinthians 6:1-9). Some such like things not included in that list are:
gambling, drugs, various sports and arts, hypocrisy, and immodest clothing.
Many have made these and other “such like” judgments but are not willing to
acknowledge them as such. However, to avoid hypocrisy, we must embrace all
sound “such like” judgments and press on to perfection, or relinquish all truth
that is not specifically defined in Scripture. The former leads to “the measure
of the stature of the fullness of Christ”, the latter leads to lawlessness;
while indifference on the matter is a gross hypocrisy.
I believe
the reason why it is understood more clearly that men are visually stimulated,
and struggle with lust, rather than women, is because the men have preached
against women's immodest clothing, and have admitted their struggles
openly. Women however, have not. Society has always attached a stigma of shame
to women that is not parallel to men, such as:
if a man cusses or smokes a cigarette it is one thing, but if a woman
has a foul mouth or smokes, then she is uncomely, repulsive, and just outright
wrong, as though what's being done is worse simply because it is a woman doing
it.
Consequently,
men have said that the reason why women lust is because things are perverted
today and the world is just waxing worse and worse. That is foolish thinking. Remember Potiphar's
wife who lusted after Joseph, the Proverbs 7 woman who caught a young man void
of understanding to take her fill of love, and the apostle Paul’s warning in 1
Corinthians 7 to avoid fornication for both men and women. To say that women
struggle with lust today because this world is getting worse is the same as
saying men are born perverts, so it isn't as bad if they lust, and if a man
overcomes his lust problem then he is a really good man; but if a woman is
lustful, she is ostracized as perverse and having something seriously wrong
with her. Conversely, it is equally
perverse and shameful for men and women to lust and dress immodest, if not more
so for the men, because they are the heads of their women. Men are not
blameless if they lust and/or dress immodestly, and to deride women who behave
as they do is repulsive. Let us be honest with ourselves, women are attracted
to men and men are attracted to women, it is that simple.
God designed
clothing for both Adam and Eve not only to hinder lust but to set His people
apart from the ever darkening world. When we dress like the world, unless the
world is modest, we cannot possibly be a light to this world.
It is worth
considering that perhaps the New Testament Scriptures directed women to modest
clothing more than men, because women have commonly used their beauty to win
men. Men however, did not primarily win
women that way; it seems men won women by their knowledge and experience,
namely, if they would be good providers and protectors, because historically
women have been dependent on men for survival. Consequently, throughout history
women have chosen to marry men who had these qualities, rather than good
looks. In cultures where women have
gained independence from men however, they became more selective and pursued
attractive physical attributes.
Additionally,
the New Testament epistles were primarily written with the intent of addressing
issues of that time period. As time passes, however, different issues arise and
requisite exhortation is needed. It is not that male modesty is a new principle
that is the product of private revelation and interpretation, but rather it has
always been a matter of morality and because of generational and present day
negligence it has become a topic of much needed exhortation and discussion.
This has happened with many principles which in time past did not require as
much teaching. There are several main
topics that are highly discussed among many conservative professing Christians,
are considered fundamental and foundational, are held to dogmatically, and yet
they are sparingly discussed in the New Testament when compared to other
topics. To name a few: Marriage, the
head covering, homosexuality, smoking, sports, etc. Some of which are not even
issues of morality: Mode of baptism,
mode of communion, church leadership structure. Sometimes dogmas have developed
which have no scriptural foundation:
Proving period before baptism, not using instruments in church,
forbidding internet use, and others. We need to be honest and admit that we all
have judgments which go beyond the specific letter of Scripture. Pretending that
we do not will only cause little ones to stumble when they realize we do. In
most conservative churches it is universally understood that a man cannot walk
around in public with his shirt off only wearing a speedo and a woman cannot
wear only a bikini. However, there is no specific Scripture that forbids these
actions. Is it wrong then to reprove our brothers and sisters and admonish them
that if they do not repent that they will be punished by God for their
immodesty? God forbid that we would ever teach anything else. Yet, these same
principles of immodest exposure of the body are the authority by which these
articles of clothing are condemned. It does not matter if it is inexpensive and
not flashy (i.e. color or jewels) to dress like that, the issue is that the
body is exposed, despite the secret parts having fabric over them. Let us have
a just weight and a just measure. If tight pants are forbidden for women then
the same must apply for men. If it is ungodly to show shape and form, this
applies to both genders. To forbid the public wearing of swimwear is an
extra-biblical judgment just like forbidding western pants with a tucked in
shirt. Judge for yourselves what is more godly and when judging this, consider
how God clothed Adam and Eve.
You may ask,
“By what authority have we preached against men wearing western pants with
tucked in shirts?” To which I would reply, “By what authority have you decided
it was unlawful, wrong, and immodest to wear speedos and bikinis in public?
Which if you tell me, I will likewise tell you by what authority we preach
these principles of modesty.” He that has an ear let him hear.
The
Language of Scripture
“I put on
righteousness, and it clothed me: my judgment was as a robe and a diadem”
(Job 29:14). Clothing here is
represented in a good light. To get a better understanding of the language of
Scripture, let’s look at the reverse of this passage, “I put on wickedness, and
it unclothed me: my judgment was as
nakedness and an indecency.” The words
clothed, robe, and diadem in the context of this verse signify dignity, that
is, “True honor; nobleness or elevation of mind, consisting in a high sense of
propriety, truth and justice, with an abhorrence of mean and sinful actions”
(Webster’s 1828 Dictionary). “Come down,
and sit in the dust, O virgin daughter of Babylon, sit on the ground: there is
no throne, O daughter of the Chaldeans: for thou shalt no more be called tender
and delicate. Take the millstones, and grind meal: uncover thy locks, make bare
the leg, uncover the thigh, pass over the rivers. Thy nakedness shall be
uncovered, yea, thy shame shall be seen” (Isaiah 47:1-3). In context, the
prophet’s message was exposing the pride of Babylon, “thou that art given to
pleasures, that dwellest carelessly, that sayest in thine heart, I am, and
none else beside me” (Isaiah 47:8). Biblical language always connects nakedness
with sinful and shameful behaviors and practices. It would not make this
connection if nakedness was morally excellent. Thus it can be understood that
if Scripture uses nakedness and the bearing of the leg as a shame to
metaphorically describe sinful pride, then it is requisite that physical
nakedness itself was regarded as shameful, even from the leg to the thigh.
