The Myth of Modesty

What is the first thing that springs to mind when you think of the word 'modesty'? Who is required to be modest and why? It is likely that you first thought of women dressing in a way that does not draw attention to their body. A moderate western conservatism would be avoiding low fronted tops or short skirts and the extreme versions of this of course being women in burkhas, required to cover every part of their body apart from their eyes, which must be lowered.

I cannot comment with any authority on the religious imperative on Muslim women to wear the burkha other than to say that the spectrum to which modesty is adopted in Islam suggests that there is much in there about culture and regional adoption rather than simply a religious edict.

But what about Christians? What about modesty and clothing in the Christian faith? First lets go to the Bible and see what there is to say.

1 Tim 2:9-10

Likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, but with what is proper for women who profess godliness—with good works.

1 Peter 3:3-4

Do not let your adorning be external—the braiding of hair and the putting on of gold jewellery, or the clothing you wear— but let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God's sight is very precious.

1 Peter 5:5-6

Likewise, you who are younger, be subject to the elders. Clothe yourselves, all of you, with humility toward one another, for “God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.”

Taking these verses literally but not giving the same weight to verses around it is poor hermeneutics. Not a few verses earlier we are told that women can only be saved in childbearing and we are happy to accept this does not apply to all women for all time so why apply the same to the verses about apparel? The Bible talks far more in conceptual language about the clothing of a woman. In fact the only people in the bible who were required to cover up from neck to foot was the priests in Exodus 28. So lets examine these verses, starting with 1 Timothy 2, verses 9 to 10. As always where there is a 'likewise', we should look to what went before. 

In verse 8, the men are instructed, that when they pray, they must do so with hands raised and without anger and quarrelling. They are to consider their inner posture before approaching God in prayer, deal with matters of the heart first. LIKEWISE, women... So this is talking about women coming to God in prayer in the same way. Consider the words anger and modesty. I would suggest they are addressing the same thing. Anger oftentimes arises from a sense of personal or otherwise perceived injustice. We know that anger in and of itself is not a sin, but we are instructed that IN our anger not to sin. This is self control. Modesty is defined as self control. To be modest in heart is to not consider yourself more important than another, to be unassuming, refuse credit, to be moderate, to not inflict yourself on another in a way that causes pain. So to women who come to prayer, who are, in that sense 'professing godliness', they are to be, as are men, modest and moderate, thoughtful and considered towards others. 1 Peter 3 shifts the focus from outward adornments to inward adornments, not that these items are forbidden to all, but that they, in themselves should not be the expressions of our hearts. The godly woman in Proverbs 31 is praised for enabling her family to be well dressed with expensive material. It is not about the item, it is about the heart.

It is interesting in Exodus 28 that the description of the clothes the priests were to wear is exactly what the women in Timothy are urged not to wear. This brings me to my next point about the cultural context of the church the book of Timothy is addressing. Ephesus had a culture steeped in female dominance and spirituality, men could be priests but they would have to renounce their masculinity in order to do so (Edwards 2013). Paul was warning against the leaning towards historical spirituality and addressing a certain issue raised in the emerging church. It is possible that these particular women were raising themselves above others, adopting the apparel worn by the early priests as a sign up spiritual superiority. Except now, in Christ we are all priests and it has nothing to do with the clothes we wear. These women were seeking to elevate themselves. This is not modesty. The outworking of their immodesty was in the clothes they wore which pointed to defunct matriarchal hierarchies and the historical emphasis on religious dress which was meant to demonstrate value. It wasn't about the clothes, it was about their heart.

In 1 Peter we are given a direct commandment about how we are to clothe ourselves and it says nothing about the type of linen, the way we style our hair or the jewellery we put on. We are to clothe ourselves with humility toward one another, not elevating ourselves above others in line with the culture of THIS world, of which we are encouraged to not conform ourselves (Romans 12:2).

Now lets address the WHY.

Why then has an incorrect version of modesty been pushed on women? The argument often falls to not 'causing a brother to stumble' (Romans 14:20). In terms of modesty, this has been generally translated into women must cover themselves SO THAT men are not caused to stumble in lust. As discussed, this is not what modesty is about so why then have modesty and the effect on men been inextricably linked to the extent that women are seen as responsible for the behaviour of men. It is worth noting here that violent sexual crime has nothing to do with what women wear and everything to do with power and the unbiblical patriarchal belief that women are owned possessions, objects to be used at will. If it was about clothes then women in burkhas would not be raped and sexually assaulted (they are), and women in jeans, jumpers and jackets would not be raped and sexually assaulted (they are).

