III. THE OUTSIDE: DRESSING IN MODESTY
Let's go on a little farther with dress. Paul writes in I Timothy 2:9 "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." Modesty brings us to another point. First, what is modesty? The Greek word for modesty is kosmios
(Strong's 2887) which means well arranged, seemly, modest. Seemly is defined as appropriate and is
synonymous with right, proper, and fitting.
Modest, in one sense, is the opposite of arrogance. It is synonymous with humble in our English
language. The application here is to
the value of the clothing in terms of dollars.
That is, the Christian should not be “flashy.” They should not flaunt their wealth by dressing
extravagantly. Matthew Henry
comments: “Those
that profess godliness should, in their dress, as well as other things, act as
becomes their profession; instead of laying out their money on fine clothes,
they must lay it out in works of piety and charity, which are properly called
good works.”
I agree that dressing in “modest apparel” does admonish us not to dress in order to show wealth. The second part of I Timothy 2:9 ends with “gold, or pearls, or costly array.” (I will discuss these topics in a later section concerning adding to the body.) This clearly has a connection back to the beginning of the verse opening with “modest apparel.” There should not be lower class, middle class, or upper class designations in the church. These classifications are of man and have as their purpose to separate people. Christianity has as its purpose to unite people. The Cross of Christ puts us on level ground in terms of wealth. There are many other Scriptures that teach us about the appropriate uses and attitudes of possessing wealth.
There are those who take an extreme position that modesty
only applies to the aspects of wealth.
However, I think much more is implied here in this Scripture as well as
in other Scriptures. Along with
simplicity in dress, decency is important as well. Modesty means moderation, sobriety,
decency, sensibleness, or sound judgment (NET Notes, Bible Explorer). Noah Webster uses the word decency in his translation: “In like manner also, that women
adorn themselves in decent apparel, with modesty and sobriety; not with
broidered hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array” (Noah Webster Version
1833).
Thus we see the portion of Scripture concerning “modest apparel” to imply decency and the following portion of the Scripture to make the connection to “shamefacedness and sobriety.” This brings out the remainder of the intended message being conveyed.
The same Greek word (kosmios) is translated as
"of good behavior" in I Timothy 3:2 when discussing the
qualifications of a bishop. This makes
it even clearer that modesty is much more than the value of our clothing, but
also applies to additional messages other than wealth that can be conveyed in
attire. According to Bill Burkett, in
Section XVIII on "Visible Purity" in his book on Principles of
Purity (1987), "Modesty in a woman puts a stop to unwholesome erotic
enticement. Modesty simply means to
disallow the display of sex attraction in or on one's person”
(www.actsion.com).
Before I go any farther, I caution that I may get a
little explicit for some. However, I
find it necessary to define the outside clearly. You must keep in mind that some of the younger generation has
never been taught what modesty means.
There has been a failure of the "aged (older) women to teach the
younger women" as instructed in Scripture so the "word of God be not
blasphemed” (Titus 2:3-5). There has
also been a failure of pastors to preach from the pulpit, and enforce within
the church offices, standards that are unquestionably modest.
Many will respond simply that a dress is modest apparel
for females. But, can a female wear a
dress and yet be immodest? Most
definitely she can. This is one trick
of Satan. Our young "modern"
females of today may submit to a dress, but it lacks modesty. How can you distinguish what is modest? Well, as I heard one preacher say, "If
there is nothing left to imagine, but all is exposed or outlined,
it is immodest." There are two key
words in this statement: exposed and
outlined. Here is where so many
fail. They assume that because they are
covered that they are modest. Yet, the
body is outlined improperly. We see
women every day and occasionally in the church who look like they must pry
themselves into and out of their clothing.
Sisters please wear a dress that is appropriately sized and not two
sizes too small and you will not appear enticing to men. This is a simple definition, but the
application of this preacher’s definition would certainly eliminate many
dresses from our sisters’ closets.
Modesty in terms of exposure should be easily
discerned. If you are showing areas of
your body that only the doctor, your husband, and your father when you were a
child should see, it is immodest. A
dress or skirt that shows the thighs is very much too short. The thighs are certainly sexual in
nature. Any time a woman wants to look
“sexy” she bares a thigh by a split or by a short skirt, shorts, etc. It has been preached before and should be
preached more often, your dress is only as long as the highest split. Therefore, a long dress with a high split
can be just as immodest as a short dress.
