Hermenuetics

Comments

THANK YOU SHM!

Posted By: Margot | December 15, 2011 9:52 AM

YES. Beautifully written. I want to memorize it and recite it verbatim every time I see one of those t-shirts.

Posted By: Devon | December 15, 2011 10:34 AM

"Women’s bodies are not inherently distracting or tempting. On the contrary, women’s bodies glorify God. Dare I say that a woman’s breasts, hips, bottom, and lips all proclaim the glory of the Lord! Each womanly part honors Him. He created the female body, and it is good."

This is awesome. Seems like after 2,000 years of Christian theology, we wouldn't have to keep saying this. But we do, we need to keep saying it over and over.

Thank you!

Posted By: Hannah | December 15, 2011 10:34 AM

Very well written article. Thank you for helping people not get caught up in good intentions that actually hurt more than they help. The church has a long way to go with regards to gender issues.

Posted By: P. Clark | December 15, 2011 10:41 AM

Oh! I love this!! Thank you Sharon!

Posted By: Natalie | December 15, 2011 10:43 AM

Fabulous post, Sharon. Thank you so much!

Posted By: Helen Lee | December 15, 2011 10:48 AM

Very well written.

Isaac Asimov wrote (several times) about a theory (that I'm sure he didn't originate): That Humans are tempted by that which is forbidden, regardless of what it is. That is, a topless woman doesn't attract attention because her breasts are exposed - she attracts attention because she is "topless" when most people aren't. Likewise, while we find it amusing today to imagine being attracted to someone due to a beautiful ankle, if ankles were to always be covered they would attain the same (well, similar) importance as breasts.

Posted By: Newly Karen | December 15, 2011 10:50 AM

Yes. "Modesty" should be taught as a way to honor the natural God-given, God-honoring beauty of the female body.

Posted By: Kristin | December 15, 2011 11:07 AM

Newly Karen -- that is certainly true. It's the first time I heard Isaac Asimov and Elizabeth Eliot agree on something. :)

My favorite quote from Sharon's article is: "Shame-based language is not the rhetoric of Jesus. It is the rhetoric of his Enemy." I am immediately convicted of saying "shame on you!" to my children when they do wrong. Not because I shouldn't discipline my children, but because I'm just copying the same words used on me when I was young, and I know what that did to me.

Posted By: Patrick | December 15, 2011 11:19 AM

Yes, Newly Karen, that is quite true. A sheath keeps a sword sharp as well as keeping it from cutting the wearer.

Posted By: jason taylor | December 15, 2011 11:26 AM

Thank you, thank you, thank you. I spent a large portion of my life hiding myself, not knowing how to dress or even do my own make up because I was convinced that I had to be modest lest my Christian brothers stumble. As a result, I wore clothes that were uncomfortable, and had a terrible body image - I couldn't see what looked good on me because I was so terrified of accidentally presenting a temptation. We are damaging young women with a shame-based ideology.

There's the additional problem of modesty being a sliding standard depending on the viewer. For example, I love v-neck shirts. I look good in v-neck shirts. Many people think I am immodest in anything but a crew neck that chokes me. I've stopped caring what other people think because I feel good about myself when I look in the mirror in the morning. Which brings me to another point: Modesty standards only work for women of certain body types. Have the least bit of curve, and you will find yourself "presenting a temptation" even if you're wearing a turtleneck. We can't win in a shame-based system.

Posted By: Dianna | December 15, 2011 11:30 AM

Ah, this touches on a debate my husband and I have. I do not like to wear a nursing cover when feeding my newborn because it is a cumbersome nuisance. I feed her discreetly and only expose my nipple to her. I do not feel that feeding my child is a sexual act. But he says that men will always think sexually of my breasts. Indeed, I do make several family members uncomfortable. For their sake I go to another room. But I find myself resenting the alienation. I haven't hit on a happy medium yet!

Posted By: eek565 | December 15, 2011 12:08 PM

@eek
I don't think there is a "happy medium". Personally, I'd argue that they should get over their uncomfortableness; their right to not be uncomfortable ends at your right to feed your child. Other than that, the "other room" option seems best.

Posted By: Newly Karen | December 15, 2011 12:19 PM

My own thoughts on the "modest is hottest" jingo mirror your own. At first I thought it was catchy and harmless, but then I finally realized that you can't simultaneously shame sexy and advocate...sexy.

"Making modesty sexy is not the solution we need." Yes!!

Posted By: Anne | December 15, 2011 12:25 PM

I realize this is an evangelical site. I found the article via FB via a good friend. In Catholic Circles the "Theology of the Body" refers to an attempt at such renewal using a series of talks by Pope John Paul II as a springboard for further discussion and prayerful reflection. I think you will find them Scripturally based. While not all the proponents of the "Theology of the Body" agree with each other 100% these reflections form a biblical reflection with which to start. Interestingly, part of the controversy regards the "hotness" of the language of one prominent speaker. This links however is only for original talks by JPII not what others have said.
http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP2TBIND.HTM

Posted By: Fr. Peter Calabrese | December 15, 2011 12:33 PM

Fabulous post! Incredible, exactly what so many of us need to read. I remember hearing a Christian talk show host condemn a young Christian woman for wearing a swimsuit. She then proceeded to blame this young woman for the sins of others.

The female body is beautiful. Parents of daughters need to get this balance right -- modesty is necessary but not with the motive of hiding temptation but of giving honor to the body God has created. Our daughters need us to get this right. Otherwise, we just perpetuate the obsession with the female body as an object rather than part of a person God has created to glorify Him.

Posted By: Jane Hinrichs | December 15, 2011 1:43 PM

Excellent article!

Posted By: Dennis | December 15, 2011 2:02 PM

DISCLAIMER - I am a male so regard or disregard my comments as you see necessary. First, I found it interesting that the phrase in question on the young lady's shirt was printed directly on top of ... her breasts. Therefore, a man could not read about her desire to remain modest without focusing his attention on a part of the female anatomy that is most frequently associated with sexuality. Hmmm. Second, men are visually stimulated - there is no denying that fact of physiology. Women may be, but from my experience it is to a lesser degree and probably for a different reason. Third, any trip through the check-out line at the grocery store will reveal (pun intended) that it is primarily the women's magazines that accentuate cleavage, short skirts, revealing work-out clothes and tawdry headlines ("10 Surefire Ways to Burn Up the Sheets"). So, if temptation is in the mind of the male, it certainly gets a lot of help from females who want to be viewed as sexually available and welcoming.

I do not necessarily disagree with the points the author made, but my question is how are they to be implemented? I am the father of a 5 year old daughter and we can barely find clothing that does not communicate that she is a little hottie. Even the cartoon characters (Barbie, Dora, Strawberry Shortcake) are becoming sexualized.

And, finally, shame is not necessarily a bad thing. Sometimes we need to blush - and that is a sign of shame. See Jeremiah 6:13-15, 8:8-12. I agree shame for the wrong reason is deplorable - but sometimes we all need to experience shame when we have sinned against God or hurt our brother or sister in Christ.

Posted By: Paul Smith | December 15, 2011 2:05 PM

Sharon, you have prvided a wealth of great insights and analysis here. I love these lines in particular:

The word “hot” is fraught with sexual undertones. It continues a tradition in which women are primarily objects of desire. Yes it does, doesn't it? When someone says another person is hot, they usually mean that the other person arouses a sexual response in the speaker. Not the kind of language I would counsel young people to use about each other.

“Modest is hottest” is foundationally human-centered, whereas biblical modesty is first and foremost centered on God. Another great point, Sharon. If people really thought about what they mean (or perhaps even more importantly what culture means) by the word "hot", few would probably come to the conclusion that using it in the context of "modest is hottest" is centered on God.

Immodesty is not the improper exposure of the body per se, but the improper orientation of the body. I don't know if you saw it, but Victoria/Justice Pirate recently touched on a similar theme in a post about how Egyptian women dreass over at her Ruby-eyed Okapi blog (http://rubyeyedokapi.com/2011/11/30/egyptian-women-modesty/).

Thanks for helping us all understand these issues better, Sharon.

Cheers,
Tim

Posted By: Tim | December 15, 2011 2:28 PM

"Too much skin is seen as a distraction that garners inappropriate attention, causes our brothers to stumble, and overshadows our character. Consequently, the female body is perceived as both a temptation and a distraction to the Christian community. The female body is beautiful, but in a dangerous way.

This particular approach to modesty is effective because it is rooted in shame"

I'm sorry, perhaps I'm missing something-but how is this rooted in shame? I fail to see how anything in the quote is inherently linked to using shame as a motivator.

More generally, I am unpersuaded that the phrase "modest is hottest" is of the same vein as the notion that women are inherently evil or worth less than men. What exactly is the argument?

Posted By: Matthew B | December 15, 2011 2:33 PM

I liked the article but found it did not go far enough. It only discussed the experience of shame for the women. Not once does the article address issue of what should be shameful for a man.

I lead a Young Life club in the state of Washington. A few year's back we arrived at our first leaders meeting where the head leaders proceeded to give all the women a lecture on dressing modestly when at the pool. My immediate response was, "Are you kidding me? I just busted my but to get unbelieving kids to camp so they can hear about Jesus and your main focus is the size of my swimsuit?"

Frankly, men that are so tempted by seeing a woman in a two-piece bathing suit ought not to be working in youth ministry. Their mission ought to be limited to working with the elderly. Perhaps there a man can learn to see people as people -- not as objects for sexual fantasy.

It is time for women to stop taking responsibility for the sin of a man. It is time for men to take responsibility for their own issues. What we should be teaching our daughters is to stand up to a man and call him on his sin. It is his problem -- not hers and until he matures, he and the rest of his male brothers who claim they are created this way and simply can't help it can wallow in their excuses for sin by themselves. We don't need to continue to enable these men in their folly.

Posted By: Michelle R. Ahrens | December 15, 2011 2:35 PM

Paul, I agree that the implementation part is where this whole thing gets tricky. What makes it very difficult is that different Christians have different standards of what is modest. That is why the shame tactic is so abhorrent to me. I have been made to feel ashamed by women for the way I was dressed, even though I had previously felt confident and unashamed about my outfit. Because I didn't meet *their standard* (nevermind God's), I was made to feel dirty and sinful.

Although there are extremes that qualify as immodest or modest, there is a SIGNIFICANT gray area in the middle, and that is often the area in which women are subjected to other people's judgment unfairly.

As a woman, I would also add that I have been tempted to slander or judge other women as immodest simply because they made me feel insecure. Modesty was my way of feeling superior. Shame and judgment also assume another person's motives when, many times, we cannot know what that person's motives are.

Immodesty is such an easy card to throw at someone even though it is often subjective, but the shame feels so terrible that it is also a powerful motivator to conform to a standard that may have nothing to do with God. I can say with absolute certainty that that is NOT how God works. Thank the Lord that God inspires our transformation with grace.

Returning to the question of implementation, I think the conversation needs to be less about how much skin your daughters are showing but WHY they choose the outfits they do. Are they trying to bring attention and glory to themselves, or to God? It's ok to look nice, but heart orientation is the key, and that is a message that's true for women AND men. I would start there.

Posted By: Sharon Miller | December 15, 2011 2:35 PM

Matthew B., that might be a dynamic that is more difficult for men to understand due to lack of experience. Because women's bodies are so stigmatized, our holiness and acceptance is profoundly intertwined with covering ourselves. To be accused of immodesty and showing our bodies in an unacceptable way is DEEPLY shameful, and very painful as well.

Posted By: Sharon Miller | December 15, 2011 2:43 PM

Sharon said: "To be accused of immodesty and showing our bodies in an unacceptable way is DEEPLY shameful, and very painful as well."

Thank you for another helpful insight, Sharon. I can only imagine what my college-age daughter deals with when going to the beach. She's a godly young woman and I know she has thought long and hard about the whole issue of honoring God through modesty. As her dad, if I thought anyone tried to make my daughter feel shame through the accusations you mention I am afraid my response as a father might not be what you would call modest.

Tim

Posted By: Tim | December 15, 2011 2:55 PM

Sharon, thank you for the kind response. Being male, I cannot even begin to understand the double standard that is placed on females. We men just don't get it, in many ways.

Ms. Ahrens (2:35 pm) - thank you for making my point in such a provocative way. Yes, it is all a man's fault when he sees a woman in a string bikini top and a thong bottom. Yes, it is entirely a man's fault that he was created with certain biological impulses when he sees certain parts of a female anatomy exposed. And yes, it is entirely a man's fault when a woman KNOWS her breasts and pelvic area are stimulating to men, so she intenionally dresses in such a way as to activate that stimulation. I say we should all be sent straight to hell. {tongue placed squarely in cheek}. A part of a male's maturity is to learn to control those impulses. But, a part of a female's maturity is to realize that she too is complicit in a sin when she dresses provocatively. It is called seduction, and every woman knows its power. Males sin against females when we treat them as sexual objects. Women sin against males when they return the favor and treat themselves as sexual objects. Neither gender is without guilt in our current culture.

Posted By: Paul Smith | December 15, 2011 3:03 PM

Paul, I agree with you. I am a woman, but I know that my view of the female body is not the same as a man's view of it, so I feel I have to be aware of that when considering this issue. I also agree with your point on shame. I was reading "The Problem of Pain" by C.S. Lewis recently, and he talked about how people have tried to minimize the impact of shame; "we have laboured to overcome that sense of shrinking, that desire to conceal...we are told to 'get things out in the open', not for the sake of self-humiliation, but on the grounds that these 'things' are very natural and we need not be ashamed of them. But unless Christianity is wholly false, the perception of ourselves which we have in moments of shame must be the only true one..."

I do think that the Devil uses opportunities to distort the impact of shame so that we apply it to our sense of ourselves rather than the wrongful act or attitude we are participating in, but that does not mean shame in itself is bad, only being misapplied or misinterpreted. Also, as a woman, I totally understand the feeling that there exists a preeminent view among Christians that shame resides within the female form, as if it were an intrinsic characteristic of it, and of course, that is not an appropriate perspective at all.

Posted By: Bettina | December 15, 2011 3:05 PM

Man, what a sticky subject! It's one I still need to think through.

I do know that 1) men are "visual", and 2) there's a difference between "attractive" and "distracting", which is how my parents put it. And it's as much in how a woman carries herself as it is how she dresses. Where's the line? Still working on that part...

Posted By: Andrea | December 15, 2011 3:37 PM

Sharon,
Thank you for your thoughtful response. I expect you are right that I can't really know what it is like to feel shame because of such an accusation. But I stand by my statement; nothing in the quote I gave has anything to do with accusations designed to change behavior through shame; they were simply descriptions about how the female body is viewed. And, while not telling the whole story, it does seem accurate to say that immodest dress has those effects-if I may say so, the charge that the other sex cannot understand cuts both ways. I actually find the phrase "The female body is beautiful, but in a dangerous way" to be a good way of looking at things, as long as the danger is not seen as grounds for demeaning women. Thunderstorms are beautiful and dangerous, too, and part of their beauty stems from the danger.

In any case, let me stress that I agree with your post in your discussion with Paul right before mine-the heart is vital (of course, having a good heart implies avoiding giving offense when possible), and we too often hold women to unnecessary standards or blame them when we should be calling men to task.

Posted By: Matthew B | December 15, 2011 3:48 PM

Paul,

I think the problem is not when women are intentionally dressing provocatively. I don't think anyone here would say that is appropriate modesty. The problem is when two different forms of modesty interact. For instance, early in my marriage my wife worked in the same office I did. She was a volunteer coordinator for a church based non-profit.

She hosted group leaders for a training and spent the day running around and coordinating things doing everything possible to make their lives easier. The only comment on the evaluation forms was that they thought her dress was inappropriate. She had an ankle length (not tight) black dress. It has narrow straps but was not low cut. I thought it was very modest and appropriate. But she was made to feel shame and really questioned her role when the only comment was about the way she dressed.

I strongly agree with Michelle R. Ahrens. Women (especially girls) should not be given as their first introduction to Christianity a lecture on proper dress. And the men that often are in charge of youth groups should step down if they have a problem with lusting after teen age girls.

I really have to agree that I wish the article went further.

Posted By: Adam Shields | December 15, 2011 4:03 PM

What a wonderful article! I read an article not to long ago about a man struggling with "hypersexual disorder"-sex addiction. The man stated that later when he came to terms with God about his problem, he saw women not with a lustful eye but with an eye of admiration. At the end of the article, the man stated that "every time I saw an attractive woman who I started to lust after, I would take a deep breath and look at her and say within myself, "Thank you God for her beauty".