My suggestion is that it is not about the clothes and all about another 'weapon' of the fallen misinterpretation of original patriarchy and the continued effort to subjugate and have authority over women. It is here for me that complementarianism fails to impress or convince. Headship only works in a perfect world. Complementarianism only really works if the man is, at all times, like Jesus. Which of course is impossible. Men are not like Jesus no matter how hard they try. Women are expected to conform to a way of living in which they are expected to submit to a man who has no hope (this side of the resurrection) of leading or being a 'head' like Jesus. And again the onus of failure is at the feet of the woman when of course the failure lies with both originally. In that sense, complementarianism does not exist.

Humans, in their natural state seek power. Early interpretations of Eves sin have paved the way for the positioning of her as the weaker, deceived party when in fact they were equally culpable for the fall. The fall resulted in tension in the relationship between Adam and Eve, creating a power dynamic which wasn't there before. A perfect version of complementarianism may well have existed before, but it was shattered at that moment and the fall out has caused nothing but grief between the sexes ever since. It is notable that Jesus did not come to 'fix' the fall but to bring a new covenant in line with the original creation story that had both Adam and Eve 'ruling' over the world together. Jesus demonstrated his equitable view of women time and time again, despite pressure from others to bow to the prevailing discourse at the time that women were second class citizens.

Over time this has resulted in women being in positions where they are less able to challenge and question the way things are done. It suits some complementarian narratives to hear that women must be silent and to ignore the numerous verses and occasions where women prophesy, lead, judge, teach and preach and explain those away as exceptions. In order to continue ensuring women do not step into a full understanding of Jesus' value of them, verses have been taken out of context and manipulated. Because if women fully see and hear Jesus then they will see the value and place he has for them. But this understanding is dangerous because it steers the focus of blame and human frailty back to men's feet which is uncomfortable for men. Far easier that women are to blame for lust. Men would then need to take responsibility for the fact that lust is their own problem, not the woman's and that they are required to control themselves.

Women are as much image bearers of God as men are. Both men and women are called to act with self control towards others. The are called not to lust after one another. Those instructions do not come with an appendix ... "But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart (See appendix.. unless she is dressed in a way which causes you to lust after her, in which case it is permissible because you can't help it, after all you are a male and that is how you are built) (Matthew 5:28). Of COURSE this isn't the case and it looks ridiculous when you see it written down like this but this is the message that is told to both women and men. Men are image bearers of God. They are called to protect, honour and cherish the females in their lives, in the same way that women are called to do the same.

To conclude...

Men and women are both called to be biblically modest. To have Godly self control and to check their hearts when they come to God in prayer.

Men and women are both called to honour others out of reverence for others positions as images bearers of God.

Looking on another person in lust is not the others problem. It is the matter of the observers heart.

Rape and sexual assault are never the result of immodesty on the part of the woman. Rape and sexual assault are the result of immodesty (desire for power) on the part of the perpetrator.

How then do you talk to your daughters and your sons about modesty? Regardless of your stance in terms of complementarianism or egalitarianism... With whom do you place the burden of responsibility for modesty? When you check your daughter on what she is wearing, where does that come from? Is it from a sense of getting her to take responsibility for others behaviour toward her? Or is it to help her to understand the fallen world we live in, where men have been conditioned to think that their own lustful behaviour is not their responsibility? Is it to help her to protect herself in a fallen world? I agree it is nuanced but it is so important because otherwise she will believe herself to be complicit in her own pain and trauma if, God forbid, she is subject to abuse. 

Dear Jesus please give me wisdom in how I teach my sons and daughter. Help me to steer them all to you so that they can see the only real example of what it is to love equitably. Help me to become more like you so that I can demonstrate you on earth... and forgive me where I fail. Help them to see others as image bearers and of such value that you laid down your life for them, as you did for them. Thank you Jesus that you lean into our pain and suffering, that you see our failings as men and women and despite what we deserve, want only for us to come to you. Amen.