Keep in mind, God called you to be modest not sexy. We should not have to turn our heads if you
sit on the platform of the church. I
have experienced this in the church and it just shouldn't happen in the church,
or out of the church for that matter, with a Christian.
Consider the following:
“The problem lies in determining at what point a dress becomes too
short, or unquestionably immodest.
A dress is unquestionably immodest when you sit down, and it is not long
enough to drape down over your knees. The reason for this is rather obvious
when you sit across the room from a woman dressed like that. Only a man who
likes to lust, or a woman who wants men’s eyes upon her, would argue this
point” (Liberty Gospel Tracts,
http://www.pathwaynet.com/libertyb/biblecrs/cappear/cappear2.htm).
If you cannot sit comfortably
without showing your knees, it is immodest.
Cover up! If it has split that
allows visibility above the knee, sew it up!
If she won't cover up or sew it up, pastors please don’t invite her to
the platform or put her in a Sunday School office until she learns the
principle and value of modesty.
Too often the men are excluded from the preaching of
modesty, but the same goes for males.
Pants that look like they might split any moment are immodest. What are you trying to prove? Brother, buy some loose fitting jeans, dress
pants, or casual slacks, but don't wear clothes that outline your body in an
immodest way. Sitting can be an issue
for males as well as females. Brothers,
be gentlemen when choosing position or posture upon being seated.
And keep the buttons above the chest. That movie-star look is for Hellywood (Or is
that Hollywood?), not the man of God.
An unbuttoned or low shirt on men is not a sign of masculinity, but of
vanity. Who are you trying to
impress?
I would like to
just briefly address another factor that I believe may have been introduced to
clothing deceptively. It pertains to
patterns in clothing material, especially lines. When I took Appreciation of Art in college, I was taught that
lines were used in paintings and such to draw one’s attention into the picture
to the primary focus point. Just by
looking at the object or picture, your brain follows the lines, cornering, etc.
toward the focus point. I believe some
designers are using this technique to purposely draw visual attention to
anatomical parts that are considered sexual and therefore enticing to the
casual observer. This could then in
turn incite lust in the observer. I
don't want to go overboard here, but I wanted to share this observation. This may be something you want to be careful
about.
Now let’s consider the neckline for females. I've already said, "Men, button
up"! Christians don't want to see
your chest. Again, I hope you can cope
with my bluntness, but I have met females in the church dressed in such a
fashion that I had to turn my head.
They especially cannot bend over lest they expose themselves. And, dear God help us if she starts dancing
and shouting. The Spirit of God is nowhere
near these displays of carnality.
Consider the following:
“At what point can we definitely say that a neckline is immodest?
Ladies can do a very simple test in the bathroom to find out — simply bend
forward in front of a mirror. If you can see a part of your anatomy that a man
(or your children and other children) should not see, then you are dressed
immodestly. Women try to defend their
low tops and say, ‘Well I never bend over that far in front of people!’ But the
truth is that they do many times. They do when they bend over to pick up their
purses; when they fix their shoes; when they bend over to hug or pick up
children, etc. The mirror will tell the truth as to what a multitude of other
men, women, and children are seeing all of the time”
(Liberty Gospel Tracts,
http://www.pathwaynet.com/libertyb/biblecrs/cappear/cappear2.htm).
Where are the aged women who should be teaching these
younger women? Where are the mothers
that should govern their daughters’ dressing habits to prevent such lewd
fashions? Where are the pastors who
with wisdom will cry out against such attire?
Concerning a female Christian, this should never be a matter for the
public. I said never. If that top is too low, pin it together or
cover it up and don't uncover in public.
If it can't be made modest, get rid of it. Don't allow it to lay around tempting you during a weak moment in
your life. Rest assured weak moments
will come and Satan can wait until his opportunity knocks. I understand the difficulty in finding
appropriate clothing in this modernistic, flesh-craving world, but it can be
done and should be done. Cover up!
Along with the hemline and neckline, the type of fabric
the clothing is made from should also be a consideration. It would seem obvious that clothing that can
be seen through would be deemed as inappropriate and immodest for anyone who
claims the name of Christ and calls themselves Christian, but it isn’t so easy
to convince those exposed to modern thinking.