Otherwise, to make the comparison is illogical. Because the Scriptures do make
this connection, let us connect ourselves therewith and learn the language of
the Scriptures.
“I will
greatly rejoice in the LORD, my soul shall be joyful in my God; for he hath
clothed me with the garments of salvation, he hath covered me with the robe of
righteousness, as a bridegroom decketh himself with ornaments, and as a bride
adorneth herself with her jewels” (Isaiah 61:10). Again, the words garments
and robe are associated with salvation and righteousness, words that
represent dignity and virtue. If then righteousness is like unto wearing a
robe, while wickedness is like unto nakedness; it follows that the covering of
a robe is righteous and the exposing of the body is wicked. Furthermore, if the
wearing of garments is comparative to salvation, then the lack thereof (by
choice) relates to death or a state of depravity.
Consider the
following Scripture, “And when he [Jesus] went forth to land, there met him out
of the city a certain man, which had devils long time, and ware no clothes,
neither abode in any house, but in the tombs” (Luke 8:27). This and other
Scriptures sufficiently demonstrate that the Bible never speaks well of wearing
no clothes, or of being immodestly clothed (Isaiah 47:1-3).
To prod the
church onto perfection the apostles use this language, “And this I pray, that
your love may abound yet more and more in knowledge and in all judgment; that
ye may approve things that are excellent; that ye may be sincere and without
offence till the day of Christ . . . And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him,
because we keep his commandments, AND do those things that are pleasing in his
sight . . . But speak thou the things which become sound doctrine . . . For
the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, teaching us
that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly,
righteously, and godly, in this present world . . . Who (Christ) gave himself
for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity . . . If ye then be risen
with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the
right hand of God. Set your affection on things above, not on things on the
earth . . . That he [Jesus] might present it [the church] to himself a glorious
church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing ; but that it should
be holy and without blemish . . . Now the works of the flesh are manifest,
which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness . . . Idolatry,
witchcraft, hatred . . . Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such
like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past,
that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God . . . For
when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you
again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become
such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat. For every one that useth milk
is unskilful in the word of righteousness : for he is a babe. But strong
meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use
have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.”
Be confident
that any doctrine which hinders you from judging between right and wrong, truth
and falsehood, light and darkness, good and evil, sincerity and hypocrisy,
pride and humility, is most certainly a doctrine of devils intended to seduce
men, keep them unskillful in the word of righteousness and consequently blind
their minds, and lead them into an infernal abyss where they will find no place
for the soles of their feet. Those who follow such men will continue this life
groping in darkness, not knowing what causes them to stumble, and remaining in
a lost state of confusion. Jesus asked, “Why not judge ye yourselves what is
right?” (Luke 12:57). Jesus sought to call men out from the darkness and bring
them into the light, but men must first judge, examine, prove for themselves what
is right, and any man who hinders men from doing this is an enemy to what Jesus
was compelling men to do. God is not the author of confusion, but of peace. We
ought to love the judgments of the Lord for “When Your judgments are in the
earth, the inhabitants of the world will learn righteousness” (Isaiah 26:9).
Therefore, if the judgments of God are necessary to attain unto perfection, and
it is the desire of Jesus and the apostles that we be found blameless when He
returns, then who is it that would persuade us otherwise? The apostle Paul told
the Galatians that they “ran well, who is it that hindered you from obeying the
truth? This persuasion cometh not from Him that calleth you” (Galatians 5:7-8).
Those who would resist this are those who he describes in this manner “If any
man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of
our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; He
is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words,
whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, perverse disputings of
men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is
godliness: from such withdraw thyself” (1 Timothy 6:3-5). Conversely, John
tells us that “But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things
. . . but the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye
need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all
things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall
abide in him” (1 John 2:20, 27). If then the Spirit teaches us all things, let
it not be resisted because it lacks specific wording of Scripture though it
agrees with “the doctrine according to godliness”. Anything that teaches us to
be more like God is a wholesome word, and according to the apostle these
wholesome instructions ought to be consented to. The following is Biblical language God wants
men to understand: approve things that
are excellent . . . be sincere and without offence . . . those things that
are pleasing in his sight . . . the things which become sound doctrine . . .
ungodliness and worldly lusts . . . live soberly, righteously, and godly . . .
all iniquity . . . those things which are above . . . things on the earth . . .
without spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing . . . holy and without blemish . .