Posted By: Anonymous | December 15, 2011 4:29 PM

I'm a guy, so I'm just going to say it from my perspective and experience. It's not like our bodies were made APART from each other - quite the contrary: the woman was fashioned after the man, from the man, for the man. And why? Because it was not good that man be alone (basically, the difference in form is primarily due to the fact that God intended for the genders to be complimentary to each other). Hence, after the fall...we must guard ourselves and be careful. We don't live in a garden where there is only one man and one woman out there.

I was born and raised in UPCI denomination - long uncut hair was (and is) prized, skirts and no makeup or jewelry also prized. I have no fundamental aversion toward going against these standards ...but I admit that I do find them beautiful and attractive, when worn with confidence and style.

The woman's body doesn't have to be on display, for the woman to be beautiful and have something to contribute. Quite the contary: men look to the woman's brains and demeanor when she IS fashionably modest - as opposed to when she is immodestly baring herself. Also... what is the proper avenue for women to celebrate and display their bodies? I don't claim to know where the line is on 'modesty' if there is a 'line'. But there is a general taste and a general approach that is modest, and a general attitude and approach that is immodest (c'mon, now).

It's not like we're on a journey back to the garden of eden. It's not like we seek to be unclothed, but further clothed.

Just what is the purpose of this article in the first place? It's almost like the author (who originally liked the slogan) thought about who was doing the talking, and said "you know what? I'm not sure I like to hang with the conservative Christian crowd - hence, I hate that slogan." I think they're just trying to lead us back into being prudish puritains (and whatever other stereotype the left has of us 'conservatives').

"Modest is hottest" is not in the least offensive - it is the truth. Spiritually and morally speaking... I'd want a dignified wife who knows how to conduct herself with style, fashion, and grace in public while being fashionably modest. I'd want a wife who only reveals herself to me, in private. That is "hottest." Any mature christian male should not desire a flirt or a tease for a wife. Is the public square REALLY the place we want women (and men for that matter) showing off their bodies, for general consumption? C'mon. Guys ARE visually oriented, and that should be taken into account. I appreciate the desire for women to feel good about themselves in healthy, life-affirming ways. But...to be most life-affirming, would be to preserve those things that make the marriage bed the greatest! Even if you're single!

"...The female body is beautiful, but in a dangerous way." I actually agree with this concept, but it is derided in this article. The female body - is beautiful. If a man looks upon a woman to lust after her, he has committed adultery in his heart - and is placing HIMSELF in spiritual jeapardy. A woman cannot help this, but she shouldn't encourage it by her choice of 'display'.

"This particular approach to modesty is effective because it is rooted in shame, and shame is a powerful motivator."

"Modest is HOTTEST" is rooted in shame? So, if you're not modest, and you display your body, you are being ugly...and that's a shame. ... well... it is a shame (spiritually, not physically). I agree: it's a shame to be immodest. Think Biblically people! It's a shame to be immodest. Modest is hottest. If you're not modest, then what are you? This has NOTHING to do with the figure of the woman, or what she looks like. At most, it would make females embarassed to be immodest. Then, the conversation shifts toward what should be considered immodest - and that is a healthy direction for the conversation. We shouldn't be TRYING to bare everything to the world, and celebrate EVERYTHING (in graphic detail) in the public square.

"Women’s bodies are not inherently distracting or tempting."

Uh, yes they are. To a man. Yes they are. Most women don't think that way about men or women. But most men do. Women are different. They think about the body differently then men do (generally speaking). God wired us both differently.

"On the contrary, women’s bodies glorify God. Dare I say that a woman’s breasts, hips, bottom, and lips all proclaim the glory of the Lord! Each womanly part honors Him. He created the female body, and it is good."

Good, ... ;) ABSOLUTELY! But for what purpose? To what ends? How should we conduct ourselves when in public? There are ways that BUILD UP and edify. And there are ways that tear down and destroy. It doesn't take a rocket scientist. (Speaking of which, a team of them in Europe just declared that WATER cannot cure dehydration...after 3 years of careful deliberation and "re-thinking.")

"Finally, language about modesty should focus not on hiding the female body but on understanding the body’s created role."

Uh, Amen. So what is the body's created role...Biblically. How do we live holy, loving, free, respectful, beautiful LIVES toward our families and our God (and the world)?

"Immodesty is not the improper exposure of the body per se, but the improper orientation of the body."

True. So... again I say "Modest is HOTTEST."

Posted By: Anonymous | December 15, 2011 5:04 PM

Andrea

I know that the fallback position in modesty discussions is that men are visual. As a male, I would like to say that statement is a terribly simplistic view of male sexuality. What makes a woman attractive to a male is a good deal more complex. It includes scent and touch as well. You even make note of how a woman carries herself as well. That's why covering up skin really doesn't really deal with the issue effectively. It sounds like a nice clean solution to the issue of lust for men, in truth, it is not even a very good band aid.

Men really do have to take responsibility for our thoughts and actions. Pawning off our lust onto our sisters,is to say the least, not very Christian. I'm tired of the discussion that allows men a free pass and women the guilt.

Posted By: Steve D | December 15, 2011 5:04 PM

Just wondering if we are dealing with the root issue behind all this discussion? How do you see yourself if you are a woman in 21st century America? The media continues to feed into the overly sexualized woman, causing women to believe that this is the way they can affirm their identity. The way we dress comes from the way we see ourselves. Any woman who bases her identity on her appearance will inevitably dress to attract attention.

God has created each of us and see us as beautiful women who are both wonderful and amazing on the inside and the outside. He wants us to respect ourselves and realize our worth and value. How we dress becomes a non-issue because we will be able to resist the temptation to measure ourselves against the cultural standards of our time.

We need to look deeper into our own hearts to find out what is underneath the decisions we are making. He values us more than we could ever know and it makes all the difference when that sinks in!

Posted By: Alicia | December 15, 2011 5:19 PM

Sharon, I think there's biblical warrant for your argument, not just in terms of Bible themes but in terms of translation.

I was shocked earlier this year when I was translating 1 Peter 3 to discover that v.4, traditionally "the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit' doesn't actually contain the word 'beauty'! It's just not there! Instead, the adjective acts like the noun, more like "the unfadingness / the unfading thing of a gentle and quiet spirit."

It got me wondering what difference it would make if we translated it how it's written.

The words for 'adornment' are in v.3 and 5 so clearly there's something like beauty on view but I wonder whether Peter subtly shifts our attention away from talking about what beauty is (modesty or not) and towards women's character and Christlikeness instead.

Posted By: Tamie Davis | December 15, 2011 5:23 PM

There are only a limited number of valid reasons for immodesty in the public square: For the sake of research science (pursuit of valid scientific knowledge that HELPS people in a medical sense). It is not good to exploit the figure of the woman in order to graphically portray rape or injustice. That encourages more display - and more display. And eventually, such 'displays' if done frequently will be molded into more palettable forms...that are nonetheless still harmful and borderline violent. It is not good to overly exploit the figure of a woman for the sake of art...that is only refined pornagraphy - if it is carried too far. There are certain things that, biblically speaking, should be RESERVED for the privacy of marriage. This does not make anything distasteful. To the contrary! It is the act of NOT casting your pearls before swine. In our age of exibitionism...what has our western culture reaped, that was good, toward marriage??

When you inflame unrighteous ideas and appetites...you encourage spiritual immaturity. And you can BET that when the high-class art crowd starts going risque... it has a filter-down effect. Because people in the 'lower rungs' of society don't understand what makes art, art. They see the lack of protocol and standards, and simply carry it over into forms of "art" that THEY enjoy! And you will get forms of art that are less 'artsy' and more vulgar. Once you try to go in the direction of erasing standards of modesty, there is a slippery slope. I'm not saying that we should police other people's modesty. I am saying that we should TEACH the concept of modesty, along with (perhaps for the younger crowd) certain semi-flexible guidelines for it.

Don't we believe in protecting, nurturing, and harboring certain treasures for marriage?

Posted By: E Harris | December 15, 2011 5:38 PM

Upon reading the article again... I may have over-reacted a bit. There were some good points, that I overlooked. But the simplistic slogan "Modest is HOTTEST" ... I think can be effective in many moldable young minds. It's a 3-word slogan that helps reverse the seemingly irreversible tide of immodesty & ludeness. I fail to see how it is a harmful slogan. If everyone thought "Modest is HOTTEST"... then wouldn't we all be better off in many ways? I realize that if you begin ADDING things to this slogan - you can go in all sorts of directions (puritainical, judgemental, objectifying, etc)... but in a culture that is ALREADY objectified - it helps to quickly snatch youth out of that mindset and into a "critical thinking" mode!

Posted By: E Harris | December 15, 2011 5:48 PM

Tim, the connotation of the word "hot" or "hottest" does connotate physicalness and desire. BUT the connotation of the word "modest" is to be concealing in both form and manner. So by saying that MODEST (concealing in form and manner) is HOTTEST (most physically appealing and desirable)... is a true saying!!!

Absolutely Biblically Sound. And, what's more, it reflects a biblical approach to relationships and marriage - in both the physical and social dimensions!

Now, I know that youth don't dig that deep. And that's why it has to be distilled into a 3-word rhyming slogan.

I would encourage the author to think a little deeper (or at least more Biblically) before attacking her fellow Christians good efforts. I would encourage that she give her fellow Christians (even the conservative ones) the benefit of the doubt - before assuming that their efforts will automatically result in shaming an entire gender.

Posted By: Anonymous | December 15, 2011 6:03 PM

Instead of thinking of a woman's body as inherently evil and dressing in oversized, shapeless sacks that cover every curve possible, or showing so much skin that we look cheap, I think some common sense and spiritual sensitivity is the key.I try to convey to my daughters that showing too much skin, such as a shirt that is too low cut or skin tight and obviously designed to over-emphasize a woman's sexuality, or a skin tight skirt that is way too short so that you can't even bend over without something that the whole world shouldn't be looking at showing, is not flattering. This kind of blatantly sexual clothing is showcasing to the world something that is very special and reserved for marriage. It cheapens a woman's sexuality. Going too far the other way to the point where it looks like your ashamed of your body is not good either. Ther is a happy medium, I believe, where a woman can look beautiful and feminine in such a tasteful way as to reflect God's glory as she was meant to. Sexuality is a very beautiful thing when it is kept in it's proper context.

Posted By: Candi | December 15, 2011 6:38 PM

There's something I wish you'd said in your article: when we say, "Modest is Hottest," we're LYING. Maybe "lying" isn't the right word, but I for one can freely admit that a woman in a bikini is probably going to be a lot hotter to me than the same woman in Amish garb. That's why I disagree with your thesis. Saying "modest is hottest" doesn't objectify women in and of itself. It rebuts an existing objectification of women. The phrase "modest is hottest" wouldn't exist if sexual ofjectification weren't happening, and people wouldn't use the phrase except in the context of talking about how sometimes women are objectified. To be blunt, choosing what kind of language we use to describe how we think women should dress won't make a dent in the "objectification of women" machine. I think it's more important that we work to instill in our families the desire to be modest for the right reasons.

Also, do you really think there was no twinge of shaming involved in Matthew 23?

Posted By: Blake | December 15, 2011 6:39 PM

Anonymous, please use a name.

But more important, I think you are being overly simplistic. Hottest has a meaning in this world. In general it means roughly the opposite of modest. So it may sound cool, but it doesn't mean anything. Want to go deep, then we need to start teaching men and women as boy and girls about how to understand others as people, as brothers and sisters in Christ (or potential brothers and sisters in Christ) and NOT limit all relationships of the opposite sex as potential sex partners.

My whole problems with teaching modesty at all is that it is unavoidably a social construct. That social construct in one area does not work in another area. So we had White missionaries in African and other places teach that to be Christian is to dress fully clothed head to toe. They were teaching a social construct that did not have any relationship to actual culture they were in.

Approaches like "Modest is Hottest" are not much different. Teaching people how to live is the opposite of teaching (or even using) slogans. Slogans reduce the vast complexity of life to a few simple words that do not actually work in real life. And the result is that it creates an idea that some people feel good about meeting, and some people feel shame about meeting. The problem is that many that feel good are feeling good falsely and many that feel shame, are feeling it falsely.

The author's point isn't that she is attacking those that thought up the idea for being a bad idea. She is saying it doesn't work. That is something different. If something was adopted for pragmatic reasons and you realize later it doesn't work, why should it be defended?

Posted By: Adam Shields | December 15, 2011 6:48 PM

Excellent. Thank you for the balanced approach.

Posted By: Joy Eggerichs | December 15, 2011 7:02 PM

Huh??

Much of this article seems poorly reasoned and occasionally illogical.

For instance: "This particular approach to modesty is effective because it is rooted in shame, and shame is a powerful motivator."
The author makes this statement as if it is self-evident and it is NOT. Prove your bold statement.

Now, I am not fond of the phrase in question too cutesy, too easily used without thoughtful reflection. Not to mention too over-used and now easily ridiculed. That part of her article I agree with- let's have some theologically sound and nuanced discussion about women and their bodies. And about sex, while we are at it!

I DO suspect that many, if not most, people who use the pharse have a MUCH more positive intention and meaning behind their words. Too bad this author applies such negative meaning. I just don't buy her argument that it is another form of objectification- NECESSARILY.

Argument NOT made, IMO.

Posted By: MM | December 15, 2011 7:15 PM

Great article, Sharon.
You made an excellent point with the double-sided coin picture.

Posted By: zy | December 15, 2011 7:17 PM

To Paul Smith- Yes! there IS a place for godly shame. Few Christians are willing to admit that in our over-psycholgized age. Not false shame, but shame consistent with reality- that we DO sin sometimes! It is good to feel bad about sinning- for a time- then look to the Cross and be renewed in grace.

To Sharon- I am a woman and I ENTIRELY agree with Matthew B's statements. So don't assume he couldn't understand your line of thinking because he is a man. I do NOT think that you make some of your arguments adequately. I could not logically figure out how you arrived at them.

But- a worthy topic for serious discussion, and I automatically recoil at bumper-sticker Christian slogans, so I have never liked this one, either.

Posted By: MM | December 15, 2011 7:25 PM

Bettina-- Beautifully stated and what a perfect quote from C S Lewis! Thank you!

Anonymous- You make some great points and I agree with most of them. Yes- maybe it's better not to be "anonymous" (an no need) but then most of us really are here, in effect, no?

Posted By: MM | December 15, 2011 7:30 PM

MM, in response to your claim that my reasoning is "illogical," I thought I would share the definition of the word "shame:"

"The painful feeling arising from the consciousness of something dishonorable, improper, ridiculous, etc."

Now combine that definition with the sentences that preceded my conclusion about shame: "The female body is perceived as both a temptation and a distraction to the Christian community. The female body is beautiful, but in a dangerous way."

To view the female body as distracting or inherently dangerous (which some of the commenters have here professed they believe) is the definition of treating a woman's body as "dishonorable" and "improper." I stand by my conclusion that this is a shame tactic.

For anyone who feels I have attacked the authors of this phrase, it was not my intent to do so. At no point did I question the motives of the people who use it (in fact I explicitly gave them the benefit of a doubt). It is, however, important to have the freedom to disagree. Just because a teaching is catchy and even effective (in the short term) does not make it Biblical or godly. As Christians, we are not in the business of behavior modification but spiritual transformation.

Posted By: Sharon Miller | December 15, 2011 8:11 PM

This article is a lot of words to defend what cannot be defended, to neutralize the clear teaching of Scriptures through theology and justify your behaviour.

Posted By: Anton | December 15, 2011 9:17 PM

I'm glad that many found the article helpful to them. I do not know their situation; it may have actually been helpful.

But I too must agree that it is poorly argued and simply loaded with hot-button words.

"This particular approach to modesty is effective because it is rooted in shame, and shame is a powerful motivator"

Actually, I do not know why you feel ashamed. "Modest is hottest" is attempting to be a positive statement. There is no shame anywhere in that statement, except the shame you attempt to smear it with.

It may be a bit oversimplistic, but it is NOT about shame. And if you are proving how bad current Christian thinking is on this subject by quoting Tertullian, you are just a little tiny bit out of date.

Again, you have an audience and you seem to help them. But you are injecting a lot of shame and blame into a discussion that does not need it.

