Laurie A. Moyer

The Emperor walked proudly down the city street. He believed he was wearing the finest clothing in the kingdom. He was at the forefront of fashion. He would be the envy of all who saw him. His friends and advisors told him he "looked maaarvalous." He only had one problem--he was naked! Only a little child had the courage to speak out and say what the rest were thinking. We need more little children in our society today. These would be people who are child-like and unsophisticated enough to make an honest appraisal of what we are wearing and have enough love to question their propriety if needed.

In order to have a fair and accurate basis for any such judgment we must look for more than just a line which must not be crossed. So much has been focused upon the "how-fars" of clothing when speaking of modest apparel that we may have lost sight of the forest for the trees. Consider for a moment with me the basic meaning of modesty; and perhaps the amount of skin you show will be easier to determine.

Modesty

1 Timothy 2:9 tells us to wear modest apparel. Modesty has always been seen as an ability to blush. It is having a sense of humility and is the opposite of pride. Modesty says, "I am not as important as the things and people around me." In our society today we definitely do not hold out modesty as a virtue. Many school systems have as their stated primary goal to develop "self esteem" within their students. We are told to assert ourselves and stand up for our rights. This is not the philosophy to live by that I see in Philippians 2:3-4 where I am told to "consider others better than" myself. Modesty does not try to draw undo attention to itself. It is happy to be "the fly on the wall" and not thrust itself upon others. The key to becoming comfortable with this way of behaving would seem to be humility, for it is the proud who become braggarts.

In any other context we would say modesty is moderation. A man living upon modest means is not excessive. A modest enterprise is sufficient to meet the need, but not flamboyant. Can we apply this pattern?

How can your clothing be considered modest? Only if it reflects this attitude which we should have toward ourselves and the others around us. The first requirement on modest clothing is that it not draw undo attention to the wearer. This is a matter of absolute definition. Attention given someone by virtue of what they wear must to some extent be relative to their environment and culture. In this way we are required to be aware of what society sees as "acceptable." Wearing my wedding dress to plow my garden or go to the thrift store would be, by definition, immodest. It has nothing to do with how much skin the clothing covers but rather whether or not it is appropriate. The context of 1 Timothy 2:9,10 and 1 Peter 3:1-4 both are clearly dealing with a prohibition against wearing too much, not too little. I say "too much," not to refer to what is covered, but what does the covering. A top hat and tails in a congregation where the richest member wears flannel is too much. I honestly think we do not consider this principle often enough in the context of the make-up, jewelry or even colors which we wear. Am I saying we should not wear any of these things? No, just that what ever we do choose must be in moderation, and not be that which would immediately draw undue attention to ourselves.

Though relativity must by every definition be involved in determining modesty at some point, it is also clearly not the primary indicator. Cultural historians tell us that in Greek society the fashion among wealthy women was to braid gold into their hair and wear their togas draped in a particularly alluring way. 1 Timothy 2:9 can be seen as instruction for these Christian women not to conform to the "acceptable" though lavish customs of the day because they showed an improper emphasis on the outward person. This is very different from saying that if a particular piece of clothing is accepted by society that makes it all right for us to wear. The pitfall here is only too clear. In order for something to be allowed as modest, it must first be acceptable by God’s standard of what should be modest. For a better understanding of this we must study God’s view of nakedness.

Nakedness

When God created man and woman in the beginning they did not come with a wardrobe. That was the ideal world. Privately, between a husband and wife, no inhibitions should exist because that is the proper context for which sexual matters where created (Gen. 2:25; Heb. 13:4; Prov. 5:18,19). After the sin of Gen. 3 the first action after pronouncing their punishments was for God to provide clothing to cover their nakedness and establish a precedent for all mankind. God has been abundantly clear on the fact that the public viewing of nakedness is a shame. Consider Micah 1:11; Eze. 23:29; Rev. 16:15; Job 24:10; Gen. 9:22,23; Lev . 18:7-19; Lam. 1:8; and Rev. 3:18. God requires that nakedness be covered (Ex. 20:26; 28:42-43; Isa. 58:7; Eze. 16:8;18:7,16; Hos. 2:9).