. such like . . . unskilful in the word of righteousness. What are all these
things? These words are Biblical
language. Those who have trained, developed, and exercised their judgment,
reason, intellect, and understanding of the Bible are able to understand and
speak such language. Other than the commandments of God, what are those things
which John said are pleasing in God’s sight? What is a spot, or wrinkle, or
any such thing ? What is holy and without blemish ? What are those such
like things that the apostle said would keep the men who do them from
inheriting the kingdom of God? If you don’t know, “Awake to righteousness, and
sin not; for some have not the knowledge of God: I speak this to your shame”
(1 Corinthians 15:34). On the same line
of thinking, consider these words from an early Christian writing: “Restrain yourself, therefore, from all
iniquity, and do that which is good.” “What, sir,” say I, “are the evil deeds
from which we must restrain ourselves?” “Hear,” says he: “from adultery and
fornication, from unlawful revelling, from wicked luxury, from indulgence in
many kinds of food and the extravagance of riches, and from boastfulness, and
haughtiness, and insolence, and lies, and backbiting, and hypocrisy, from the
remembrance of wrong, and from all slander. These are the deeds that are most
wicked in the life of men. From all these deeds, therefore, the servant of God
must restrain himself. For he who does not restrain himself from these, cannot
live to God. Listen, then, to the deeds that accompany these.” “Are there,
sir,” said I, “any other evil deeds?” “There are,” says he; “and many of them,
too, from which the servant of God must restrain himself—theft, lying, robbery,
false witness, overreaching, wicked lust, deceit, vainglory, boastfulness, and
all other vices like to these” (The Shepherd of Hermas Book 2, eighth
commandment). Even after an extensive list of 23 specific vices which the
servants of God must restrain from, the Christian man Hermas is still admonished
that he must refrain from all other vices like to these.
Despite
having been commanded to restrain from all iniquity, he was still not given an
all-inclusive list of every single vice. Is God then unjust to punish him if he
commits or practices a vice that is not explicitly stated in the list? No. On
the contrary, it seems that His judgment will include whether or not men made
the requisite effort to discover what these other vices are. Apparently our
Creator is not ignorant of what He made. “Well of course He is not” one could
respond, “What is your point?” Well, namely that God knows the intellectual
capacity that every man possesses, and the opportunity he had to search out and
know the things that are pleasing in His sight. Truly, we have not because we
ask not. Ask that you may receive. Or do we disparage the Scripture which says
“If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men
liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him” (James 1:5).
Why was this
section relevant to the subject of male modesty? Because despite having
examples, there are however, no specific detailed commands for the design of
what is stated as modest apparel in the Scripture. We are to exercise sound
judgment (what is modest?), speak the things that become sound doctrine
(modesty), and judge for ourselves what is right (that is, what is in fact
modest). We are to judge what is holy and godly apparel (modest clothing).
In
conclusion, what God does, He does purposefully, including the first set of
clothes that He made for Adam and Eve. This and many other things is why Paul
instructed Timothy that “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and
is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in
righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all
good works” (2 Timothy 3:16, 17).
An
early Christian writing
[Constitutions
of the Holy Apostles: Book 1: Section 2:
Commandments to men; second half of the third century approx. 250
A.D. “Date according to Professor
Riddle”. SEC. II.—COMMANDMENTS TO MEN. CONCERNING THE ADORNMENT OF OURSELVES,
AND THE SIN WHICH ARISES FROM THENCE. ]
"Let
the husband not be insolent nor arrogant towards his wife; but compassionate,
bountiful, willing to please his own wife alone, and treat her honourably
and obligingly, endeavouring to be agreeable to her; (III.) not adorning
thyself in such a manner as may entice another woman to thee.
For if thou
art overcome by her, and sinnest with her, eternal death will overtake thee
from God; and thou wilt be punished with sensible and bitter torments. Or if
thou dost not perpetrate such a wicked act, but shakest her off, and refusest
her, in this case thou art not wholly innocent, even though thou art not guilty
of the crime itself, but only in so far as through thy adorning thou didst
entice the woman to desire thee.
For thou art
the cause that the woman was so affected, and by her lusting after thee was
guilty of adultery with thee: yet art thou not so guilty, because thou didst
not send to her, who was ensnared by thee; nor didst thou desire her. Since,
therefore, thou didst not deliver up thyself to her, thou shalt find mercy with
the Lord thy God, who hath said, “Thou shalt not commit adultery,” and, “Thou
shalt not covet.” For if such a woman, upon sight of thee, or unseasonable
meeting with thee, was smitten in her mind, and sent to thee, but thou as a
religious person didst refuse her, if she was wounded in her heart by thy
beauty, and youth, and adorning, and fell in love with thee, thou wilt be found
guilty of her transgressions, as having been the occasion of scandal to her,
and shalt inherit a woe. Wherefore pray
thou to the Lord God that no mischief may befall thee upon this account: for thou
art not to please men, so as to commit sin; but God, so as to attain holiness
of life, and be partaker of everlasting rest.
That beauty
which God and nature has bestowed on thee, do not further beautify; but
modestly diminish it before men.
Thus, do not
thou permit the hair of thy head to grow too long, but rather cut it short;
lest by a nice combing thy hair, and wearing it long, and anointing thyself,
thou draw upon thyself such ensnared or ensnaring women. Neither do thou wear
over-fine garments to seduce any; neither do thou, with an evil subtilty,
affect over-fine stockings or shoes for thy feet, but only such as suit the
measures of decency and usefulness. Neither do thou put a gold ring upon thy
fingers; for all these ornaments are the signs of lasciviousness, which if thou
be solicitous about in an indecent manner, thou wilt not act as becomes a good
man: for it is not lawful for thee, a believer and a man of God, to permit the
hair of thy head to grow long, and to brush it up together, nor to suffer it to
spread abroad, nor to puff it up, nor by nice combing and platting to make it
curl and shine; since that is contrary to the law, which says thus, in its
additional precepts: “You shall not make to yourselves curls and round
rasures.” Nor may men destroy the hair of their beards, and unnaturally change
the form of a man. For the law says: “Ye shall not mar your beards.” For God
the Creator has made this decent for women, but has determined that it is
unsuitable for men.