Posted By: Anonymous | December 15, 2011 9:24 PM

I am a woman and wholeheartedly agree with "anonymous at 5:04pm" He had a long statement, but I feel that what he had to say made more sense than your article. At first, I was on track with you, but then you went in a direction that I didn't see coming. I am raising daughters and have been teaching them modesty. For you to say that it is rooted in shame is inaccurate at the least. Please don't put your motives on my motives. Maybe yours might be rooted in shame, but my motives are to help my daughters present their beauty in such a way that it doesn't encourage what is already a difficult path for most men and some women. Some people who have responded have stated that it is the men that need to be called on the carpet and own up and become more responsible. REALLY??? When sin entered the world, clearly our fallen nature has had an effect. Men are visual and your opinion will not change that. No, we cannot stop anyone from sinning, but because I so deeply love my brothers and sisters that are struggling in this area, then dressing modestly is one of the easiest things that I can do to help them in their walk to honor God with their thoughts. Yes, modesty is subjective, but really; there are certain common guidelines. It seems that in your quest for spiritual freedom, you have complicated what is very simple. We struggle in this world, and as brothers and sisters in the Lord; we are either helping or hurting. I also don't like the slogan, but our reasons are very different. I would rather see my daughter wear that t-shirt than a bikini. That is not shame based......Half of any given congregation is ADDICTED to pornography and 40% of leadership is. That says something about this fallen world we live in. Let us help our brothers and sisters thought life, because we love them; NOT because we are ashamed!

Posted By: Tammy | December 16, 2011 4:16 AM

The word "hottest" in the phrase "modest is hottest" is basically saying it is best. If a female wants to look "hot", which these days is overused and seems to be the word girls are trying to strive for instead of being called "beautiful", then she would dress her best. Meaning she will dress to the standard of someone thinking she is pretty. So in 2011(2012) people who use the word "hot" (like teenagers) mean it as pretty, cute, etc. They want to be "hot". So by throwing out there that modesty is prettiest, girls may realize this and dress modestly. I don't think this is directed to the mature christian adult woman who would like to be known for something other than being "hot". This is directed to teenage girls so they can consider themselves "hot" even though they are pleasing God!

Posted By: EA | December 16, 2011 5:05 AM

So, if someone says "two piece bathing suit" one of you folks immediately envisions dental floss while someone else sees boy-shorts and a tank.

THAT is the aspect of "modesty" that generates this much anger and this much self-righteousness. When I get dressed in the morning and believe that I am modestly and appropriately dressed and then encounter someone who thinks differently, as a woman, I'm the one shamed. The criticizer is not.

We seriously need to quit holding worldly people to godly standards. Win them with love and their relationship with Christ will draw them into more modest styles of dress.

Thank you Sharon for giving a voice to something that has bothered me for such a long time. Very well argued. Don't let the opinions of a few make you feel like you didn't do your job correctly. God Bless!

Posted By: Tami M | December 16, 2011 7:05 AM

This is a wonderfully provacative article, and I am gratified to see that many of the comments have taken a serious and thoughtful approach to its argument. While I am not in full agreement with some of the details of its analysis, I believe the article goes a long way towards correcting our perceptions of the human body in general and the female body in particular.

I think that one of the reasons why this issue is so difficult for Christians is because of our schizophrenic attitude towards sexuality. Christians seem to be conflicted about their own sexuality, seeing it as an impediment to authentic devotion to God while at the same time acknowledging (often through gritted teeth) that it is the creation of that very same God. Not only do we need to stop shaming the female boday, we need to stop shaming sex. Yes, there are boundaries that God has placed on the practice of human sexuality, and there should be shame when those boundaries are transgressed. Sex itself, however, is not the problem; sex is a glorious gift from God that binds women and men together in a loving, psychosomatic union and that allows humanity to participate in God's creative endeavors. If those of us who follow Jesus come to terms with our own sexuality, a lot of this other stuff (like the proper definition, role, and application of modesty) will fall into place.

Posted By: Wade Berry | December 16, 2011 7:41 AM

So...We owe Hugh Hefner an apology, he was right and the church had it wrong all along. Now, if we can find some Victoria Secret Advertising posters to hang in the foyer to celebrate, i.e.,"Women’s bodies are not inherently distracting or tempting. On the contrary, women’s bodies glorify God." And to think that I have been laboring all along on the belief that God designed human sexuality with a component of "female attractiveness." David and Bathsheba, Samson and Delilah and the Proverbial warnings to young men to use mind over lust are just wasted ink on paper.

Posted By: Jack Lawrence | December 16, 2011 8:59 AM

I think there are a lot of great thought provoking and challenging things about this article. But it just simply is not the case that "shame-based language is not the rhetoric of Jesus." It is if you want to pit the rest of the Bible against Jesus, since there are no instances of him using such overt language in the Gospels. However, all throughout Scripture, shame is the proper response to sin. Hence when the prophet Daniel prays a prayer of repentance on behalf of Israel in Daniel 9:7 he says, "To you, O Lord, belongs righteousness, but us open shame." Likewise when Paul corrects the Corinthians for pursuing lawsuits against fellow believers in 1 Corinthians 6:5, he says "I say this to your shame."

Shame is a social concept. What's more in the Old Testament Ancient Near Eastern world there was a connection between nakedness and shame. Thus when God promises to judge Jerusalem in Ezekiel 16 there is vivid imagery of him exposing her nakedness. Thus shaming is indeed the rhetoric of God in response to sin and rebellion. This is offensive to the therapeutic culture we live in sure. But hang cultural acceptance, I am called to think Biblically.

What's more this is not something restricted to women. It is not the case that a connection between shame and exposure of the body is restricted to women and not men as the author indicates. Granted women in modern Western society experience different social pressures than men when it comes to their body, but when it comes to the issue of modesty, the connection between nakedness and shame belongs to men and women alike. In the story of Noah in Genesis 9:20-27, Ham gazes on his father Noah's nakedness and mocks him to his brothers, and it brings Noah's curse down on him because it shamed his father before his sons.

Consequently, part of the shame of crucifixion was that it was Roman custom to strip those being crucified completely naked. Thus Christ's shame in crucifixion included his complete exposure. His crucifixion was not merely physically painful it was a complete social humiliation. And the point is this: that is the shame our sin deserves. Sin deserves social shame because it is always an act that takes place in the ultimate social environment as man stands before his God. Shame is also part of the social consequence of sin in the church. There is nothing honorable about church discipline that ends in excommunication (something Jesus himself mandates in Matthew 18:15-20, however unpopular it may be in the American evangelical church).

The point then is not that shame is good. Of course shame is bad because it is a consequence of brokenness and sin. But shame is the right response to our sin. And the ultimate point is that Christ redeems us from the shame of our sin. One metaphor for that in Revelation 3:18 is that we come to Christ and buy white garments so that we may clothe ourselves and the shame of our nakedness may not be seen. But if we are ever going to understand God's mercy, then we need to understand the shame of our sin.

Posted By: Daniel | December 16, 2011 9:01 AM

I tend to agree with some of the other comments. I don't disagree with your points [Sharon], but at the same time, I can't completely agree. While yes, the "Modest is Hottest" phrase running across a woman's chest on her shirt seems contradictory...can you really put anything on a woman's shirt where a man won't look? Any closer to the bottom of the shirt and you are once again at another predicament.
I understand your point about using the phrase and still giving sexual undertones. But I think everyone can agree that it was not, nor is it still, the intention of the creator. It was simply to counter all other commercialized sexual undertones you find in every other shirt. There isn't much more I can say that others haven't, so in short, I can agree that if someone is wearing the shirt "Modest is hottest" and wearing a miniskirt, then yeah there’s a problem with that. If someone has it flanked across their revealing midriff top, then ok. But seeing how the wardrobe they use to present this is in fact, modest- I believe that I would rather my daughter wearing that than any top she may find in the nearest shopping mall. At the same time, I don't believe that modesty should be taken to the extreme of wrapping our ladies up in clothing or drapes, like long skirts, or baggy shirts, where the "breasts, hips, bottom, and lips [that] all proclaim the glory of the Lord" cannot even be seen.
As a side note to some of the other comments, the only reason we don't see this phrase on men's clothing, is because for the most part, men's clothing isn't tight, see-through or the like. However, I wouldn't begrudge a little modesty when it comes to some men's rather low and baggy jeans. :)

Posted By: Chels | December 16, 2011 9:10 AM

Great article! Sexuality is not discussed appropriately in the church, and I believe the way we teach about modesty is a symptom of the overall problem. Thank you for pointing out the unintended curriculum of our talks about modesty.

Posted By: Amy Jackson | December 16, 2011 10:10 AM

Tami M, your comments are right on and this one actually made me laugh: "So, if someone says 'two piece bathing suit' one of you folks immediately envisions dental floss while someone else sees boy-shorts and a tank." It's like you must have seen my family around the swimming pool, because my wife's idea of a two piece bathing suit is to wear long board shorts and a baggy tank top.

Jack Lawrence, I have no idea how you came to make your comment. The whole article is about how the proper focus of modesty is to be upon God. "Modest is Hottest" wrongly puts the focus on the person attempting to be modest instead, and that's the problem.

Cheers,
Tim

Posted By: Tim | December 16, 2011 10:32 AM

Wade Barry said: "Christians seem to be conflicted about their own sexuality, seeing it as an impediment to authentic devotion to God while at the same time acknowledging (often through gritted teeth) that it is the creation of that very same God. Not only do we need to stop shaming the female boday, we need to stop shaming sex."

Barry, you said that toward "christians" as if you don't consider yourself one. Interesting. Then what are you doing entering a debate about Biblical morality?? Like a serpent in the garden, subtly prodding. You set up a straw man argument. Nobody is shaming sex or the human body (or the female body) in this conversation. In fact, I bet that most people in this conversation greatly rejoice in the feminine form - and in God's handiwork! Your straw man attack (against 'conservative' christianity) does not hold up. What the conservative position tries to uphold is that sex is best expressed in the bedroom. In fact, it is most FULFULLING when it is reserved for its proper expression - and celebrated in that context! Also, sexuality needs to be expressed very sparingly outside the bedroom. The reason for this is obvious. It is to help guard each other's hearts, and our own hearts. Men need to practice self-control with their eyes (and the eyes of their heart). And women need to practice self-control with how they choose to express themselves. The battleground in the sexual arena most often occurs in the heart and mind of the man - because he is (usually) the initiator and leader in that area. Each gender needs to be taught the ways of consecration, holiness, and love in purity. The bible talks about married partners who fasted - and then came back together. What were they fasting from?? Hmm... even in marriage, a fast can sometimes be a fast from sexual intercourse. Why? For the purpose of F-O-C-U-S. Men and women sometimes find it hard to focus on some important things in life... when they are taken in by sexual things. So this is sometimes balanced out by fasting from things, for a limited time.

Sharon (the author of the article above) said: "To view the female body as distracting or inherently dangerous (which some of the commenters have here professed they believe) is the definition of treating a woman's body as "dishonorable" and "improper." I stand by my conclusion that this is a shame tactic."

The feminine form is not inherently distracting and dangerous. ...in the absence of a man. However, the feminine form is distracting and potentially spiritually dangerous in the mind of a man. So when a man is present... that changes the spiritual dynamic of what is acceptable for feminine expression (and manly expression, as well!) What is acceptable when you are alone (like taking a shower) may not be acceptable in full public view - or even in family view - but is a beauty that is reserved for the confines of marriage and the 'marriage bed'.) It's ridiculous that this even has to be stated so matter-of-factly. But such matter-of-factness is necessary when defending the gospel against hit-and-run opposition that the gospel faces. I have much sympathy for women (and men) who have been shamed and derided. I have endured shame in my life (for other reasons) that would be difficult for many in this conversation to even comprehend. So I am no friend of shame...but I am well acquainted with its dynamics. And the Bible is not completely devoid of shame in its proper context. Shame is a vehicle for inducing quick repentance and turning toward God with a pure & holy response. But I am not trying to shame anyone. I'm simply trying to defend the Bible and defend a healthy outlook toward sexuality and strong marriage in the public square.

I agree with Anonymous: "Again, you have an audience and you seem to help them. But you are injecting a lot of shame and blame into a discussion that does not need it."

I agree. The shaming in this discussion isn't coming from those who are defending the Bible and the beauty of marriage & sexuality. It's coming from those who fear that conservatives WOULD shame, if given enough rope. So they (the left) casts shame on the right (using Tertullian of all examples), before (they imagine) the right can shame them! What a game.

Posted By: Anonymous | December 16, 2011 10:33 AM

Sharon Miller said
“The first solution is to dispense with body-shaming language. Shame is great at behavior modification, even when the shaming is not overt. But shame-based language is not the rhetoric of Jesus. It is the rhetoric of his Enemy”

It is regrettable that an article purporting to give the biblical view on modesty lacks the necessary interaction with what the bible actually teaches about modesty and shame in relation to nakedness.
It is only through a shocking ignorance of biblical culture and biblical teaching that one can claim that Jesus (and by extension the Bible) does not embrace shame (and honor, its antithesis) as rhetoric.

Daniel has already provided some of the biblical evidence, I will only add to it (one can also research articles on Honor and Shame, like those written by David deSilva to learn more about this concept in the Bible).

Shame is clearly an instrument used by God as a means of discipline (Num 12:14)
The Fall itself introduces the concept of shame as a corollary to sin. It is interesting to note that shame is conveyed through nakedness as public nakedness is understood as inherently shameful starting with the Fall until the end of the age as shown by the link between shame and nakedness in Revelation 3:18 and 16:15 (words from Jesus himself). This is confirmed by the prophets who equate being exposed and naked with something shameful (especially Ezekiel 16:8. 36-37) when metaphorically dealing with Israel’s sins (see also Hos 2:9; and the “shameful nakedness” in Mic 1:11; Nah 3:5; Hab 2:15).
Isaiah says that God shamed Egyptians by having the Assyrians leading that away captive “with buttocks uncovered, to the shame of Egypt (Isa 20:4)”.

The Bible does not argue that the woman body or being naked is inherently sinful as the Song of Solomon makes it plain. The Woman’s body is a wonderful gift of God, one of the world’s greatest wonders. However, the issue is that it needs to be enjoyed in private and not to be shared with strangers; it belongs in the home and in the marriage. What is perfectly normal in private becomes shameful when exposed in public (the point of Proverbs 5:17-18).

Paul agrees that there is shame associated with the presentation of some body parts (un-presentable members) leading one to clothe them with honor (1Co 12:23).
Honor and shame are biblical concepts (as in come from God and not the enemy) that would greatly benefit the Church if rediscovered and practiced biblically.
Shame produces sorrow and godly sorrow brings repentance that leads to salvation and leaves no regret, but worldly sorrow brings death. (2Co 7:10)

Posted By: Alain | December 16, 2011 11:13 AM

I just have one more comment to make: the feminine form is physical (just like the manly form is physical). When we are BARING or EXPRESSING those forms (whether using display or physical expression) we are participating in something PHYSICAL (time and space and matter). In other words: we ARE objectifying our bodies, when our bodies are put on display and are an important part of the interaction. We rejoice in the physicality! We are part-physical creatures, so this is normal. A football player has stats to evaluate performance. We evaluate the beauty of a painting based on color, line, and form. The body of the woman (and man) also becomes objectified things in the mind when they are prominently displayed.

So... what is the proper moral CONTEXT for displaying our bodies to each other??? What avenues should we choose for such display? What display is appropriate, and what displays aren't appropriate - for the given context? This is not "anything goes." For that: just watch Law & Order and ask yourself if you should have some standards regarding what is acceptable behavior on the part of the man and woman and on the part of the public. We don't need to be heavy handed in policing other people, or even trying too hard to "shame" them. But we do need to proclaim STANDARDS of decency - and allow people to make up their own minds.

Posted By: E Harris | December 16, 2011 11:17 AM

Anonymous posted @December 16,200 10:33 AM:

"I agree with Anonymous: "Again, you have an audience and you seem to help them. But you are injecting a lot of shame and blame into a discussion that does not need it." "

I'm glad that you agree with yourself...

Posted By: Anonymous | December 16, 2011 11:19 AM

Wow. Excellent comments throughout. The MAIN issue, which really hasn't been addressed:

IS IT RIGHT OR WRONG FOR A WOMAN TO SEEK TO BE SEXUALLY ATTRACTIVE?

As you rightly point out, modesty isn't the issue. Sexual desirability is the issue. And does God want women to enhance sexual desirability?

I'd say YES. Because the alternative is simply unacceptable.

Posted By: Jarrod | December 16, 2011 11:19 AM

Tim at 10:32. I agree with the major point of the article ("hottest is Modest") is a damaging contradiction in terms, but that wasn't the only point of the article; thereby the reasons of my comments above.
The story of humankind is laden with the tragedy of human falleness in the area of human sexuality and the perversion and misuse of this God ordained order. This story has produced compelling plays and books and real-life drama of toppled thrones and destroyed lives. The Greek tragedies, and most classical literature present riveting, spell binding stories, not by being politically correct or "non-judgmental," but presenting humanity and human nature in a real way. So a mother has her daughter perform a sensuous dance before a drunken King who later, reluctantly, delivers the prophet of God head on a platter.