Clothing which covers the body appropriately but is made of
light-colored or thin fabrics can give the impression of modesty. However, caution should be exercised when
purchasing these types of fabrics.
Fabric that leaves the skin or undergarments visible is not acceptable
under the definition of modesty.
Concerning sleeves, I don't go so far as to say that
long-sleeves are a must for male or female.
Remember, I said I would present a balanced approach. If you are what I term ultra-conservative, I
hope you don't close the book. I am not
finished. I have respect for your
position of never putting on anything without sleeves. However, I think to put more on the people
than they can bear and more than you can prove by Scripture is unwise. We must consider if long sleeves are a
requirement or a personal decision. I
have not made a connection between the lower arms being uncovered as being
"sexy." I have heard of sexy
legs, but never sexy arms. Personally,
I do not see the lower arm as being neither sexual in nature nor enticing to
the opposite sex. Perhaps such
temptation does exist, but I have never encountered the comment. I do make the distinction that uncovered
shoulders can be considered enticing. I
will discuss this below.
Long-sleeves often look very nice on either sex,
especially when "dressing up" for worship service. I very rarely attend church wearing
short-sleeves, especially when the congregation holds a “long sleeve”
standard. I do this in a large part as
not to offend a brother. But, I will
not go so far as to make it a requirement for myself and certainly I will not
make such demands on others that I cannot support by Scripture or logic. It doesn’t even seem reasonable to make such
demands. Dressing to the wrist can be a
personal conviction if you desire to place yourself under such demands, but I
do not find any support for it scripturally or logically.
In fact, I find it illogical to take standards to the
extreme just to claim your "Holiness" standard is beyond that of
another group or person. If this is so,
the females in the Middle East who cannot show anything but their face around
the eyes would be considered the most holy women in the world in the aspect of
modest dress. However, most of you
would agree that the Middle East position is extreme and unnecessary. It is my opinion that requiring long-sleeves
is extending the standard beyond what is necessary.
I remember a message that I heard
preached. The preacher was obviously
sincere. He initiated his message with,
and continued to refer back to the statement that, “God has given me this
message.” As well, he also reminded the
congregation repeatedly that God wanted this particular congregation to move up
to a higher level of Holiness standard.
The congregation was complimented on their current standard, but
exhorted to move on to “perfection.” He
named such things as men with facial hair, long sleeves, and other things along
these lines. I did not have facial
hair, I had on long sleeves and my life measured up for the most part with what
the preacher was preaching. There were
men with facial hair in the congregation.
One left during the preaching.
There was a woman insulted in a different matter by the preaching as
well. She left with the statement,
“That’s enough. I won’t be back.” The service was disturbed when she exited in
a flurry. The preacher made a sarcastic
comment and continued blasting away.
I left the service wondering about
many things. Was the message in fact
“from God”? Were these God’s standards
or man’s? Did the preacher want me to
be more like Christ or more like him?
Some of the standards that were preached were in fact Biblical. However, Scripture did not support
others. I concluded that the preacher
was a bit over zealous. I believe he
realized this, but was so deep he couldn’t pull out. It appeared that he was taking the standards that had been handed
down to him and felt it was his duty to pass them on to everyone. Yet, he did not supply Biblical support for
many of the standards and even lacked the appropriate spirit in which to preach
on such delicate issues.
I am not casting stones at this
brother. I have hope that he learned
from the experience. I believe in
Holiness standards, but I am not in favor of propagating standards that are not
Biblically supported. Neither do I
support the preaching of any message in the wrong spirit. When we submit to non-Biblical standards
presented by individuals who say it is required by God, we do become more like them,
but do we become more like Him?
These extreme standards can go beyond what God Himself
requires and therefore can become a burden which one was never meant to
bear. I believe some of our unsupported
extreme positions have lead to justified complaints from the world that we are
following "traditions of men."
Also, I feel that backsliding by some individuals within the church was
initiated by, or at least a contributing factor of, the fact that the standard
was beyond the Bible. Therefore they
“just couldn’t live it” because God was not supporting them in this standard
and their will power was not sufficient.
When their will power failed, so did their experience in the church that
demanded so much by peer pressure. They
were then left to themselves (excommunicated), as one who had failed God and
the church.