But if thou
do these things to please men, in contradiction to the law, thou wilt be
abominable with God, who created thee after His own image. If, therefore, thou
wilt be acceptable to God, abstain from all those things which He hates, and do
none of those things that are unpleasing to Him." {END of Early
Christian Writing}
Men: part of
being modest is not shaving off your beards or trimming them to look attractive
or acceptable to the society in which you live (Isaiah 52-53). If your
citizenship is in heaven, your faithfulness with the unrighteous mammon will
demonstrate it. Besides, when the sheep are divided from the goats any
expenditure upon razors, shaving cream, and after shave will be despised when
you realize such a waste of resources could have ministered to the "least
of these" (Matthew 25:45). Contemplate another exhortation from The
Shepherd of Hermas, “Have a care, therefore: as one living in a foreign land,
make no further preparations for thyself than such merely as may be sufficient;
and be ready, when the master of this city shall come to cast thee out for
disobeying his law, to leave his city, and to depart to thine own, and to obey
thine own law without being exposed to annoyance, but in great joy. Have a
care, then, ye who serve the Lord, and have Him in your heart, that ye work the
works of God, remembering His commandments and promises which He promised, and
believe that He will bring them to pass if His commandments be observed.
Instead of lands, therefore, buy afflicted souls, according as each one is able,
and visit widows and orphans, and do not overlook them; and spend your wealth
and all your preparations, which ye received from the Lord, upon such lands and
houses. For to this end did the Master make you rich, that you might perform
these services unto Him; and it is much better to purchase such lands, and
possessions, and houses, as you will find in your own city, when you come to
reside in it. This is a noble and sacred expenditure, attended neither with
sorrow nor fear, but with joy. Do not practice the expenditure of the heathen,
for it is injurious to you who are the servants of God” (Book 3, similitude 1).
It is not as important to know if God will punish you for not having a beard,
as much as it is important to use your resources to do good. The question is
not, “Can I be saved if I shave off my beard?” You ought to rather ask, “What
good could I afford to do for a poor soul with money saved from not shaving my
beard?” A Washington Post Headline once stated: Your beard is killing the
shaving industry. It declared that over 2.3 BILLION dollars was lost that year
by the shaving industry because men chose not to shave their beards for the
month of November
(http://www.thestate.com/news/nation-world/national/article13908752.html).
Based upon this information alone, if men chose not to shave their beards at
all, they could provide over 27 billion dollars annually to fund relief
projects for those in need of safe drinking water, sufficient food and
clothing, as well as disaster and health care assistance. Judge for yourselves
what is the expenditure of the heathen in this situation.
Comments
from Women
Below are
many comments women have made about these things which reveal how women do
struggle with lust, and the fact that they too, are visually stimulated. This truth is also known because the world
creates posters of immodest men, bad magazines, and the fact that God made
tunics for both Adam and Eve, not Eve only.
Note: The women in these comments probably are not being told that they
all need to wear long baggy dresses. If they were told that by men who wore baggy
pants with loose shirts tucked in, they would probably be offended by such
hypocrisy. If you are a man who wears baggy pants with a loose shirt tucked in,
you may feel, after reading these comments, that, "I guess these women
would be okay with the way I dress," which might be true, until you tell
them they are immodest for dressing the same way and that they need to wear a
long and baggy dress to be modest. The comments listed below I have copied and
pasted from other male modesty blogposts I found on the internet. All of the
comments are not from women.
The
comments:
“I do not
like the fact that guys act like girls are immune to lust. It is like sometimes
guys expect girls to be perfect. While on the other hand they are wearing tight
clothing. It bothers me that they could get away with something like that. To
me, it is a shear form of hypocrisy. Guys cannot tell girls they need to cover
up and stop wearing tight clothes, while they are walking around shirtless or
in tight clothes.”
“This was an
awesome article! I was/am a woman who struggles with lust. And the way guys
dress or rather don't dress makes it hard. Thank you for being so honest,
because women are afraid some times to say that they struggle with lust because
people have made it into a man only struggle. In answer to your questions, I
would say the things that guys wear that is the most distracting to me is the
low-rise pants with no shirt, tight pants or shirts, and loose basketball
shorts that can be revealing when you sit down.”
“That's just
incredible guys (girls!) - must be such a blessing for you not to have to worry
about that temptation. :-) I've always wondered why so many women don't seem to
'get' the way guys struggle with seeing immodesty, as I had it really hard and
could relate to every description guys wrote about how seeing a really
attractive, scantily dressed girl made them think and feel - I thought I was
normal! And of course, was quite horrified to find that many people believe
women don't have a struggle with inappropriate passion - finding that some don't
is a relief, but I can honestly say that for me, having absolute passion for
purity, the ages 16-18 was like fighting a life and death battle every day.
It's gotten a lot easier, but it was so hard! Seeing the little shifts flowing
through those who love God, the rediscovery of a Godly modesty (not wearing
sexually attractive or revealing clothes, from a heart committed to honour God
in purity, rather than the other extreme - to follow a external and
hypocritical appearance) is such an encouragement to me. :-)”
“Thank you
so much! While I do believe that guys have a much harder time with lust, I have
been distracted by how men dress. So here are some things to think about, tight
pants or shorts around the "area," is the biggest problem. no skinny
jeans, don't sit with your legs spread apart Wearing tight shirts to show off
your form going shirtless is distracting, and it's not fair, I hate it when
guys are wearing practically nothing when I'm standing there in like 3 layers
trying to stay modest even when it's like 90 degrees outside.”
“I've been looking for an article that
addresses the fact that guys can be immodest, too. I'm glad to know it exists.”