Posted By: Jack Lawrence | December 16, 2011 11:38 AM

Excellent discussion! Thanks to Sharon for writing. I do think that Wade's comment (Dec 16 7:41 am) hits it best: the real problem has to do with our attitude toward sex in general; discussions of modesty and shame (relating to sexual matters) need to follow the first discussion about sex. It's one thing to agree that God created sex and said "very good"...but it's another thing to believe it.

Why is it that so many Christian husbands and wives have a hard time communicating their sexual desires to each other? I think it's because, as Christians, we have shamed sex. We have a hard time talking to our kids about sex for the same reason. The Bible doesn't shame sex (it devotes a whole book to it actually!), but Christians do...this has to change first, if we are to make any meaningful headway into the modesty discussion. The "sex talk" with our kids has to be about more than plumbing...it's gotta be about the wonder and beauty of sex, the overwhelming pleasure and joy that it can bring, God's intention for sex in the first place.

And to pre-empt the comment that would likely come, his intention was obviously more than mere procreation; God could've made the act of procreation about as enjoyable as washing the dishes...but he didn't. God *designed and created* pleasure, arousal, G-spots, clitorises, and the capacity for earth-shaking orgasms...even multiple-orgasms. It's not like he made Adam and Eve and said, "Oops"...no, "very good" was his evaluation (and exultation). If our teaching and thinking about sex does not include celebration and wonder at this part of God's good creation, then we've got some re-thinking to do. I clearly remember my father's words when he spoke to me about sex (one of many times): "I think sex is one of the very best aspects of God's creation." God *designed* woman to be sexy in man's eyes. And he designed man's strength to be sexy in woman's eyes. We were perfectly designed for each other. The more we reflect on this, the more we will gain insight into how we image God (Gen 1:27).

In this way, our sex-crazed culture has forced us to re-shape our weak sex-ology (theology of sex) into a more robust and biblical one. However, it's oh-so-easy to un-critically adopt the values of our culture and thereby displace the values taught in scripture. In college I learned to think in terms of Structure and Direction. The whole creation has a good structure (sex, possessions, work, etc)...but in our rebellion and sin against God, we push those structures into sinful directions, so that they no longer bring glory to God by the way that we use them (lust, greed, workaholism). Rom 1:25: we worship created things rather than the Creator...in a word, that's idolatry, and idols never fail to fail.

Recognizing that we have twisted and abused God's sensational gift of sex is just as important as recognizing that it's a sensational gift. It's in that vein that modesty needs to be discussed. Women should NEVER be made to feel ashamed about their bodies (whether they are supermodels or not...but that's another discussion). And men should NEVER objectify women for sexual (or other) purposes. But likewise, women need to be aware that how they dress does have an impact on the men around them; it is an expression of self-respect, and also of Christian love, for a woman to dress in a way that does not tempt a man to lust after her. And it is likewise an expression of self-respect, and also of Christian love, for a man to to treat a woman with the deepest level of respect and dignity. We are created in the image of the King! Let's celebrate that image, rather than diminish it!

By the way, I'm sorry for writing so much...I had a lot to say. :)

Posted By: Trevor | December 16, 2011 11:39 AM

Anonymous:

You seem to have read the article as an argument against modesty. It is not. It is an argument against a certain idea of modesty that has been taught in churches, which undermines the teaching of I Peter by giving girls the impression that how they display their bodies is the most important part of their spirituality. Instead, Scripture teaches that a woman's deeds should outshine her appearance.

And, yes, we all know that men are visual. Everyone woman posting here has heard it at least a hundred times. The problem is that, historically, men have projected the blame for their temptations onto the woman's body, so that it was the woman's body which became sinful, instead of acknowledging the man's responsibility for his own heart.

Jesus said that when a man lusted after a woman, he was guilty of adultery; he didn't say that the woman was guilty of anything. A woman who deliberately entices a man to lust stands condemned by later admonitions against offering a stumbling to others and by Peter's injuction to modesty, but Jesus does not appear to assume that every temptation will be intentional on the woman's part. Even in past generations when women were covered from head to toe, men have accused them of being seductresses and instruments of Satan. This is no doubt what Miller was referring to when she challenged us to see the body of a woman as glorifying to God, rather than dangerous or evil.

I have made this argument before, and I will make it again. We MUST teach Christian girls to identity themselves by their gifts and service, and not by their "attractiveness", which is a matter of taste in any case. If we do this, modesty will be easy to teach without banal slogans.

Posted By: Anne | December 16, 2011 12:16 PM

I should clarify that the above statement should read that girls should "identify themselves by their gifts and service." Also, we are not to make ourselves a stumbling block.

I apologize for the typos.

Posted By: Anne | December 16, 2011 12:27 PM

Jerrod, you ask, "IS IT RIGHT OR WRONG FOR A WOMAN TO SEEK TO BE SEXUALLY ATTRACTIVE?"

My answer is to reply with the question, "To whom is she seeking to be sexually attractive?" To her husband? Then my answer is a resounding no! A biblical view of sex would even lead wives to have fun coming up with ways to make his jaw drop! [This kind of thing can only help a marriage, and it should probably be done more.]

Or is she married and seeking to make herself sexually attractive to men in general? Then it's absolutely wrong...I'd be rightly furious if my wife was dressing sexily for anyone but me (just as she would rightly be furious if I was seeking to woo anyone but her).

Or is she unmarried and seeking a mate? Hehehe...this is where the rubber meets the road. :) A woman's mode of dress will have a strong impact on the type of man she attracts. If she attracts men by dressing like a slut, she'll tend to attract guys who will treat her like one. If she attracts men by her godly character and spirit (1 Pet 3:3-4), she'll attract a man who appreciates that. It all depends on what kind of man she's trying to attract.

The real question is, --Where does she find her value? In her identity in Christ, or in how she looks?-- Men who are ready for marriage (as opposed to men who are only ready for lust) will see the difference. I think my wife is beautiful...in fact, even 4 kids and 11 years later, I think she's more beautiful than ever! She attracted me with far more than her good looks, and she didn't need to dress provocatively to do it. She is one of the best people I know, and she's my best friend...but I saw that in her already from the start, and she didn't have to dress provocatively for me to notice.

Does that help to answer your question?

Posted By: Trevor | December 16, 2011 12:28 PM

Oops, I noticed a mis-write in my response to Jerrod: I meant to say (in response to a woman making herself attractive to her husband), "Then my answer is a resounding "Go for it!"" :) [I had mis-read the question to be asking if a woman should avoid making herself attractive, whereas the original question was more open-ended.]

Posted By: Trevor | December 16, 2011 12:33 PM

As a man who had never heard of this slogan previously, I read with amusement, but not for long.

I considered the slogan, and realized it is a contradiction, a paradox, and an impossibility. On the one hand there is something called Modesty, all very fine and noble and good.

On the other, Hotness, which, as a perception, is the opposite (in the Other, a lustful regard) of Modesty.

You are most right when you say that display of flesh is not true north, but rather Godly development of the inward wo/man.

Reactivity to, nor appeasement of, social norms is not for such as serve a holy God. The slogan as uttered is a misalliance of holiness and unholiness - watering down the one, and legitimizing the other.

Posted By: mmck | December 16, 2011 12:47 PM

I really appreciated the comments made by Tammy, and reading her thoughts brought another scenario into my mind. Imagine a dinner party where half of the guests are recovering alcoholics and the other half enjoy drinking alcoholic beverages. Every aspect of the menu, from the appetizers to the beer battered fish down to the Bananas Foster either contains alcohol or is served with alcohol. As a result of this gracious feast some of the recovering alcoholics lapse back into drunkeness. Now, according to some posters here only the alcoholics would be accountable for their sin. I don't think the apostle Paul or Jesus would see it that way. True, maybe they should not have attended. But if you KNOW someone is struggling, and yet you make it impossible for him or her to avoid the temptation, then at least some of the guilt rests with the tempter (or temptress). Jesus did say "Woe to him by whom the temptation comes!" (Mt. 18:7) As I said, men must learn to control their impulses, but to suggest that anyone, male or female, is innocent when their dress is immodest is simply being irresponsible.

Posted By: Paul Smith | December 16, 2011 1:00 PM

Paul,

We are not acquitting the immodest. Again, a woman who intentionally tempts a man is guilty. (I happen to be very conservative in dress.) We are objecting to a church culture that emphasizes modesty to girls, but doesn't cultivate other virtues, thus re-inforcing the world's message that a woman's power lies in her sexuality.

Incidentally, I have appreciated your posts, and I apologize if I gave anyone the impression that women are not responsible for how they present themselves.

Posted By: Anne | December 16, 2011 1:32 PM

Sharon, you were doing well with the shame part and on a roll...then you had to refer to a woman's "bottom." C'mon, you sound ... ashamed.

Sadly, though, this thread has been hijacked by fundamentalists trying to defend the concept of shame. I wonder what causes such self-loathing.

Shame is bad on so many levels. It teaches that men aren't responsible to control themselves.

It teaches that women should do whatever (such as dress modestly) to cater to the whims of men.

It teaches that there is something wrong with the way god made humans.

And worst, it teaches people to be smarmy, judgemental and antisocial, more concerned with outward appearance than actual people.

I could go on, but you get the idea.

Posted By: bond | December 16, 2011 1:58 PM

The whole point of the "shame" aspect of this article is being completely missed. A woman shouldn't be ashamed because she has a figure. That is it, simple, isn't it? Why be ashamed of what God gave you? If man looked at woman than we all just assume post hoc ergo propter hoc. Which is, as you know, a fallacy in and of itself. As is what
anonymous said at 10:33 (Ad hominem), the one who blasted the commenter who may or may not have been a Christian, I find your attitude in regards to non-Christians very unbiblical. You honestly don't have any right to decide not to refute or respond to a logical argument made by a non believer. It's your duty in a sense to be able to make your point, especially to a non-believer. Please show that you have the mental capacity to attack the argument. Not to mention the fact that you have no earthly idea whether or not this person is a Believer.

Posted By: Victoria | December 16, 2011 2:01 PM

Sharon,

While I do not necessarily agree with everything in this article, I thank you for writing it. Supposed modesty is a very important subject, particularly in today's hyper-sexual youth culture; unfortunately, it is not often talked about in a relevant manner.

Thank you for stimulating conversation on the topic. I always look forward to reading your articles.

Posted By: Julianne | December 16, 2011 2:17 PM

Saw this posted by some lady friends on Facebook. Very good post. I hope it frees a lot of women from the shame heaped on by horny hypocrites. I used to make many of the arguments made by some of the guys on this thread back when I was a young man oppressed by lust...and a religious spirit.
God showed me how wrong I was when I had to watch my attractive young sister go through the wringer. She was in tears because no matter how much she covered herself, the "godly" men would castize her (especially once they figured out she didn't want to date them) for her immodesty and the envious "godly" sisters who wanted her in a box so the other guys would notice them. She finally concluded that she would pray and ask God what she should wear and not worry what anybody else said. I then realized that lust was my problem and my responsibility. I asked her forgiveness for having judged her.
I personally believe that most guys should shut up about modesty, especially if they have any beam of lust in their eye. All you are doing is heaping your shame on somebody else. Lay your shame at the cross. Jesus is the only one capable of taking it.

P.S. For what it's worth, a book that helped me out was "Sex, Food and God" by David Eckman

Posted By: jMo | December 16, 2011 3:04 PM

Anne, (1:32) - I have to apologize if it seemed I was attacking the author - I was not. I was responding to a couple of other posts who placed the entire blame of lust solely upon the man with no regard as to the temptation that may have been placed in front of him (which is, interestingly enough, exactly what the post beneath mine said). I do not believe a woman should feel shame for what she *is*. Shame should come as a result of *attitude* or *action* that is sinful. As a man I can control what I stare at, but not what I see. And, I wanted to make clear that immodest dress can be a male problem as well as female - something this thread has not addressed so much. I apologize if I gave offense where it was not intended.

Posted By: Paul Smith | December 16, 2011 3:53 PM

Thank Sharon for an excellent article, which has sadly been misunderstood by some who have never thought through the problem (or fail to see a problem. )
Thank you Anne for posting one of the most helpful comments which actually addressed the issue in the article.

The point of this article is not modesty vs. immodesty. [Surely all Christians would be proponents of modesty] It's an attempt to expose a centuries-old problem within the Church, namely that the female body has been objectified. The Modest is Hottest slogan might encourage modesty but it also assumes objectification of the body. It causes women to view the body as a weapon which must be tamed rather than the means by which to glorify God (i.e. through the use of God's gifts and the cultivation of the fruit of the Spirit).
I'm not sure many men understand what it's like to feel objectified in spite of dressing modestly. Obviously women should take responsibility for how they dress but men should take care to treat women as fellow heirs created in the image of God for His glory.
Again, this is not a debate about what's modest and what's immodest (that could certainly be a topic for another article). It's a debate about the predominant view of the female body among Christians. What's ultimately at stake is the fact that women have been objectified since the Fall. This slogan, Modest is Hottest, perpetuates this objectification by reducing girls' identity to their physical appearance rather than promoting spiritual growth.

Posted By: Natalie C. | December 16, 2011 4:18 PM

@Bond. "I could go on,But you get the idea." Indeed, most of us get your "idea." Artful Dodger comes to mind, with your name calling, "hijacked by fundamentalist..." Faux psycho-analysis "I wonder what causes such self loathing..." Further,you characterize those who take scripture to be important teaching from God as "smarmy, judgmental and anti-social..." Oh yes, we do get your idea, for we meet and hear folk like you everyday and we will pray for you, while at the same time continue to teach (especially our young) that God has taught a system of moral values and decency, modesty and virtue.

Posted By: Jack Lawrence | December 16, 2011 4:27 PM

When women are able to do what men take for granted-- dressing appropriately for the situation, in clothes that they like and feel comfortable in-- when they no longer feel a need to be dressing themselves FOR the opposite sex, whether to attract lust or turn it away; when women can stop feeling like their bodies are all others see of them; then women will be free. This may never happen in the world, but it would be really lovely if it could happen in the Body of Christ.

Posted By: KR Wordgazer | December 16, 2011 4:39 PM

"The point of this article is not modesty vs. immodesty. [Surely all Christians would be proponents of modesty] It's an attempt to expose a centuries-old problem within the Church, namely that the female body has been objectified. The Modest is Hottest slogan might encourage modesty but it also assumes objectification of the body. It causes women to view the body as a weapon which must be tamed rather than the means by which to glorify God (i.e. through the use of God's gifts and the cultivation of the fruit of the Spirit). "

I agree for the most part, Natalie. But how can the body be used to glorify God through the use of God's gifts & cultivation of the fruit of the Spirit? Doesn't it have to be tamed and honed first? Or merely set free?

In scripture, the tongue needs to be tamed. It's the most unruly member. And yet it is also the member through which prophecy usually flows. While we should be expressive...we should also be PROPERLY tamed & honed so as to not DEFAME what we express! Isn't that a reasonable position?

Attacking a centuries old problem within the church is ok. But to try to link it with a 3-word contemporary slogan which is trying the swing the pendulum back AWAY from objectifying the body is the wrong battle to fight! Modest is Hottest is basically saying that if you want to be cute, good, approved, etc... (even by men)... it is best to be modest. Modest in spirit and flesh.

Don't sell our teens short. They're not stupid. Teens may not be deep thinkers,but I can't imagine a teen saying "Wow. What a sexy slogan! 'Modest is HOTTEST.' Lemme see if I can find the most modest person in this room & cozy up to her, and treat her body like a thing!" No. Guys don't think that way. The slogan helps to COUNTERACT treating the body as a thing! The slogan, quite simply, WORKS in the way it is supposed to work, for its intended audience. And it's too cheesy to be taken seriously for long. It's a funny saying that won't be with us forever. And I wouldn't care if it were. It's a positive influence. Stop picking on the conservative crowd just because they're conservatives, will you?

Posted By: E Harris | December 16, 2011 4:47 PM

I believe some of the vitriol (and mischaracterizing) aimed at 'conservative' christians is done in order to disrupt, divide, and scatter the church and it's spiritual authority (even that authority which God entrusted to men as leaders of their households). These same attacks use scant Scripture, and don't pay attention to the meaning of Scripture even when it is used. For some people, their sole purpose for coming on this site (or sometimes publishing on this site) is to dishearten and disrupt what they would probably call "Christendom". They think that all or most christians are just like the clergy of 1000 years ago. Well, it's easy to beat a dead dog. Try getting along with your fellow Christians TODAY. They are not as you characterize them. They aren't self-loathing, women loathing, body-hating, ... whatever. They are normal people, and they want to live holy & holistic lives - in the Way that God has given to them.