I have seen this happen and it shouldn’t be this
way. The church that claimed to love
them now scorns them. These situations
do happen. Is this what God intends to
happen? I appreciate what one preacher,
with wisdom beyond his years, said, “I will never take standard over the blood
of Jesus Christ.” No, this does not
mean that standards go out the window.
To me, it means that some standards are not God’s standards. Also, God is more patient with individuals
who are truly born-again and living to the best of their knowledge and ability
than we are.
When our "Holiness" becomes our salvation, we
no longer have salvation, but we now possess only religion. At this point, we have been converted to the
works of righteousness alone that is insufficient to justify men before
God. Having begun in the Spirit, we now
try to attain perfection by finishing in the flesh (Galations 3:3). Please keep these last lines in remembrance
as you encounter other cases where I express my concern that we are asking more
of our fellow Christians than God is asking.
I do draw the line on sleeves with the sleeveless. Sleeveless attire is inappropriate for
either sex. It exposes the chest,
shoulders and the sides beneath the arms.
This appearance clearly leans toward the sexual attraction arena along
the same lines as showing thighs and lowering the neckline. What the world defines as evening gowns,
sundresses and the like, often are sleeveless in order to expose the body in a
seductive style. We need sanctification
in the Body of Christ not seduction. We
should concern ourselves with covering the shoulders and down the upper arm
toward the elbow.
After all that has been said thus far, it is nearly
needless to even address short pants on either sex. Shorts do not distinguish between the sexes. And, they clearly expose the thighs of
individuals and thus portray the immodest look. Shorts are very much exposing and therefore enticing to the
opposite sex. Again, we are not looking
to seduce, but to witness the holiness of Christ and His body. This cannot be accomplished dressing
immodestly. Here's a word of advice
from Liz Graf to the sisters which summarizes much of what has already been
said: "Open, low necklines,
sleeveless tops and dresses, short and slit skirts and dresses, tight slinky,
form-fitting attire and pants or shorts, have no place in a Christian woman's
wardrobe"
(www.techplus.com/bkjv1611/bd0044.htm).
And lastly, concerning dress, how can any clear thinking
Christian put on swimwear? Brother, if
exposing your chest with an unbuttoned shirt is immodest and sleeveless is
immodest, how can we even consider going without a shirt and in a pair of swim
trunks?
Sister, a one-piece is not even close to modest. You might spare us the bikini, but you are
far too exposed in a bathing suit.
Would you walk around in your underwear? What's the difference between swimwear and underwear? Oh, swimwear is more colorful and designed
to take exposure to water and dry quickly.
Underwear, swimwear, they look the same to me.
I can't understand the mentality being exercised for a
man or woman to dress appropriately in all, or even almost all, situations and
then hit their backyard or a beach with their body exposed. Please listen. I am trying to instruct you in a more perfect way, not bash your
lifestyle. Sure, I know, you can go to
a crowded beach and not lust after the opposite sex walking all around in their
near nakedness. I have heard that
excuse before. I really doubt it.
Let’s just pretend you could go to the public swimming
pool or beach and not be affected by the nakedness that you see. What is going to prevent some other
unregenerate individual from lusting after you? It doesn't matter if you are old or lacking very much in beauty,
someone will be looking. You will still
become a partaker in sin if you expose yourself in such a way as to lure
another to look and lust.
Not only did Paul say to be modest, but also "with
shamefacedness." The Greek word
for shamefacedness, aidos (Strong's 127), means a sense of shame or
honor, modesty, bashfulness, reverence, regard for others, respect. How can you peel off and have any respect
for yourself or others? Especially when
the swimsuits of today are so near nudity, what Christian can lay it honestly
before the Lord and not cleanse the closet of anything resembling such? I shouldn't have to even discuss it. Preachers should not even have to preach
it. But, our Neo-Pentecostal (charismatic)
generation claims to have the fullness of the Spirit of God along with the
operation of the gifts and yet be fully associated with the world. There are those who might claim to meditate
on the Lord or even receive prophesy while sunning in their swimsuit on the
beach in the middle of numerous near-naked individuals. I don’t believe it for a minute. Such things are not in order and God is not
the author of your confusion. The
Spirit of God and the Word of God are not in contradiction. The Spirit will not bless what the Word
condemns.
I challenge you to seek the Lord in complete honesty
about this and other matters that have been discussed thus far as we move on to
our next topic of male hairstyle.