“Thank you
so much for posting this, this is such an overlooked issue. When real men care
enough about themselves, God and their sisters in Christ enough to really think
wisely with their clothing, it really shows Christ. The Psalms talk all the
time about "praising God with all that I am". That means clothing,
words, even hairstyle! When guys choose to show good, godly and Christian love
to all those around them with their actions and clothing, it shows true
manhood. Thanks guys!”
“Ok here we
go, a list of things I find immodest in guys . . . skin tight shirts (you
covered that, but it's worth mentioning) pants with the fabric tight across the
butt and thighs-really low v-neck shirts (surprising, eh? But if you think
about it, not really. A v-neck shirt reveals chest muscles and chest hair, and
for some women, that can be really distracting)-anything that is tight across
the crotch. (Yes, that can actually be REALLY AWKWARD when a guy wears tight
clothing across the crotch, ESPECIALLY with spandex)”
“I just
stumbled across this article. Fantastic! Something somewhat new to think about.
Thanks, Brett!”
“Recently my
family has had the guys wear t-shirts when swimming. I wondered about this,
thinking it somewhat strange, something annoying that isn't needed. However,
after reading some of the comments here I don't think I'll ever think this
again! I'm so glad for honesty :)”
“This might have already been mentioned, but
with regards who's to be blamed for lusting: I totally agree that the one doing
the lusting is sinning. They cannot blame their sin on temptation. However, we
should be careful not to become a stumbling block to others and certainly not
an encouragement for them to sin. As an analogy, I believe that drinking
alcohol in moderation is fine. Although I will be honest with others about
this, I'm not going to offer a glass of wine to someone who has struggled with
drinking problems. I've not had the slightest inclination to get drunk, but I
certainly should not give a beer--not a sin in and of itself--to someone who
struggles with alcohol. While there are definite, unchanging standards for modesty,
but there are also actions we can take simply to be considerate to others.”
“Now, I'm
not a guy, but I don't think so. Yes, you're right about
overdressing/underdressing, but changing how revealingly you dress depending on
the situation doesn't seem to make sense. It's more like a double-standard that
most of society has accepted but never thought through. It looks to me like
guys' minds don't change modes depending on where they are, they think the same
way at the beach and at school. I realized that when I was looking at swimsuits
and I got a one-piece. It had a flippy skirt and I wore shorts, but the top was
more revealing than any I've worn before. I realized that no matter where I
was, I would not feel comfortable talking to a guy friend while I was wearing
the swimsuit . . . So my experience shows that I need to dress the same no
matter where I am . . . Will guys comment please?”
“Well, I
just found this thread and it is asking for a dude's opinion on modesty so here
I go. I do not believe that bikinis are ever ok. They were created to be
provocative in my opinion. A girl can do what a girl wants to do when she is
around other girls, but a whole mess of issues come into play when dudes are
around. Granted, dudes can be more modest about keeping their shirts on and
whereing loose fitting clothing, but it seems to me that girls sometimes may
feel an urge to be more provocative to attract attention. To me, even a form
fitting one piece can act as a stumbling block, or even a plunging neckline.
All I'm saying is to think smart about what you where. Honestly, it would be
quite difficult for me to talk to a girl where a bikini without my mind going
in the gutter, even though I do my best to treat all women with respect. Maybe
I'm just an easier one to distract than most, but I am human and I'm being
honest. I hope this will help anyone who may be doubting the morals of wearing
a bikini. I'm just gonna say DONT DO IT PLEASE! For all our sakes.”
“As girls,
lust can definitely be a struggle! I do think that it's more of a struggle for
guys, but girls can definitely struggle. My biggest thing would probably be
when you show off your torso; your abs, in other words. For example, don't go
shirtless...it's inconsiderate of us ladies. Second, those Spandex shirts. If
they are displaying your ab muscles, that's hard, too. But that's just me. I
know other girls who have trouble when you show off your legs and butt.
Obviously,
you can't hide your legs anymore than you already do, unless you're gay and are
wearing bootyshorts, but that isn't really a problem for us ;) Some of my
friends tend to like the arms. I'm totally not asking you to cover up your
arms, that would be ridiculous (just as ridiculous as when you ask us to wear
skirts all the time and cover our shoulders. lol) Also remember that it has
more to do with the way you display yourself (the way you walk, talk, your
attitude, etc.) than what you're wearing. I've been to the pool when some of my
guy friends just had on their Hollister trunks. And they were attractive guys.
But it wasn't a problem, because they weren't carrying themselves in a way that
said, "Look at me." Also remember that when you tell us things like
wearing skirts all the time, because pants show off our legs too much and it's
tempting for you. Reverse that. My friend has trouble with checking out guys
legs...BOYS, GO PUT YO SKIRTS ON! You'd think we were insane and completely
ridiculous. And I happen to find muscular shoulders, arms, and backs
attractive...You need to wear sleeves all the time. That's what you guys tell
us. So, just keep that in mind before you tell us to do something. :) But
again, I know your brains are wired differently, so :) But honestly, it's more
in how you carry yourself. My friend wears Spandex shirts, and he's a muscular
dude, but he carries himself in a humble, non-attention-calling way, and it's
not a problem :) Thanks, guys!”
“YES YES YES
YES and YES!!! I completely agree with this post because honestly I feel that
most modesty conversations assume that women don't struggle with lust which is
NOT true in the least! THANK YOU!!”
“I am not
religious at all, and a feminist to boot, but still believe in the value of
modesty. The religious-based discussions about female modesty make my blood
boil. When did we get this ridiculous notion in our heads that femininity was
about restraint, and masculinity was about lack of it?!? Why would the
Herculean task of keeping men's heads pure fall solely on women?! Thank you for
this. I hope this line of thinking becomes more common among Christian
followers.”