There is angst involved with being a man that a woman cannot understand. Part of that is the angst of realizing where the "war" is located & who/what/where to fight against. God basically told Adam that he would be struggling against himself: by the sweat of his brow.

There is angst that a woman has - burdens that she carries - that a man cannot understand. This is HER part in the battle of good against evil. For women, the angst seems to center more on relationship - particularly her relation to the man (or men) in her life. (This is made worse, when the MAN doesn't understand who he is or his place...but that's another story!) The woman's particular (and misunderstood) angst is that her desire would be FOR the man, and the man would rule over her. Women are more emotive, and men tend to be more mind-driven than women (on average). While women are usually saying "Spit it out, or just get on with it!" ... the men are probably stuck wondering "How do I navigate the mechanics of this?" As I said before (using the Bible, referring to Scripture) the woman was made from the man, for the man, in order to be a help meet to him. So her attention naturally gravitates toward men and caring. This is natural - it's not unnatural. It doesn't even necessarily have to be programmed into women (I'm guessing). After all, little girls do tend to play house. They DESIRE relationship, particularly that one central relationship which makes a FAMILY possible. But once that relationship is entered into... the man is the natural initiator, head, and leader in most matters. So she naturally cares what he thinks. God placed that into her (like it or not). This actually HELPS her guard and guide his heart in some situations.

A godly woman wants her man to lead. (It's a tragedy that most men don't know how to lead, or even lead in a godly fashion... but that's another story.) Much of the angst that the woman blames on the man - is probably her own. She needs to realize who SHE is in Christ - regardless of what he thinks! Then she can be a woman without feeling threatened. SHE needs to be the one taking the stand and quietly/appropriately proclaiming the truth - (even if it is a campy slogan) - when the man is simply too lazy or laid-back to do so.

Posted By: E Harris | December 16, 2011 5:15 PM

E. Harris: I don't know quite how this got onto the authority of men (except that for some reason it always does), but I do think that girls feel pressured to dress in a way that "pleases" the boys they encounter. I was one of those who chose to rebel against my peers rather than against my parents. I resented the assumption of boys at school that I was obligated to dress in a way that was attractive to them. And I paid for that decision with the resulting unpopularity.

You wanted (rightly) a biblical foundation. Gen. 1:27 states that woman, like man, was created in the image of God. Rev. 4:11 states that God created all things for His own pleasure. Matthew 28 gives the Great Commission, which is a command laid on all believers. A married woman naturally desires to be attractive to her husband, but the primary purpose of her existence is to give pleasure and glory to God. If we teach girls that God made them for His own pleasure, and teach them how to delight the One who redeemed them, we will not need (I would argue) campaigns for purity. We will be countering the world's pressure (and there is plenty of it) to sin against God and demean themselves.

I have no argument with your complementarian position, except in one regard. If you make a woman's existence all about complementing a man, then you make girls more (not less) vulnerable to the temptations of our culture, because the church has failed to offer any alternative to the obsession with romance and sex that preoccupies popular culture. Further, the church perpetuates the kind of stereotypes that say that women are emotional and men are rational. Such beliefs are traditions of men that have no foundation in Scripture. If the church encourages girls to have backbone, and use their brains, and make use of the gifts God has given them, then that is the kind of women the church will get.

Posted By: Anne | December 16, 2011 6:36 PM

As we discuss this important topic in our over sexualized society, let me plead with you to make sure that all the arguments you make can be and are in fact backed up by Scripture in context. Unless we do so, it is only man’s (or woman’s) thought with the potential of being carnal or even demonic wisdom (James 3:15).
It is not because we are Christians that our thoughts come naturally from God (even if they “make sense”), we need to have our mind renewed in opposition to the wisdom of this world that we embrace so easily (Romans 12:2).
Being biblical is not natural, it requires study, prayer, and a relentless familiarity with God and His Word, unless we do that, we are only sharing our worldly wisdom and suppressing God’s truth.
Let us give to the Word of God its proper place and use it as the standard of what is right and wrong by actually using it to prove our points.

Posted By: Alain | December 16, 2011 6:55 PM

Amen, Anne. You are far more careful & eloquent than I have been. The only reason I piped up, was because I sense a lack of adequate 'conservative' (read: biblically christian) articulation in the articles on this very website. I also include much of CT, in this. There is a balance to be found, when we place God on the throne of our hearts - and make Him first! I didn't mean to distract from that one bit - though I probably did, a bit.

But lets not forget that the two "sexes" were not created in the absence of each other. Man was created, and God created the woman from the man. So we cannot consider our bodies & the beauty of our bodies & the display of our bodies...in the absence of consideration for how we may be helping or hindering the other gender (if they are present). That's common sense. That's Bible.

Posted By: E Harris | December 16, 2011 7:26 PM

Ok, I get it. Finally. Better than I did earlier. Girls are very sensitive to peer pressure in the area of dress - even more so than guys. And this peer pressure (from guys or even fellow women) can be a distraction from "holiness unto the Lord." We, after all, are to live unto the Lord. Ok. So... what do we say? Modest is... Godly. Modest is... Good. Modest dress should be... supported by everyone in their right mind.

...um, not catchy. I think that there is nothing wrong with a mildly tongue-in-cheek "modest is hottest" if its in moderation.

I can see the judgementalism burning through that slogan though. Some poor stripper from off the street may be offended, in her journey toward Christ. Many young women, tripping up in their mid-riffs, may be driven away from what they think is a 'self-righteous' youth group, in a weak moment of offense. Ok, I get it. Some self-righteous woman may get too prideful in her physical modesty and may need to be reminded that modest is a spiritual virtue as well...

I suppose it is for all of these scenarios that the author of the above article brought up Tertullian as an example of how MEN objectify women. And somehow, that's related to the slogan "Modest is HOTTEST." That's a MAN that made that slogan! (probably wasn't) That slogan encourages MEN to objectify women (it does not). That slogan encourages women to objectify themselves, in the presence of other women and men... well, not quite. It may cause them to objectify their CLOTHING and STANDARDS. And that is where we can get tripped up.

Grace is a must, in the christian life. Abundant grace, extended toward everyone. However...grace is only present because we need it's forgiveness and power and flexibility when dealing with the law. Because the law is still present -and it is to be written on our hearts and expressed from there! We are to obey God!

Posted By: E Harris | December 16, 2011 7:39 PM

@Bond

Because you're doing a great job of not judging here.

Personally, I think shame is a necessary part of life, and a recognition that we have failed to meet our obligations, whether spiritually, socially or otherwise.

Here's the thing: Shame, like Honor, is an internal attribute. Having shame for our sins and trespasses? That's godly. Being shamed by others for what they perceive are our sins and trespasses? That's not. That's not to say we shouldn't correct our brothers and sisters in Christ when they fail - we should - it's saying that shaming them, making them feel less than they are in the eyes of God, isn't the way to do so.

"Modesty" doesn't seek to be "hottest". Modesty seeks to be, well, modest. Unassuming. Humble. Christ-like. Can you imagine Jesus ever saying "Be though hot in thy modesty, that others may seek to be hot as well."? I can't.

Posted By: Newly Karen | December 16, 2011 7:41 PM

lol. Good one, Karen. Ok. I'm learning the subtleties. I think that the slogan was to help young women be PROUD (in themselves) of their modesty. Maybe that's not the type of pride that we should be aiming for. We are to boast in one thing only: that we know God. It is important, however, to boast in the Lord (at least inwardly). We need to do this, when confronted with HARSH attack against things that would lure us away - or bash us if we don't submit (to secularism and immodesty in dress and action). Let's face it: the immodesty-lobby is in full-swing and in-your-face. Those of you who bash a conservative youth group saying "modest is HOTTEST" ... what would YOU do, in order to COUNTER the ASSAULT on godliness, virtue, modesty, decency, and respect? That's a tall order. Let's see YOU try to take a crack at it, then! How should we teach the parents & caregivers to mentor their children in this area? What words should they use? What standards should they hold up as examples? C'mon, don't stand on the outside & criticize. If you must tear down, then build us up with twice as much of an alternative!

Posted By: E Harris | December 16, 2011 8:20 PM

E Harris:

What you are missing is that in contemporary slang the word "Hottest" when referring to a girl, woman, female teen has the connotation of meaning "sexy". Hence, telling a teenage girl that "Modest is Hottest" is a paradox and sends a mixed message. It may sound like a good slogan on the surface, but it is very flawed in its application.

Modesty, above all is not a physical attribute, but a personal and spiritual attribute. Teaching children (both boys and girls) that to be modest is an attitude that one does not seek to call undo attention to one self. When we make modesty an issue of dress and sexuality, we miss the opportunities for spiritual growth. Emphasizing modesty as a problem of covering skin creates a one dimensional view. Not to mention the fact that there can be no real agreement on what would constitute modest dress.

Posted By: Steve D | December 16, 2011 8:24 PM

Newly Karen

There's shame because we commit a sinful act. Then there's shame that's caused by peer pressure. The first shame is healthy, the second is destructive. Teaching a woman that her body will tempt men no matter what she does is wrong and in some cases makes the woman ashamed of her own body. That teaching is not scriptural.

Posted By: Steve D | December 16, 2011 8:39 PM

Sharon, this was an excellent article. I read every comment and have come to the conclusion that those who disagreed with you did not understand the argument you were making and had strong feelings about this subject that would have come out even if it had been a different article by someone else written about the same subject. Thank you for continuing to think deeply and redemptively about the church's rhetoric of purity and the way we think about and communicate sexual ethics to women young and old.

Posted By: Rory Tyer | December 16, 2011 11:23 PM

Seems to me that what this article is saying is "don't be sexual"! Ladies if you are of child-bearing age, whether you like it or not, virtually every man who has ever known you has wondered, perhaps quite briefly, what you look like naked. That is simply how men are wired. Men are not women and I think many women are forgetful of this fact. In some ways, this piece is an example of the feminization of the church, of women wanting define how men are suppose to behave.

Posted By: Buddy Boyes | December 16, 2011 11:50 PM

Buddy. Hmm...the article seems to me to be about asking that women quit being blamed for the way men say they are wired. I have talked to men who claim that what you assert is not in fact true. But even if it is true that men habitually undress women in their minds, why should women be forced to bear the shame of or blame for that?

I have seen a women who was wearing a long-sleeved turtle-neck sweater with a jacket over and ankle length skirt and boots be accused of dressing provocatively and blamed for the pastor lusting after her. The attempt was made to have her (modestly dressed as she was) take on the shame and responsibility for the pastor's lack of self-control. That is, I think, what this article is about.

As to the link, that is a whole other can of worms and I would refer you to this link:
http://kathyescobar.com/2011/03/01/cross-gender-friendships/

Posted By: Katherine Gunn | December 17, 2011 12:32 AM

I have been overly engaged in this debate (which as picked by the author). I like debates - but they can become so intense that they eclipse the meanings, intent, and motives of those engaged in the discussion. I enjoy standing up for what's right - and I can get carried away with that... when the need is something slightly different. I think God is far more aware of our needs than even we are. I think that a lot of the moaning and complaining about a simple slogan that isn't all that misleading... is due to something else. (By the way, the definition of 'modest' isn't a physical definition - it's about conduct as well. So those of you who JUDGE the people who use the phrase & wear it on a T-shirt... keep that in mind. Modest is a holistic word, when treated properly. And there is NO WAY for you to know how other people are covering the subject in their non-televised youth groups.)

That said, I must apologize. I don't apologize for my stand. But for the delivery. I think there's something MUCH DEEPER going on here. I've seen evidence of it, especially in the first posts of this conversation. But, as usual, I went straight toward defending the truth - and skipped over the softer needs of women struggling in this area. Part of the reason for that, is that I am a man - and a man's tendency is to look for a quick resolution and a way to fix the problem so that everything works.

It seemed almost like a soft rebuke to me - and an eye opener... when I opened up the Bible last night. It was almost like God was advocating for the 'other side'. But not in any way that has been mentioned in this debate/discussion. My eyes fell immediately upon these words from Song of Solomon 5:7. If you are familiar with Biblical symbology... you will know what is being said. "They struck me, they wounded me; The keepers of the walls Took my veil away from me. I charge you, O daughters of Jerusalem, If you find my beloved, That you tell him I am lovesick!"

Love covers a multitude of sins. Even immodesty. And sometimes those who stand up for truth and character are the hardest on people. And many may have been wounded by slights in the past...and are in recovery. People like me must remember to speak the truth in love. Personal love for the person being spoken to, must come first - even in an abstract discussion about 'modesty' and the meaning of that word. Especially in a conversation about modesty!

Many women may have been so hurt by others, that they are bewildered and truly cannot see the forest for the trees. Words may actually get in the way - when the receiver doesn't understand the love and honesty that underlies the matter-of-factness of the words. So the receiver calls it judgemental. Because they are wounded and bleeding - and they need something deeper than words and concepts can express. Sometimes words can expose things in people - even though the speaker doesn't realize that something has been uncovered... And people react. Or even if they don't react... it's still very delicate. That is why I should've been more careful.

On the other side of the coin: also realize that there is another soft-spot that people like Rebecca St. James deal with every day (or at least once a week). Conservative Christians are consistently ridiculed, mischaracterized, deliberately misunderstood, portrayed as monsters, portrayed as uncaring and cruel, portrayed as... literally, there is no end to this list. I am very involved in politics, religion, and the social climate of the debates that rage in America and I can tell you: there are MANY people who want to make conservatives the all-purpose scape-goat. And then these same people act surprised and hurt when conservatives come charging out of the gate in a DEFENSIVE POSTURE. That's because we're being attacked, and we're tender in that area (of being misunderstood, mislabelled, etc. etc.). So please forgive me for my tenacity - but also... please understand why 'conservatives' would say the things they say, when they come to a liberal website that criticizes and tears down ... but does not rebuild the walls!

(Many political conservatives are people who strive to be Biblical Christians, which would also include many in the Tea Party...to give you an example of how harsh we are portrayed. Most liberals probably have a poor image of the Tea Party, because they have believed the lies said about us. And this does not aid in anyone's understanding of 'the other side' of the coin. Yes, there are standards. Yes, there is abundant grace and love in the Father...that was released through the Son's sacrifice. He turned shame into glory for us. So that we may be like Him, and stop being afraid, and learn to walk next to Him as a disciple.)

Posted By: E Harris | December 17, 2011 5:11 AM

I think that a lot of the mis-characterizing of conservatives that goes on... is because people are lashing out. Their lives have been hurt in some way, somehow. And because we often don't know the solution to their pain - it is easier to simply lay the blame (truly or falsely) upon the other's doorstep. Many people say that if pain exists - then someone else needs to change something! Dress more modestly! OR "Stop judging me!" ...when really, the need is always DEEPER THAN THAT, but isn't being let out in the open for discussion. Many women are hurting or fearful - ann they cover that up by judging the judges... and they think that is how they will 'rise above it all.' Well, ok, if that's what you need to do. But - understand that God does have 'preferences' and 'desires' for you, and wants to communicate them to you, as directly as you can recieve them. He loves you, and wishes for you to participate in that love. Let the chip on your shoulder fall down, just a bit. Realize that your enemies (ideological opponents) don't have it all together (nor do most them them even THINK or SAY that they have it all together!). In the harshness or matter-of-factness of debate... it is the subtler (and deeper) emotional needs that are overlooked. It's the cry that is occuring between the words that God understands.

Posted By: E Harris | December 17, 2011 5:28 AM

Thanks for your article and your thoughts. Very interesting especially on such as gray area which has different interpretations of modesty.

I can first talk first hand of my experience. I was born and brought up in a strong traditional church with an emphasis on holiness. However, due to lack of understanding, I couldn't express myself as an individual and felt a "Christian" girl should look/act/dress a certain way. Consequently, I developed self esteem issues as I clearly didn't fit in with the masses. It wasn't until I developed a strong relationship with Christ that understood that Jesus saved me for a purpose! He empowered me to be an individual in Christ. I understood that it is Christ who really puts a conviction in your heart about how you should dress, not my parents/or church...although they are there to guide.

I pride myself as a graceful dresser, I take pride in covering myself. I believe I am a daughter of the king of Heaven, as a result, I dress like one. That is my personal conviction. The way I dress to glorify Christ (I pray I do), has set me apart to reach certain types of people like Muslims (who find it refreshing that a young Christian Girl can dress without revealing skin but is stylish, or even other fashion followers are are like wow "you can wear this and look nice". Through this medium, the good news is shared.