Nakedness is shameful, but what constitutes being naked? Try this food for thought: Adam knew he had sinned and tried to cover himself with the loin covering of fig leaves, yet he still said he was naked - an assessment which God did not dispute (Gen. 3:7-11). There is obviously more to being naked than being without any clothing. Thayer says it is "scantily clad" and Arndt-Gingrich include "poorly dressed." Take another look at what God made for man to wear in Gen. 3. Adam made a "loin covering" which God replaced with a "tunic." Wilson and Gesenius define the word as generally covering from the shoulder to the knee. The priests where told to cover their thighs or they would be naked (Ex. 28:42) and the figure of shame in Isaiah 47:1-3 includes uncovering the thigh. Peter recognized that though he could fish in the relative privacy of his boat on the sea without outer garments, he reclothed himself before going ashore to meet the Lord. (Proving that you can swim just fine with some clothes on.) I have a very hard time dismissing these precedents when attempting to make a biblical definition of sufficient clothing.

Nakedness is a shame in and of itself without regard to the response of those viewing it. It is invalid for anyone to say scanty clothing is all right because "no one would lust after me." Although dress could contribute to the sin of lust and should be condemned for it, God does not say nakedness is wrong just because of the response it may provoke in the opposite sex. He just says it is wrong. The response factor is a huge motivation for being careful of what we wear, but it seems unwarranted to assume that could be the only reason.

Having said that, it is impossible to ignore the fact that the clothing you wear, or fail to wear, will have an effect on the people around you. God has made the sexes to be attracted to and aroused by both view and touch of the opposite compliment. The stumbling block you place before another is a direly serious matter (Matt. 18:6,7; Luke 17:1; Rom. 14:13,21; I Cor. 10:23,24). You cannot flaunt something to which God has designed there be a particular response among the opposite sex and then say it is their fault if they feel that way. Yes, there are perverts in the world who think of nothing else with no justification, but the rest of us deserve the respect of not being pushed in that direction.

Why so strong? Because the consequences are serious and our society has done such a thorough job of desensitizing itself to the issue. That is unfortunate. It should never be seen as an accomplishment of society to have developed beyond the common recognition of what God calls nakedness. In all honesty, I am not so sure we have reached the point of not knowing what is provocative to the opposite sex. I think we just enjoy the experience and vanity so much we want to ignore it’s natural consequences and effects.

Not Your Own

The most important factor behind being careful of what you wear is that, in truth, it is not your body. Your body is God’s (1 Cor. 6:18-20), and in His wise judgment you should be careful. Second only to that we must see that our bodies belong to our spouses (1 Cor. 7:3-5). If you were to take an object belonging to another and use it in an unauthorized way, particularly one detrimental to its intended purpose, you would be called a thief or embezzler. You dare not misuse something which does not even belong to you.

Secondly, over-exposure is profanity. When you take something dedicated to a special purpose and use it in a common way that is, by definition, profaning it. Your body was given to you with its sexual side to be used by and for only one person-your spouse. To take that body and allow the public full or provocative view of it is to make sex a common (profane) thing.

It should also be abundantly clear that one can be immodest not only because of what they wear, but how they act. Consider how you carry yourself. Even more difficult, consider how you speak. The volume level, amount and timing of our comments can make us stand out in an immodest way. When I see myself or others becoming the center of attention because of behavior, there should be a sense of embarrassment.

If modesty is, as Thayer defines it, partly self-control, then I must become more aware of what I am doing, how I am dressing, and how others are reacting toward those two things. I, as a Christian, am to be trying to show Christ to the world (Col . 1:27; Gal. 2:20). Displaying any other priority by virtue of what I wear or how I act is to disrespect the blood of the One who bought me (I Cor. 6:19-20).