“OH yeah.
Actually, it's not really a case of 'he's sexy'. The problem lies more in 'that
is quite an attractive view (if it's pecs etc.) and I know what sort of girl I
look like if I continue to look at that view.' If the image ain't there I can't
look, can I?”
“And it's
vaguely frustrating in summertime - guys can go around shirtless and I can't.
You mentioned speedos: there the problem is 'where do I look to avoid being
rude?”
“Yay!
Someone has finally tackled the subject from the girl's point of view! When
guys walk around bare-chested, it makes it difficult for girls to stay pure in
their thoughts.”
“I have often wondered about guys though, and
whether them going shirtless is really such a big deal. It never bothered me
really, but I knew friends who it did bother. Walking on the beach so much I
passed a lot of guys in only their swim trunks, and one thing I noticed is that
I always looked everywhere BUT at them until they had passed . . . Why was
that? I wasn't really attracted to guys' bare chests, so what was the big deal?
I think it embarrassed me! The fact that they were showing so much skin was
embarrassing to me, and I didn't want to look at them for fear they might think
I wasn't looking at THEM, but at their chests! The very fact that I felt the
need to guard my eyes suggests something to me.”
“(man
speaking) I find discussions on modesty like this to be both absolutely
hilarious and slightly disturbing. It seems like every ultra-conservative guy
or gal considers something "immodest" that the average person would
think is completely silly. For example, someone in this thread said that a guy
wearing pants should not sit with his legs open. You have got to be kidding me,
right? Then there are other people who would have the whole world swim in baggy
pants and longs sleeve shirts, just so they don't have to be
"tempted" by the natural beauty of the human body while at the beach!
Modesty is pure silliness that has no basis in philosophy. I'm so glad I got
out of this culture of shame.”
“I find it
EXTREMELY distracting when guys wear cutoff shirts that show just about
everything that a shirt should cover, also guys skinny jeans are a big no,
there tight and attract attention to places that we Christian girls don't want
to be attracted to. And of course being shirtless and wearing low cut shorts
have the same effect.”
“I'm so glad
that this topic was brought up. When I read this article, the first verse that
came to my mind was 1 Corinthians 6:20 - "For ye are bought with a price:
therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's."
KJV”
I believe that
this verse tells us as Christian brothers and sisters to honor Christ with our
bodies. Girls stumble just as much as guys, and I definitely battle in keeping
my mind pure when it comes to seeing guys topless or wearing speedos at the
beach or pool. (or anywhere for that matter). Seeing a guy topless or in
speedos definitely makes my mind wander. (Just the same as seeing a girl in
bikinis)”
“Men’s
modesty is a HUGE issue because nearly most families DON'T teach it or
encourage it. It's my personal belief, but if I were a man, I wouldn't be
taking my shirt off in public, I would not be readjusting myself in public in
front of people, i would try my best not to sit so wide legged that it takes up
two seats, would not be showing my boxers above the rim of my pants, and would
certainly not roam any room etc in just my underwear (as men love and feel
obligated to do). Even when men do these things, most Christian women I know
'try' to respect them and look away elsewhere, sometimes we mess up but we make
the effort. Now tell me if a woman walked in a room with just her underwear
most Christian men wouldn't just look at her eagerly? And the excuse from most
men is 'Well, she's asking for it.' What about them? We could make the same
excuse 10-fold! Fact of life: every issue that man has ever gone through, women
have experienced as well. Lust is most assuredly one of them. Wake up world.”
“I know I'm
off-subject...I guess my point is that women like me have been raised in a
sub-culture of homeschooling that says we are to blame for the sin that our
brothers and fathers commit. And that is wrong. Do I believe in submission?
Yes, but my only, and I mean ONLY head is Jesus until I get married (and even
then, we're co-pilots). I don't go to God through any patriarch. Do I believe
in modesty? Yes. Because it is trashy to flaunt our curves, glorious as they
may be, in inappropriate ways and especially in church. I don't want to be
ogled and objectified. But I'm not responsible when men lust. And I am
responsible for my own sin when I think guys are super hot, which happens
fairly frequently, because I am a hormonal and single young woman without any
man in her life except church folks. Big deal. Thank God for grace. Free grace.
FREE grace.”
“This is an
excellent article, thank you. I have always thought of modesty as a
"girl" issue. But, to be completely honest I struggle with lust
toward men all the time. I usually notice them for their face, but speedos are
definitely something that draws inappropriate attention.”
“Well, to
tell you the truth, a man's muscles do not turn me on. My thought may be,
"He's been working out, or he's in good shape," and that's as far as
it goes. And as far as tight jeans, shorts or swimsuits: I don't desire to see
a profile of "the family jewels," and I am embarrassed for him when
he shows them.”
“While I
appreciate your desire to equate the modesty issue here, I honestly believe
that men are more visual than women in general, and the weight of being modest
lies more on the Christian female in response to her wanting to honor God in
the way she dresses, by showing respect to herself, and to her weak brothers .
. .
Response to the above comment .
. . “Please do not make light of other women's struggles. Men already think we
are not visual, when you say this kind of thing it reinforces that
misconception. I am personally a very visual woman, I struggle even when a man
wears a sleeveless shirt. So please be careful.”
“This was
articulate and excellently put; I know as a young woman who has chosen to live
for Jesus and remain pure for the man I will marry someday, that men not being
modest can be a distraction.”
“First off,
I really appreciate this article. This is the first one I've ever seen on the
subject of male modesty. And as a 19 year old woman (and sister to 3 brothers)
I think I can say with the rest of the Christian female population that guys
aren't the only ones who struggle with lust.”