I cannot point fingers at the church or anyone, but I can say that there are room for improvements. We want the Glory of God to shine through every aspect of our lives, from the kind acts to the physical way we appear. We are saved to serve.

If I were to rephrase the t-shirt, I would state that Modest is Graceful.

Esther, Co Editor of The Mogue

Posted By: Esther | December 17, 2011 9:05 AM

@Sharon - When women are advised to dress modestly, it is not because their bodies are being stigmatised and neither is it because of some theological hangup about women's bodies.

There are verses in scripture that do make you accountable if you cause your brother/sister to fall - and not just in the case of lust. If, for instance, a friend of yours has a cultural problem with eating meat (some Hindus from India consider eating meat extremely sinful), then if you were to eat meat in front of him/her and cause him/her to also to eat this same meat even though their conscience accuses them, then you have caused them to sin.

Also, why do you consider modesty to be restrictive or dehumanising? Do you really need to show your cleavage and your thighs to someone other than your husband? Why? and why do you consider this a true test of the extent of your emancipation?

You mention that hips, breasts etc are all to the glory of God. True. I absolutely agree. So also are the male organs. Do you think it is appropriate for men to walk around showing their phallus?

Also, why do so many women wear such tight figure hugging clothes in church? Should men consider it their God given right to go around wearing spandex/tight pants which reveal their crotch in church?

The fact that we are even debating about this simple obvious thing - that women need to dress modestly (and so also the men), indicates how far radical feminism has crept into the church.

Sharon, you have yourself confessed to feeling insecure around women who dress a bit immodestly in church. Recognise this feeling and understand what it is telling you - it is telling you that the fact that this woman is dressing provocatively may in fact cause your husband to fall.

Also, do recognise that we are living in a hyper-sexualised world. Men are confronted day and night in all forms of media by women who are scantily dressed or not dressed at all. Pornography is rampant. If you think this isn't damaging the church, then you are very naive.

And if you think Christian women can wash their hands off their responsibility towards the men and dress exactly like their secular counterparts, and if you think that Christian women aren't doing themselves a service by dressing modestly, then there is a lot you are missing about this discussion.

Posted By: Philip | December 17, 2011 9:08 AM

@Esther - Excellent point. Modest is Graceful is much better. What I would also add to this discussion - Sexy and Elegant aren't the same thing and neither is Sexy and Pretty.

Across the world, women are now trying to look sexy - not pretty.. and definitely not elegant.

Posted By: Philip | December 17, 2011 9:13 AM

It's always mind boggling to me how so many people make 'modesty' into an issue of 'women helping men.'

That in itself is a shame tactic - it's a guilt trip.

We're supposed to be good, loving, Christian sisters who of course would want to help our brothers out with their seeming inability to control their own thoughts....And so we're made to feel bad if we dress to please ourselves - how selfish!

And they frame this as "helping." We're supposed to help and support.

Yet it never goes the other way. Hey guys.... why don't you help out your Christian sisters by not putting stumbling blocks in our way? Why don't you quit viewing us as sexual objects so that we're not tempted to dress provocatively and entice you? Did you know that women are 'naturally' more inclined to objectify ourselves when men constantly give more attention to the women who do? When you all ogle provocatively dressed women, did it never occur to you that tacitly encourage women to dress that way in order to get your attention?

Stop ogling women in 'immodest' clothing and you'll stop encouraging women to dress in such a fashion in order to catch your attention. Don't you realize that by letting your thought-life remain unrestrained (i.e. lusting after every woman who is not completely covered up) you're tempting your sisters to stumble into immodesty?

You should think of your sisters and of not causing them to sin. Take responsibility for your part.

Posted By: Tamara | December 17, 2011 9:57 AM

@ Phillip: Yea, I agree. 'Modest is Graceful' is a FAR healthier picture and theologically deep way of looking at it. I think that 'Modest is Hottest' actually stems from an 'us vs them' dynamic that goes on in serious conservative circles (even those who are serious about their youth group)... the statement has a "take that!" element to it! I admit, that's not really Godly... but I can easily understand why they do it that way!

Posted By: E Harris | December 17, 2011 11:13 AM

Tamara, you shouldn't feel overly oppressed or guilty. But just remember: you should dress to please GOD. And that would include helping your brothers out, in their quest to be pure! After all, if someone is weak in an area (and doesn't believe in eating meat, for example) you don't slap down a hunk of meat in his face & start eating it in front of him...and chastising him for how he thinks it's wrong. It's truly the "weaker brother" argument. Women may be the weaker vessel in some respects, but men are weak in others.

Men & women are not the same. I don't know how much science you need, at this point! Men ARE more visual. How many male cheerleaders do you see vs. female cheerleaders at football games! On the other side: how many men do you see buying up romance books BY THE DOZEN to devour every page! There is a multi-billion dollar industry of fantastic RELATIONAL imagery (in word form) pouring out of our presses so fast it would make your head spin! Women ARE relational, and so men shouldn't be playing relational games with them. Men are visual...and so women should not play visual games with them!

Playing with fire, dude (dudette)!

Posted By: E Harris | December 17, 2011 11:19 AM

You know what... we almost need a sense of shame! Women should be able to shame men, like they were able to do in the late 1800's! But they gave that up, when they insisted on the right to dress however they want, without even an attempt at clearly defined standards!

Posted By: E Harris | December 17, 2011 11:23 AM

@Tamara - Your attitude is typical of the blinded feminist attitudes pervading the American church.

You may want to consider the fact that the Bible explicitly commands woman to dress modestly. If you disagree with this, I suggest that you take this up with God.

Your statement that men should just stop ogling - well, let me just say that the Bible does ask men to not give in to adultery. Christ says that even thinking a single immoral thought is equivalent to committing adultery.

The reason the Bible says this so many times is because that is an area of weakness for men. This isn't a new weakness either - it is an area where ALL men suffer and suffer greatly.

Let me assure you that your husband, sons, dad, brothers etc all suffer this. This is an area where even Christian leaders suffer - history is replete with stories of Christian leaders who have fallen to sexual temptation. Even King Solomon who wrote the many, many warnings in Proverbs about not yielding to lust finally fell.

A very large (>80%) percentage of men in church are either addicted to pornography or have viewed pornography within the last month. This ratio is roughly the same even for Christian leaders.

To put it simply - when a woman walks around in revealing clothes, it is equivalent to offering a person struggling with alcoholism a glass or beer or a struggling drug addict cocaine.

You may say, well, if he falls, he is solely responsible. In a sense it is true, but you miss the fact that this is a very, very difficult struggle for men.

If you make this a rights issue for women (which the feminist often do), then you miss the picture. It is not just that man who suffers. But also his family, the society, his children, his wife, the church.. everyone suffers.

Something else - the latest statistics indicate that women are the fastest growing demographic for porn viewers. So this trend is fast catching up among women as well.

It is not that women don't have areas where they struggle - Paul commands women to be submissive to their husbands, and to respect their husbands. Does this come easy for women?

Posted By: Philip | December 17, 2011 11:24 AM

This is like the battle of the sexes. Great conversation! ;) I'm lovin' it. Anyway... I kinda understand Tamara & she has a good point. However, she is TOTALLY abdicating her own authority (in her own sphere under God) and abdicating her own sense of self-control and dignity. Also... (like many women) she vastly underestimates her ability to shame men. Well, I think women are innately onto this game, actually. But instead of shaming men for looking at them... they should instead do it from a position of feminine authority instead of feminine weakness.

Posted By: E Harris | December 17, 2011 11:47 AM

Feminine authority comes from a position of prior self-control. Otherwise, you are an intelligent cry baby (basically). Am I wrong?

Posted By: E Harris | December 17, 2011 11:49 AM

Tamara, I couldn't agree more. Nicely put.

Tim

Posted By: Tim | December 17, 2011 11:58 AM

I have only one point of disagreement with Tamara: we don't dress to please ourselves. We dress to please others & God, and thereby please ourselves. A woman would have no need to dress up, if there were nobody around and no mirrors. Dressing UP really isn't done to please ourselves. My point is made again: women are relational in nature, even moreso than men. Especially in the area of dress. That is why modesty & dress is such a sensitive issue...because where does the buck stop in a hall of mirrors??

Posted By: E Harris | December 17, 2011 12:11 PM

Maybe the answer is just be a man, take responsibility for yourself. And ignore the ladies when they blame YOU for everything under the son!

Posted By: E Harris | December 17, 2011 12:13 PM

Meanwhile, what are we supposed to tell our daughters about modesty?

Posted By: E Harris | December 17, 2011 12:30 PM

Phillip & E Harris

I would like to suggest that neither of you are getting what this conversation is really about:

1- I haven't seen anyone here suggest that women should dress immodestly. I honestly don't think that anyone here WOULD suggest that either women or men should dress immodestly.

2- What the original post IS about has more to do with how the issue of modesty is handled in Christian culture. Simply put: Some Men do not take responsibility for their own thought lives, therefore, the blame falls on women under the concept that women dress immodestly. Nowhere in the Bible does it give anyone a pass for being tempted and giving in. We cannot stand before God and blame it on "how we are wired". After all, He wired us, so He would know our weaknesses.

3- Men,unless a woman has specifically offended you and caused you to stumble, keep your opinions to yourself.

4- "Men are visual" Some are, some aren't. That's why some women wear perfume.

5- Finally, what this post was about was that the phrase "Modest is Hottest" when analyzed, did not communicate the concept of modesty effectively. This is not a conservative bashing issue, but simply an issue or poor communication. The damage that was done to these women is real and it's palpable. As Christian brothers, we should be looking to help our sisters heal.

Posted By: Steve D | December 17, 2011 1:37 PM

Ok, how about "Modesty Wins" ?

It's theologically accurate. It retains the victorious and challenging demeanor of the "modest is hottest". ... Is everybody agreed, now?

I'm done.

I think Rebecca St. James can more than stick up for herself. Rather than getting mad at my gender or whatever - I suggest that you address all further complaints to Rebecca St. James for her radical view that "Modest is HOTTEST."

Posted By: E Harris | December 17, 2011 1:42 PM

Something tells me that Rebecca St. James can more than stand up for herself, and she can handle a debate or two. And if she needs anyone to defend her (rhetorically) ... she can just give me a call!

Until then... I would recommend that rather than explore all the ways that we can expose the body... we should instead focus on what the nature of real, true, spiritual 'modesty' is! It's not good enough to sit on the sidelines and ridicule those who try to take a stand against a sliding culture. I'm sorry, but a purely de-constructionist approach that seeks merely to "free" the body and all judgement related to it... isn't really spiritual. It doesn't do it for me, as a man of God who is interested in becoming more of a man of God.

Posted By: E Harris | December 17, 2011 1:47 PM

E Harris wrote:
"Until then... I would recommend that rather than explore all the ways that we can expose the body... we should instead focus on what the nature of real, true, spiritual 'modesty' is! It's not good enough to sit on the sidelines and ridicule those who try to take a stand against a sliding culture. I'm sorry, but a purely de-constructionist approach that seeks merely to "free" the body and all judgement related to it... isn't really spiritual. It doesn't do it for me, as a man of God who is interested in becoming more of a man of God."

Please tell me WHO is exploring ALL THE WAYS THAT WE CAN EXPOSE THE BODY? I haven't seen ANYONE advocating that. Perhaps you're confusing this with another conversation.

BTW, I'm a guy.

Posted By: Steve D | December 17, 2011 2:01 PM

Steve D, both of your recent comments hit the nail on the head.

Cheers,
Tim

Posted By: Tim | December 17, 2011 2:24 PM

While I appreciate that a number of men have given thoughtful responses on this blog, does this have to be a battle of the sexes?

Philip, I'm getting a bit tired of hearing men in the Christian community scream "feminism" every time a woman expresses a perspective that is different from how men see the matter. A woman is commanded in Scripture to dress modestly. A man is commanded (not asked) not to lust. Both genders are responsible. She is responsible for her wardrobe. He is responsible for what thoughts he entertains (i.e. chooses to dwell on).

Tell me, if men are so helpless before the temptations women offer, why did God give them leadership roles? Shouldn't their authority come with the power of the Holy Spirit? And if they are not living in that power, whose fault is that?

Posted By: Anne | December 17, 2011 2:43 PM

Tongue in cheek: since I have no desire to appear "hot" to anyone other than my husband, I am going to forgo all modest dress in public. And, because "modest is hottest", when I really want to entice my husband, I will cover myself from head to toe with the most shapeless garb I can find.

It's sad that we are communicating to girls that they should want to be "hot"...sexy...provocative. Should that really be what motivates women of any age when they get dressed in the morning? I should want to be as hot as possible and, since "modest is hottest", that's how I should dress?

That is not what I taught my daughter. Her husband thanks me for that, because he enjoys having an appropriately modest wife who, at the same time, is definitely not ashamed of her body. Somehow she missed or ignored all the cultural messages, now being repeated by the church, that she had a duty to be hot. She is such a radical, she thinks she has a duty to please and glorify God!

Posted By: Rebecca | December 17, 2011 3:00 PM

Amen, Anne. I have a tendency to jump the gun a bit!

Posted By: E Harris | December 17, 2011 3:28 PM

But in my defense, I will quote:

"Second, we must affirm the value of the female body. The value or meaning of a woman’s body is not the reason for modesty. Women’s bodies are not inherently distracting or tempting. On the contrary, women’s bodies glorify God. Dare I say that a woman’s breasts, hips, bottom, and lips all proclaim the glory of the Lord! Each womanly part honors Him. He created the female body, and it is good.

Finally, language about modesty should focus not on hiding the female body but on understanding the body’s created role. Immodesty is not the improper exposure of the body per se, but the improper orientation of the body."

The value or meaning of a woman's body is not the reason for modesty? Uh, yea. You are modest about those things that are most beautiful, correct?? What OTHER purpose could there be for clothing the body, other than modesty??

Then by all means, Glorify God all the more!!! And where exactly is the line of modesty going to draw us back from exposing our lips, hips, and everything else in between? If we are not to focus on hiding it, but accentuating it... and accentuating it... and accentuating it... but never to focus on hiding it... then what is the LOGICAL progression of such progressive logic??

Nudity and expression. Virtues probably prized by the artsy crowd in France during the time of the godless French Revolution. That's just a guess - but tell me if I'm accurate!

Posted By: E Harris | December 17, 2011 3:33 PM

I think that we emotionally understand the difference between modesty and immodesty (most of the time). The difficulty comes when we try to DEFINE modesty & immodesty. But if we don't TRY to define it or explain it, for the next generation, we will end up with more immorality.

It is because we are soooo poor at defining and discussing simple things like 'modesty' that muslims look at western culture, think that it represents christendom, and reject it entirely. The excuse that they use for their radicalism is right in front of their eyes: what we DO over in the west, without rebuke! They don't want that over there. Not even the women want that over there. And truth be told, most christians don't want it OVER HERE. But we have it. So how would you explain the disparity between secular culture and christian culture, to a muslim concerned about modesty?? I don't know. But it's worth a try!

Posted By: E Harris | December 17, 2011 3:40 PM

“Modest is hottest” is foundationally human-centered, whereas biblical modesty is first and foremost centered on God.
............
Your last sentence says it all, and I would add that it is am inworking of His grace to have the desire to dress modestly, it is nothing that we do but what He does in us.

I had never heard the phrase "modest is hottest" until I read your article. Basically, the subtle gesture is saying "We are stealth hotties"...."undercover bombshells"....and this is still SELF pointing at SELF saying "LOOK AT ME"....but hey, in the age of Facebook why am I not surprised?
I would say to my sisters AND brothers, deny self, let all the attention be given to the Lord, for He alone is worthy!

Posted By: S.Schulz | December 17, 2011 4:04 PM

@ Schulz, Amen! That nails it.

It's not like we have to insert Tertullian into a contemporary discussion, and bring in the attack hounds against the male objectification of the female body, and begin a merry-go-round blame game using the props from institutional christianity over 1000 years ago. Just make a simple comment about your present reaction to a simple slogan! You don't have to try too hard to max out all of the extensive historical knowledge that you gained in college! I don't think this T-shirt has much to do with Origen! If anything, any error in attitude concerning this slogan, is far more likely to be due to selfishness on part of the lady wearing the T-shirt (!) than a male attempt at trying to objectify and exploit women! C'mon now! And then people go bonkers if I call "feminism" or "battle of the sexes". Well then don't make it INTO a male versus female thing in the first place! By bringing a lot of "dead white men" into view, and then saying that the church needs an overhaul of theology concerning the body (?? whatever that means...) you are basically making the case that it is MEN that began the problem, and worse yet: the evil western white male!