“I know its
been said, but I’ll say it again: women are attracted to men physically. I know
I am. Here’s just one example to help. If you have really nice muscles, don’t
show them off, (like for women, if she has nice legs she still needs to cover
them and not show them off). Rather, show your strength by using your muscles to
serve the weak. Your humility will bring glory to Christ rather than yourself.
So show your strength by your service. Use your muscles not to be blessed but
to bless! Like I said earlier, modesty is a heart issue. If your fight in this
life is to love God and others more than yourself then you will care about your
purity and the influence you have on your sisters in Christ. Please care for us
just as we care for you in this area.”
"Anything
that you wear [or don't] which draws attention away from your face is
immodest."
“This is
spot on. It's the one thing that has always bothered me about the modesty
survey and the whole modesty doctrine. Women shoulder the blame for men's sin,
and men are completely let off the hook. I grew up hearing that boys want sex
and girls want love, and that boys are more visually stimulated than girls, but
I have never once found that to be true. A lot of girls in the church, myself
included, would feel alone when we find ourselves struggling with lust. If I
see an attractive guy, especially one at the beach, that's where my eyes go.
Period. Obviously, my lust is my responsibility, and I would never think of
blaming the man in this case. Why, then, are men generally let off the hook?
Thank you for finally waking up to this issue. This needs to be heard.”
“Wow, I just
almost cried in the library . . . *ahem* Anyway. I think with guys, as with
girls, modesty is mostly a heart issue. If you're wearing something to show off
your body, it is more likely to be immodest. Also, common sense. If the
clothing you're wearing would be a problem for you if it was on a girl,
consider that on you it may be a problem for girls. Most of the time it is
really awkward for me if guys walk around shirtless when they are not at the
beach, its almost as if they are trying to show off. It also makes me
uncomfortable when guys sit with their legs extremely wide open. Really
distracting.”
“As a single
girl in my mid-20s, yes, at times it is a tough battle to keep eyes and heart
pure, and takes a lot of prayer and eyes-down-moments. There are only a couple
of things really - things out of correct context like shirt unbuttoned too far,
muscle shirts/close fitting collared shirts, and hanging out shirtless (in the
water is okay - but not very sun-safe anyway!!) coupled with the guy's attitude
and stance.”
“The point
of modesty is to dress not for yourself, but for Christ? Even if your intent is
to dress confidently, that doesn't mean that it won't be perceived as immodest
by girls who are visually stimulated, and who are caused to stumble in their
walk with the Lord. For example, the boy I'm dating (and hope to marry) is very
skinny, and I find him very attractive! I don't think it's fair for girls to
have to worry about the length of their skirts, or the highness of their
collars, in the name of modesty, when guys can just say "I find a shirt
uncomfortable" and do whatever they want? God's law is God's law, and
should apply to both guys and girls!”
“It just
annoys me when girls have such high standards, yet guys get off scotch free on
such issues. My college for instance: They want girls to be feminine and
modest. "Leave the guys something to the imagination." yet girls
don't have one??? It's like, come on, people!”
“All people
are different, and we all react differently to situations. Saying that all
girls will react such-and-such a way to something is a stereotype, and isn’t
necessarily true. So the best thing (in my opinion) is to look to God to honor
Him in all decisions rather than trying to please all people. I am a girl. I am
very visually and kinesthetically stimulated, and I have quite the imagination,
so if I so much as try to control my brain myself rather than giving it to God,
my mind will wander into unwanted territory. Thank you, for getting this
conversation going.”
“Thanks for
the article! I see this double standard a lot. I think guys are missing it by
saying that it's immodest for a girl to wear her sports bra to work out and
they go shirtless or with one of those shirts cut down the sides. I don't want
to show my body like that until I get married. But I think it's harder for a
guy to go to the pool and cover up. I was a swimmer for many years and I'm used
to seeing guys in speedos and I can honestly say I had a difficult time
sometimes. I was attracted to their abs and girls would giggle if they had cute
butts or not. I'm not sure if wearing a shirt at the pool is the answer, but I
can say that wearing it as much as possible would be helpful! . . .
Response to the above comment . .
. why should a guy have to help you??- let him wear what is comfortable to him-
if speedos ensure the highest speed and it his swimming is his calling then you
are actually interfering with God by trying to deem some things as modest and
not others. Also different things can cause lust- some girls are turned off by
speedoes and attracted to suits- should men then be banned from suits?- good
luck with that…I think this is an excellent point. Asking men and women to
dress a certain way to help us with our own sin is even more sinful. Modest
dress is a cultural thing, not a biblical one. Your attitude and your
intentions are much more important than your dress.”
“First off,
thank you for writing this article. Some of my hardest moments have been with
Christian males, who don't seem bothered at all with how they are presenting
themselves in front of girls…I understand that guys who work out are proud of
the results, but if a female were to act the same way, she would be labelled
immodest immediately. If more men would stop and ask themselves (and God) what
message they are actually sending by acting/dressing in a certain manner, it
would go a really long way. Honestly though, (and here I'm addressing the
ladies who have been so witty and sarcastic and funny, but irreverent just the
same). Please show a semblance of respect for some people who have serious
struggles in this area. I think it is a lot a matter of respect, for guys and
girls. Respecting the other and making it easy on them and also respecting
their body by keeping our mind under control. It is definitely a heart issue
and has to do with loving one another and desiring to serve God with our bodies
and thoughts.”
“I
absolutely agree here. Girls are definitely attracted to guys' bodies and it's
frustrating that we always have to be conscious of modesty when guys don't seem
to be held to the same standard.”