I think the reason why I'm so involved in this discussion, is because I have so little at stake! So this has been an interesting subject for me to explore. I really don't struggle as much as most men in this area - and porn never seems to show up on my computer (thank God!). I'm just having fun giving voice to a more conservative position on the matter. Because the initial article made it sound like we needed a revolution (against who, against what? The church of the past isn't what is producing the immodesty or provoking the reaction to the immodesty!)

"All this negative talk about the female body may have created a vacuum"... what negative talk about the human body? The need to cover up? I think that many women are right when they say that we need to be telling BOTH genders to cover up a little more! Then again, it's not really my place to speak to anyone - except in the abstract. Let them make up their own minds. I hang out with women and guys in church that wear all kinds of questionable stuff. I don't think we need a complete overhaul of our "theology" of the human or female body. I think we just need to encourage a refinement of our understanding of modesty!

TO go back to Origen & folks that were more Roman in their understanding of the woman, than Christian... and then accuse contemporary pop-culture Christians of being the direct inheritors of those guys back in the 400's... is a TRAGIC misread! I would almost say an intentional misread - since it is the agenda of the left to make folks on the right (like Rebecca St. James) look like they are just like the heavy-yoked old-time Holy Roman Empire. Not so. We are farther away from that, than the people who consistently hearken back to those days as if they are a recent memory! The pentecostal/charismatic wing of Evangelicalism is about as FAR from Holy Roman Empire as you can get, and still be vaguely institutional...and we're changing still more toward freedom in Christ. Someday, we may meet in the middle.

Posted By: E Harris | December 17, 2011 4:38 PM

@Ed - if you believe that the Bible is outdated in its thinking and that "modern sensibilities" provides a better barometer or benchmark to weigh our lives against, then I beg to differ.

I know a lot of people do not like hearing this - but the Bible wasn't written by some cavemen with cavemen sensibilities. You cannot pick and choose what you want to believe and consider yourself a better judge of these things than God under whose inspiration the Bible was written.

@Anne - Feminism (and I use this word deliberately) is a real problem for the church. I have absolutely no issues with women rights etc, but I take issue with the fact that women take it as such an affront when any discussion about modesty comes up.

Feminism and an un-submissive rebellious spirit go hand in hand. Feminism in Christian circles also tries to state that men and women have exactly the same role in church - though this runs completely contrary to what is explicitly stated in scripture.

And what is the underlying thought process which drives this sense of outrage some women feel when a discussion about modesty comes up? May I dare say that the outrage stems from the fact that some women are saying this to themselves - "How dare he say anything about how I dress? what right does any man have to say anything about how women should dress?"

Feminism ignores the fact that the Bible does ask men to lead. Actually the statements that Paul makes about the role that men play as leaders in church are pretty strong. How can you lead when you cannot have an opinion on aspects of the church and its functioning? even the behaviour of women?

Granted - through church history men have abused their positions in church. Men have also abused their position at home as the head of the family.

But does that mean that men should now relinquish those roles to women? Or does that mean now that men and women should have the exact same roles in church?

The Bible isn't politically correct and neither is it convenient.

Men should be accountable for their lust no matter how difficult it gets and at the same time, women should yield to the authority that God has granted men in church - even though it is inconvenient and does not align with "modern sensibilities". Any movement which campaigns against this isn't from God.

Posted By: Philip | December 17, 2011 8:13 PM

Bond,
be careful, your hostility is showing, and madly; labelling people as a way of dismissing their ideas is quite narrow minded, and in fact no one can actually hijack a blog site, the point is it is open to discussion and varied opinions. i could almost laugh at your idea that women are being pressured to dress modestly to cater to the whims of men; wouldn't dresssing to the whims of men result in quite the opposite wardrobe? young women are constantly bombarded with pressure to cater to the whims of men and seek their approval. are you aware of the pervasive oral sex culture among high school students? talk about a male-centric dynamic.
dressing modestly does not signify shame of one's own body, it actually signifies respect. maybe our own personal modesty meter needs a little shame if it endorses words on the bottom (sorry, i don't know what 'un-shamed' word to use here)…of extremely short shorts (what good message can be derived from 'juicy couture' on a teenage girl's butt?), or the low-slung jeans of teenage boys. a little blushing might be appropriate once in a while, and it signifies exactly the opposite of self-loathing. it says i am a dignified and respectable person, not a collection of 'parts' to be ogled.
as for the 'more,' i don't have any idea of what you mean, except that you are simply mad. antisocial? what kind of socializing did you have in mind that would be averted by women dressing modestly?

Posted By: laurie | December 17, 2011 8:22 PM

Anne wrote:
Philip, I'm getting a bit tired of hearing men in the Christian community scream "feminism" every time a woman expresses a perspective that is different from how men see the matter. A woman is commanded in Scripture to dress modestly.

Philip wrote:
@Anne - Feminism (and I use this word deliberately) is a real problem for the church. I have absolutely no issues with women rights etc, but I take issue with the fact that women take it as such an affront when any discussion about modesty comes up.

Philip, are you actually reading what Anne has written? Just curious since she is not taking any affront that I can tell to modesty. Reading is a GOOD thing, Philip. Especially when you are commenting on hat someone else has written.

Posted By: Steve D | December 17, 2011 9:09 PM

E Harris wrote:
Nudity and expression. Virtues probably prized by the artsy crowd in France during the time of the godless French Revolution. That's just a guess - but tell me if I'm accurate!
Nude art form goes all the way back to the Greeks and Romans. Christian artists such as Da Vinci and Michelangelo depicted nudes in their paintings and sculptures.

It's not like we have to insert Tertullian into a contemporary discussion, and bring in the attack hounds against the male objectification of the female body, and begin a merry-go-round blame game using the props from institutional christianity over 1000 years ago. Just make a simple comment about your present reaction to a simple slogan!

Well, Sharon actually did her homework and used her education. Good for her! Off hand I would say that her opinion was well researched and thought out.

Posted By: Anonymous | December 17, 2011 9:22 PM

@Paul Smith:

"Women may be, but from my experience it is to a lesser degree and probably for a different reason."

Your experience.......what, as a woman? I don't understand how your experience tells you that men have it harder than women. It is true that women are by far more objectified in the media, but men and women are equally responsible for themselves.

I know that we probably don't see eye-to-eye on things, and I wouldn't wish temptation on anyone, but the whole (extremely wise) point of the article is that modesty is rightly exercised to glorify God -- not as a response to shame. Nor, I would say, to absorb responsiblity that is rightfully due to others. Everyone is responsible for their own thoughts, motives, actions, and reactions; a sign of spiritual maturity is learning to accept that responsibility in a healthy way.

One more point is that I don't believe shame is a positive, constructive behavioral element at all. It was shame that drove Adam and Eve AWAY from God in the garden, and attempting to shame someone into submission is not the way of Christ. Satan is the accuser and the one who wants to make us ashamed; Jesus came not to condemn the world, but to save the world through Himself.

Shame cannot be a catalyst for God-glorifying behavior, because shame itself does not bring glory to God.ecisist

Posted By: Marie | December 17, 2011 10:42 PM

Philip, feminism IS about women's rights. It is the extremist, (we don't need men, or women should have all the power) crazies that you object to. Not too long ago women weren't allowed to take classes on mechanics or be able to become engineers. That's feminism at work.

Women do not need to dress provocatively to get noticed. Dressing modestly helps to focus the male mind on the personality of the woman and the attractiveness of her smile and eyes. Draw the eye away from a woman's face and you draw the eye away from the person inside the woman's body.

Posted By: ruthiechan | December 17, 2011 11:38 PM

"Men are visual; women are not."

-- Sure. That's why women's fashion magazines don't have any pictures.

"Women are more emotive, and men tend to be more mind-driven than women."

-- Have you ever been to a sporting event?

"That is simply how men are wired."

-- Here's how a "more mind-driven" man handles "hardwired" intrusive thoughts: "I still see things that are not here. I just choose not to acknowledge them. Like a diet of the mind, I just choose not to indulge certain appetites." --John Nash character in A Beautiful Mind regarding how he used his mind to fight back the delusions of his schizophrenia.

"[B]ecause I so deeply love my brothers and sisters that are struggling in this area, then dressing modestly is one of the easiest things that I can do to help them in their walk to honor God with their thoughts."

-- If Christian men were taught to be as responsible for Christian women's "hard-wired" hormones as Christian women are supposed to be for Christian men's hormones, that quote would instead read: "[B]ecause I so deeply love my sisters that are struggling with [monthly hormone-induced crankiness], then bringing them chocolate and rubbing their feet are some of the easiest things that I can do to help them in their walk to honor God with their thoughts."

Now that WOULD be a great ministry men could offer to women -- a "Red Tent" staffed 24/7 where menstuating women could stop in for chocolate and a foot rub whenever necessary. Because, you know, Christian men have a responsibility to do whatever they can to eliminate the triggers for their sisters' bad thoughts...

Posted By: Christian Lawyer | December 18, 2011 2:14 AM

Thank you for this article!!! THANK YOU!!!! Hopefully the next generations of Christians will understand this better and live it out. Again, THANK YOU for this! I completely COMPLETELY agree!

Posted By: Kiana | December 18, 2011 2:22 AM

"[W]hy do you consider modesty to be restrictive or dehumanising? Do you really need to show your cleavage and your thighs to someone other than your husband? Why?"

-- I don't think "modesty" is restrictive or dehumanising. I DO, however, think YOUR version of modesty is restrictive and dehumanizing because, for example, it's very hard to swim without showing your thighs. And for those who teach "no mixed swimming," that means I can NEVER go to the beach? Good grief! Here in South Florida, it's very hard to play most sports without showing at least a little thigh. It's also hard to get through the summer without shorts, sleeveless shirts, and tops or dresses with narrow straps. And, has any woman NOT at one time or another worn a purse, briefcase, or diaperbag with a cross-body strap in violation (because it "accentuates" the breasts) of one widely-touted modesty guide by Carolyn Mahaney?

So, if YOUR modesty rules mean I should be ashamed to swim, to go to the beach, to play sports, or to carry my briefcase at the same time I'm trying to hold on on the commuter train with a cup of coffe, then, yes, that's restricting and demeaning.

What's "provocative" is entirely cultural, and varies over time, among cultures and ethnicities, and even between regions of this country in the present day. If women are required to cover their thighs, then men will lust over knees. If women are required to cover their knees, men will lust over shins. If women are required to cover their whole leg, men will lust over ankles. Do you really think that men in countries where women wear burqas don't lust?

And, for Saudi women who are already required to be covered from head to toe, except for their eyes, here's how that ends:

"According to a report that appeared on Al Arabiyya News, Saudi Arabia’s Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice has declared that it will begin “interfering with” and “ordering” women to cover their eyes, “if they provoke fitna [sedition, chaos].” The spokesman added, “Our men have every right to do so.""

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2011/11/16/saudi-arabia-women-must-cover-provocative-eyes/

It's entirely as Newly Karen said above. It's all about the forbidden.

Posted By: Christian Lawyer | December 18, 2011 3:09 AM

this was my reaction to the slogan:
I dress modestly not for men, but frankly for myself, because I want respect. Everybody wants to be attractive to the opposite sex including me, but when I read the slogan/article I thought, How God sees me is more important than how men see me. No offense to any men but it's not all about you.
The other thing I thought was, In high school I felt ugly and would never even put on makeup because I was too embarrassed to even try to be pretty. I rejected to some degree my identity as a woman. It has been healing to dress/feel attractive (not whore-y). So you've got to understand that as well.

Posted By: lynn | December 18, 2011 7:24 AM

@ Anonymous 9:22pm

Since you responded to me, I'll shoot one right back at ya. Yes, Sarah (the author) did use her extensive knowledge of history. Good for her. But it's mostly made of WRONG CONNECTIONS!!! Tertullian, Origen, the Roman understanding of the female body, and the evil western male-dominated empire (of the past) has VERY LITTLE to do with a T-shirt slogan that Rebecca St. James is advocating to aid in the effort to be more modest!!!!!!! Just because someone is a political conservative does not mean that they are a Roman (in their understanding)!!! In fact, it is quite the opposite. The Romans wanted nudity (as someone so aptly pointed out, they used a lot of nude artwork...even in the old church days... to pander to the elite white male-dominated culture)! How is a white conservative female in America, advancing a slogan "Modest is HOTTEST"... immediately tied to Tertullian and Origen without even a second thought! SOMEONE has an agenda! And it's a much deeper agenda than what Rebecca St. James has. This "education" that Sarah is displaying... is predominantly formed by a culture that PRIZES attacks on Western Institutions (specifically christian ones) and has done so for over 100 years now! It's politically acceptable to the elite to blame ALL problems on the evil western white male...especially the evil empires of the past... and then to suggest that we "move forward" into some vague direction that isn't even (really) tied to scripture!!! Oh, but this is a christian website, I forgot. So of course they wouldn't be trying to attack & divide the church. Of course they wouldn't be trying to DISTRACT from scripture with a plethora of lies.

I'm sorry to put it so bluntly. But you guys (I'm speaking to the theological liberals) are playing a game. And a very spiritually dangerous game at that. Of all of the offshoots of CT... this website (her.meneutics) is the MOST liberal, wayward, and direct in its attacks on the foundation of christianity, whenever such a foundation is displayed in contemporary culture. I've seen liberals take credit for good that their theology didn't produce. I've seen liberals spit at their enemies (the conservatives) for evils that their theology DID produce!

Case in point: this article has subtle implications. If the logic of this article it's carried to its implied and full conclusion: it would destroy nearly all male authority, it would dishonor the church of today (by identifying it with ALL of the sins of the past, both Roman and "holy Roman"), it would encourage female immodesty by helping women treasure and express their bodies without telling them when it's appropriate to COVER UP, it would encourage further mischaracterization of the church and rebellion against the gospel.

With christians like this at the helm of western thought... who needs the heathen world???

The true nature of this article isn't even about modesty or body issues. The true nature is to search out problems, and then tie any and all problems to a dead empire, and claim that that dead empire is alive in the heart of those who are serving Jesus Christ as best as they can. In other words: this article revels in the opportunity to accuse the brethren. This is why so many false connections are made between Rebecca St. James and Tertullian!

Posted By: E Harris | December 18, 2011 9:21 AM

I agree with lynn:

"this was my reaction to the slogan:
I dress modestly not for men, but frankly for myself, because I want respect. Everybody wants to be attractive to the opposite sex including me, but when I read the slogan/article I thought, How God sees me is more important than how men see me. No offense to any men but it's not all about you.
The other thing I thought was, In high school I felt ugly and would never even put on makeup because I was too embarrassed to even try to be pretty. I rejected to some degree my identity as a woman. It has been healing to dress/feel attractive (not whore-y). So you've got to understand that as well."

No offense to any man, but it's not about you. GREAT! Feel free to ignore the article and go on with your life. I wish you the best. This conversation is the fruit of a conflict that stretches back to the enlightenment (which had a chip on it's shoulder about the old Holy Roman Empire). What you are basically observing is a battle between the enlightenment and the Holy Roman Empire...only the enlightenment has now trained its sights on the forward-moving Reformation, thinking that the leading edge of the Reformation (pentecostal/charistmatics like Rebecca St. James) represent a throwback to the Holy Roman Empire mold. Not true. So feel free to ignore this whole conversation, and continue to live life to the fullest under God, in respect for the Bible, and consideration for others.

I've learned a lot from this conversation, and I thank everyone for sharing what they shared. I have learned about the subtle guises that the enemy takes in his attacks on the church. I have learned how we are divided and pitted up against one another...by subtle accusation that brings up a dead past and WANTS to make it alive again so that it (a feminist wing of enlightenment thought) can have an enemy to fight.

I'm done with this game. I see through your shadows (speaking to all those leftists who think that the article above was true and right in all that it said). The article above took a contemporary slogan & evaluated it. And then took an almost completely mirror-opposite dynamic (located in the past) and tried to say that they were the same dynamic - and not only the same dynamic, but that one immediately descended into the other. Uh, I think you missed about 600 years of developments, in between!!!! (you missed the Reformation movement, entirely. You skipped it. You skipped the theologies that were present around the founding of America. You skipped the theologies that have developed since then. You skipped Azousa Street & Pentecostalism (which probably had a profound effect on the development of Rebecca St. James' thought-culture)... you missed A LOT. And that is because you weren't taught to think about those things, in college. You were taught to think about how evil the western world is, along with its institutions and manners of thinking. Hence, your manner of thinking is de-constructionist - and has almost NOTHING positive to offer, when it's time to RE-BUILD the WALLS of a righteous CHARACTER.