“Basically,
the same principles of modesty that apply to girls should apply to guys as
well. WHAT you wear is always important, but also HOW you wear it and your
attitude about it. That makes a big difference. Please just try to treat us as
you'd like us to treat you. Thank you for this post, it was really great!”
“A big
hearty thank you for writing this! I've been waiting for someone to address
this topic. I get pretty frustrated when guys expect the girls around them to
dress modestly when they don't give a rip to how they are being a huge
stumbling block themselves. Guys definitely need to be more sensitive and
examine their motives.”
“Kudos for
posting this article . . . I can't even begin to tell you what a relief it is
to know that I am not the only person on earth who struggles with guys dressing
immodestly. I know that it is hard for me to go to a concert where some guy is
wearing skinny jeans, it is just hard.”
“I would
bring up a double standard, and at the moment I can't remember if you addressed
it or not--when it's assumed that men lust, and it's not addressed as
embarrassing and disrespectful to the women, but when a woman admits her sinful
desires for men, it is often looked on as inappropriate and perverted. Women
have eyes, too, and they struggle with a lot of the same sin issues. Bringing
women into the discussion makes us feel appreciated and respected, so thank
you, Brett, for your humility and bravery in posting this article. I am also
very pleased and surprised to find no negative or bitter-sounding comments on
this post so far!”
“Thanks so
much for posting this! It's ironic. I was just talking to a girlfriend about
modesty . . . And for me, it is embarrassing to admit that I'm very affected to
how guys dress. I go to a Bible college and I feel that if I bring something up
about male modesty, I'll be seen as a pervert of women. I'm sure that has a lot
to do with my insecurities... but I do, at least in this environment, feel that
pressure. Girls are seen as very innocent and pure, or not.”
“Exactly! It
is embarrassing and scary for me to admit my sin in this area--as a matter of
fact, I've kept it as secret as I possibly could the entire four years I
struggled intensely with this issue. It hurts me, then, when the lust of men is
excused as either the woman is not dressed modestly enough, or as 'boys will be
boys', quoting from Ann Voskamp's letter to her son. I would call that
disrespectful toward women, and I feel hurt that my sins are magnified and
theirs are made to look smaller--in God's eyes every sin is just as big as any
other.”
“I don't
think it's ridiculous for guys to wear shirts over their suits. I would never
swim topless (talk about immodesty!) or even in a bikini. And if a guy thinks
his bare chest and stomach is less of a stumbling block than mine... well, he
should spend some time looking through my eyes . . .
Response to the above comment .
. . Yep! Awesome point! That's why (among other reasons), I always wear a shirt
when I'm swimming in mixed company. It's showing the same respect that we ask
to be shown to us.”
“You put
this so well! Thanks for your input. I know that many girls struggle with
physical lust just as much (just differently) than guys. I have many friends
who have tons of pics of celebs shirtless, or in really tight clothes.”
“Guys who
wear button down shirts too buttoned down. College guys seem to like to have
that "white collar look" of a nice dress shirt unbutton just one
botton shy of the normal "dress-casual open collar look". It feels a
little flirtatious or at least temps ladies to look there. Also guys need to be
aware of how they sit. There is a social acceptance to guys sitting with legs
spread. No problem there, but when sitting right across from a lady...do us a
favor guys...close the legs a little please. You don't have to sit like Pee-wee
Herman but a little consideration would be helpful. Great article. It is about
time I think we start balancing the conversation. Thanks!”
“Yes!
Postures is important to us girls. As said, please close your legs if sitting
across from a girl.” {End of Comments}
These
comments reveal how women do in fact lust because of tight jeans, sitting with
legs spread apart, bending over in jeans. These are stumbling blocks because
“the area” (as one lady posted), is not covered. They communicate that women are offended and
disrespected by men's dress or lack of dress.
They reveal a double standard.
"And
Jesus said, For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not
might see; and that they which see might be made blind. And some of the
Pharisees which were with him heard these words, and said unto him, Are we
blind also? Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but
now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth" (John 9:39-41). If you endorse a hypocritical standard, and
you see your immodesty as modest, and you justify yourself when confronted
about these things, your sins of hypocrisy and immodesty will remain.
I hope those
comments above, coupled together with Biblical examples, and the many
Scriptures which call men to modesty of heart, will help men to understand
their need to be modest. As sincere men
of God we must take these things seriously.
"And do
ye all things without murmurings and disputings: That you may be blameless and
sincere children of God, without reproof, in the midst of a crooked and
perverse generation: among whom you shine as lights in the world"
(Philippians 2:14-15). "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should
do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets"
(Matthew 7:12). These scriptures cover "all of the above" concerning
the issue of modesty.
As many as
walk according to the truth in this document (God knows all of what is true),
peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.
Sincerely,
David Valderrama
Dear Reader,
please consider what you have read. You now only have two directions you can
go: backwards or forwards.
I have other
chapters I would like to add if I have time which will include more Scripture,
History, and Reason, Lord willing.
No comments:
Post a Comment
“Reason dictates that persons who are truly noble and who love wisdom will honor and love only what is true. They will refuse to follow traditional viewpoints if those viewpoints are worthless...Instead, a person who genuinely loves truth must choose to do and speak what is true, even if he is threatened with death...I have not come to flatter you by this written petition, nor to impress you by my words. I have come to simply beg that you do not pass judgment until you have made an accurate and thorough investigation. Your investigation must be free of prejudice, hearsay, and any desire to please the superstitious crowds. As for us, we are convinced that you can inflict no lasting evil on us. We can only do it to ourselves by proving to be wicked people. You can kill us—but you cannot harm us.” From Justin Martyr's first apology 150 A.D. Martyred A.D. 160