Posted By: E Harris | December 18, 2011 9:39 AM

Wow, wow, and wow. Such hostility, anger, frustration, etc The author and the comments really pushed some buttons here. I can tell you my daughter would never wear the shirt-she would see it as just plain silly. She doesn't wear tshirts advertising her sexuality at all-not for any strong spiritual reason-she just has the common sense to see they are all silly. However, the comments here do reflect a divide and hostility in the church between the genders that the leadership does not really talk about. Men blame women, women blame men, and the hostility grows. There is a seething anger underneath it all. I, for one, would like to a pastor or pastors to step forward to hold a series of discussions. Some of these comments are just mean and disrespectful. Doesn't matter if your church believes in women leaders/pastors or not-I find the anger in all kinds of churches. I find this like the slavery racism issue-the damagae from centuries of abuse does not disappear over night or even in a few decades and I think that applies here. My last comment is that since men still control the majority of the pulpits in American, they need to be especially careful in promoting a careful well thought-out dialgue. There is a lost world out there who desperately needs the love of our Lord, hurting people who need a Saviour, and we need to find a new way to do church together.

Posted By: trisha | December 18, 2011 9:51 AM

Marie | December 17, 2011 10:42 PM
“One more point is that I don't believe shame is a positive, constructive behavioral element at all. It was shame that drove Adam and Eve AWAY from God in the garden, and attempting to shame someone into submission is not the way of Christ. Satan is the accuser and the one who wants to make us ashamed; Jesus came not to condemn the world, but to save the world through Himself.
Shame cannot be a catalyst for God-glorifying behavior, because shame itself does not bring glory to God”
Marie,
Your post epitomizes the dangers of human wisdom that sounds biblical but in fact ignores what the Bible has to say about the issue.
What you fail to understand is that the Bible clearly teaches that there is good and bad shame. Bad shame when we are ashamed of what is right and Godly (2 Tim 1:8), good shame when we are ashamed of what is sinful
Paul would disagree with you about the useful of “God originating” shame
“Take special note of anyone who does not obey our instruction in this letter. Do not associate with them, in order that they may feel ashamed. (2Th 3:14)”
Or again
Those who continue in sin, rebuke in the presence of all, so that the rest also will be fearful of sinning. (1Ti 5:20)
Shame is a healthy reaction when someone is outside the will of God, it is a deterrent just like physical pain is to playing with fire. What you are doing is blaming the pain (which is necessary for self-preservation) instead of blaming the act of playing with fire.
Shame did not drive Adam and Eve away from God in the Garden, it was sin that did that. Shame merely revealed the sinfulness of what they did and its incompatibility with God’s presence. If Adam and Eve knew shame before that transgressed, they might have never sinned in the first place.
Jeremiah shows the benefits of shame and the dangers of lack of shame:
Are they ashamed because they have done such shameful things? No, they are not at all ashamed. They do not even know how to blush! So they will die, just like others have died. They will be brought to ruin when I punish them," says the LORD. (Jer 6:15)

For further support of the Bible view of shame, see
Daniel | December 16, 2011 9:01 AM
And
Alain | December 16, 2011 11:13 AM
But who cares about what the Bible actually says?

Posted By: Alain | December 18, 2011 11:27 AM

E Harris wrote:
If the logic of this article it's carried to its implied and full conclusion: it would destroy nearly all male authority, it would dishonor the church of today (by identifying it with ALL of the sins of the past, both Roman and "holy Roman"), it would encourage female immodesty by helping women treasure and express their bodies without telling them when it's appropriate to COVER UP, it would encourage further mischaracterization of the church and rebellion against the gospel.

Now I get it, women need men (male church leaders) to tell them when to cover up. I think not. Most women that I know have a good sense of modesty. Framing this discussion as conservative vs liberal is a phony ploy. It covers a view of women that is deficient in reality. Does the Holy Spirit only give men the ability to discern between modest and immodest in women? Does He only speak to men ignoring women all together?

Posted By: Steve D | December 18, 2011 11:53 AM

I will start by affirming that men who lust are 100% responsible for their lust and should not blame anyone for their weaknesses.
However, many ladies here ignore the biblical teaching about the response needed to the issue.
As demonstrated below, the Bible clearly shows that our actions including the way we dress, must be determined by two chief considerations based on the greatest commandments:
What glorifies and please God and what edifies and seek the good of others. Our own pleasure is only allowed when the first two elements are satisfied
When asked what commandment was the greatest, Jesus responded
"'Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.'
38 This is the first and greatest commandment.
39 The second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'
40 All the law and the prophets depend on these two commandments." (Mat 22:37-40).
This is indeed the royal law (James 2:8; Rom 13:9; Gal 5:14).
Our approach to modesty must be informed by the above.
One should dress with modesty because of the love for God and because our body are the temple of His Holy Spirit.
Or do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and you are not your own?
20 For you were bought at a price. Therefore glorify God with your body. (1Co 6:19-20)
As such, our dress (this verses applies primarily to women but the principles are also applicable to men) should respect and honor the holiness of our body as reverence for God (1 Tim 2:9-10).
Directly tied to our love and reverence for God and the love for others since we cannot claim to love God if we do not love our fellow Christians (1 John 4:20-21).
We should also dress out of concern for others, especially those who are weak, Paul clearly states that the good and needs of others must come before our own satisfaction.
Now we who are strong ought to bear the weaknesses of those without strength and not just please ourselves.
2 Each of us is to please his neighbor for his good, to his edification. (Rom 15:1-2)
And
All things are lawful, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful, but not all things edify.
24 Let no one seek his own good, but that of his neighbor. (1Co 10:23-24)
And
Just as I also try to please everyone in all things. I do not seek my own benefit, but the benefit of many, so that they may be saved. (1Co 10:33).
Yes, women should not dress to please men, they should dress to glorify God and edify fellow believers. Likewise, men should not seek to objectify women (while destroying their self-esteem), instead they should seek to build them up in love.
When it comes to dress and other issues, it not about ourselves and our rights (and very American idea but a worldly and even demonic priority), it is about what glorifies God and edifies others.

Instead of being motivated by selfish ambition or vanity, each of you should, in humility, be moved to treat one another as more important than yourself.
(Phi 2:3)

Posted By: Alain | December 18, 2011 12:01 PM

E.Harris said: "Tamara, you shouldn't feel overly oppressed or guilty. But just remember: you should dress to please GOD."

E, really? You think you can tell people how they should feel?

And I shouldn't feel 'overly' oppressed? What, should I feel a little oppressed?

Your words betray your true sentiments.

I noticed you missed my point entirely.

You keep demanding that I submit to your dictates because I shouldn't cause a brother to stumble.

And yet all I suggested is that you do the same for women and you're asking of us: not do things that cause us to stumble.

You demand of women that we recognize our (so-called) part in keeping men pure, yet you refuse to recognize your own part in it. First you refuse to acknowledge that the person who lusts is the ONLY person who can control that; then you refuse to admit that men participate in the objectification of women or that that is sin.

Your argument is basically: God made men incapable of not lusting after women but He demands that men not lust so women are just going to have to shoulder the entire load (never mind that women cannot control men's thoughts).

Whatever happened to telling men to not be conformed to the pattern of this world and renewing their minds in Christ?

Is the work of Christ and the indwelling Holy Spirit not powerful enough to change the way men think?

E.Harris: "This is like the battle of the sexes. Great conversation! ;) I'm lovin' it."

We're talking about real people's real lives here. The fact that you can enjoy a "battle" in which one side stands to lose nothing and the other side to lose everything is, frankly, disheartening.

It's all academic to you.

E.Harris: "Anyway... I kinda understand Tamara & she has a good point. However, she is TOTALLY abdicating her own authority (in her own sphere under God) and abdicating her own sense of self-control and dignity."

Apparently, you don't really understand me at all then.

I think you failed to note that my post was largely tongue-in-cheek. I was calling out hypocrisy.

The only authority I have is over myself. And I take ownership of my own thoughts and actions. I own the fact that I wear what I wear because it's what I want to wear. I have various reasons for my various clothing choices (comfort, self expression, setting appropriateness, etc) and those reasons may or may not include consideration of other people. But the decision is all mine, I haven't abdicated that to you or anyone else who says that I should.

E.Harris: "Also... (like many women) she vastly underestimates her ability to shame men. Well, I think women are innately onto this game, actually."

Again, your words betray your true sentiments.

You think "women" are playing the same 'game' you are playing.

E. Harris: "But instead of shaming men for looking at them..."

I don't shame men for looking at me.

I've (mostly) broken free of the unhealthy burden of caring at all whether men are looking at me or not or what they're thinking about when they do. I can't possibly worry about what all the men I encounter in my life are thinking about me or my appearance and remain sane.

For the sake of my own mental health and wellbeing, as well as for men's sake, I give every man I encounter the benefit of assuming that he is perfectly capable of keeping his mind on his current task(s) and viewing me as a human being.

Also, I rightfully resent the implication that I should concern myself with whether every random male is lusting after me.

E.Harris: "they should instead do it from a position of feminine authority instead of feminine weakness.[/quote]

There's no such things as "feminine authority" or "feminine weakness".

And the fact that you're so hung up on "authority" makes me think you forgot Jesus' instructions about "exercising authority" over one another.

Ultimately, Biblical modesty is about having an attitude of humility, not flaunting wealth or position or authority. Modesty isn't about sex or lust. It's about not thinking and acting like you're better than others.

When I hold men to the expectation that they are capable of controlling their thoughts and not lusting regardless of what women are wearing, I am saying "men are no less capable of morality than women."

This "men can't help but lust" tripe denies the power of Christ to renew men's minds, teaches men not to even try to control their thoughts, encourages men to 'pass the buck,' encourages men to sin against women (by lusting after them) and teaches women to assume the worst about every man we encounter (thereby doing a disservice to all the men who do control their thoughts).

It's toxic.

Posted By: Tamara | December 18, 2011 12:17 PM

@Phillip: Jesus was a feminist (he affirmed the radical notion that women are human).

It's tragic that it took two millennia for the idea to begin 'invading' the Church.

Posted By: Tamara | December 18, 2011 1:33 PM

Trisha, you may be new to this discussion... I'm not angry with women in the least!!! I enjoy being around women, speaking with women, respecting women, etc. I don't feel imposed upon, unless a woman is imposing (and that is rarely the case).

This debate isn't men vs women. That is how the feminists in this debate want to engineer the debate, and want it to be seen. BUT truth be told (the truth now): this is between the Bible-believing Reformation movement and the secular-friendly Enlightenment movement. YOU BET there is a TON of hostility there! In the public square, you cannot find more avid mortal enemies than the forward-moving Reformation movement and the Enlightenment movement which has a seriously destructive atheistic bent (in its reasoning style)!

The Reformation is going toward individuality under God, respect for the truthfulness of the Bible, and honoring the place of the Holy Spirit in people's lives. The Enlightenment FEARS such avid christianity, as if it were the plague! (zombies?) But those who truly love the Bible and the Spirit of the Word are not zombified...they are freer than those who reject it. It's just that the dead don't know that they are dead. The dead really don't like life, because it smells like death to them. So they react, misunderstand, mischaracterize, attack, and then wonder why someone is pushing back...

Yes. I admit, I have a little bit of pent up hostility: as my skin and gender has been attacked. I am one of those western white males... who (if I am to believe the tenor of this article) is shaming women into submission to my view that their bodies are objects, and that (because of this) they need to cover up. I'm doing this. Because I have more in common with Rebecca St. James than I have with those women who accuse her. Because of this... I'm supposed to be SHAMED away from taking a stand!

Posted By: E Harris | December 18, 2011 4:11 PM

Ok, I'm going to give some of you 'enlightened' thinkers some more to chew on:

I just realized this, but it NEEDS to be said.

And this is the CORE difference between muslim sharia law and christian idea of promoting modesty. This comment alone will have the capacity to end this debate (if the debaters were really interested in the truth, instead of merely bashing Christians).

Ready?

Ok.

When a christian man (or woman) expounds on the virtue of modesty, and what modesty is good for... he (or she) is SIMULTANEOUSLY implying that it is not good to exploit it's opposite. This is because of the scripture "if you look at a woman to lust after her, you've committed adultery in your heart." This scripture places the duty on the shoulders of the MAN, to guard his own eyes. Ok? Are ya with me on this, so far? A man needs to guard his own eyes. Ok. Let's proceed.

To basically restate what I said in the first sentence of the paragraph above: When a christian man (or woman) says anything about modesty - it carries with it an implication that is often not stated in a single sentence. The implication is: if it is not right for a woman to dress a certain way, it is not right for a man to look at a woman who ISN'T dressed that way!!!!! Duh. Uh, yea. I thought that was understood as soon as the word 'modest' or 'modesty' appeared (which was in the title). I take that as a GIVEN. It doesn't even enter the debate. But apparently some people need it to be stated, and stated succinctly... otherwise they will make ANYONE (man or woman) who makes the case for female modesty look like a SEXIST.

... ok, now. Is the problem solved??????? Was that sufficient for any liberals or enlightenment thinkers in this room?

Did I say something wrong, here? Or is it merely because I'm conservative, that you feel the need to bash me (and all of my white western maleness).

Now, I respectfully back away, and let more cool heads discuss... I've lost my cool with people who read a lot, and should know better. There are people on these boards that are not christian, and call themselves christian. The PROOF is in how they pretend to be the victim, and rejoice (a little too gleefully) in the existence of a debate, and they feel the gleeful desire to perpetuate such a debate MUCH MUCH FARTHER at the expense of a Biblical resolution. For such people (including some women) the plea of victimhood is merely an underhanded attempt to gain sympathy so they can BASH SOMEONE and blame them for (ultimately) POLITICAL ends. (How many of you who support the author are Obama supporters? My point exactly. Ok, let's move on.) I'm not interested in debating people who cannot see 5 feet in front of them.

Posted By: E Harris | December 18, 2011 4:31 PM

Something just occurred to me. I'm going to try to keep my cool long enough to say it. This debate was never about men versus women, but about Enlightenment thought (which is corrosive toward any standards of morality) and Reformation thought (which is a movement that is becoming more individualistic, respectful, Bible-based, and Spirit-filled with time).

This one sentence alone should be enough to resolve this silly debate.

There is one core difference between Sharia Law and when a christian talks about modesty. Do you want to know what that difference is? (and some really don't, because they want to believe that all "fundamentalists" are "the same". That's not true AT ALL... and I will explain the difference between a muslim "fundy" and a christian "fundy"!)

All of you 'enlightened' thinkers may want to leave the room, because you're not going to like it when the debate gets resolved - and you no longer get to divide the church against herself.

I'll admit that it is a white, western, christian male that is writing these words. But they could just as easily be spoken by a woman. So evaluate the words, and not the speaker...because what I'm about to explain is BIBLE.

When a christian man (or woman) is speaking of concepts or standards in modesty, they speak in the church or with their own children. It is highly preferable that we teach our kids, and that takes much of the pressure out of teaching it in the church. But as the church grows, we need to teach in the church. And as the church grows, society will notice these 'different' people - and will either cater to them or not (depending on if they want the business).

So here it is. Now, this should resolve the debate here and now. When any christian is speaking about modesty, there is a hidden implication that isn't often said RIGHT AWAY but is so basic, it's implied:

If it isn't ok for a woman to dress a certain way, neither is it ok for a man to look at a woman lustfully who ISN'T dressed that way!!! The Bible says (words of Jesus): "If you look at a woman to lust after her, you've committed adultery in your heart." This places the responsibility on the shoulders of the MAN, to discipline his own eyes.

When a christian is advocating for modesty, and he/she is speaking to women... he isn't automatically a sexist for trying to speak of restrictions or standards. Because there is MOST OF THE TIME (nearly all of the time) the hidden implication that men SHOULDN'T be even looking at a woman who ISN'T dressed modestly (in a lustful way). But that doesn't mean that a man (or woman) cannot discuss restrictions on how men or women should dress AND CONDUCT THEMSELVES!

Some women in this conversation have said that very thing, in an attempt to bring resolution. The fact is, most of us in the Reformation (or at least in Rebecca St. James' culture) already know this, and acknowledge it! But there are people who want to drag the conversation on...because their purpose isn't resolution between the sexes, or even resolution between right and left...their purpose is to defeat the right. And to do so, they are willing to TRY to pit male against female in any way they can...by making a BIBLE issue into a battle of the sexes (by blaming western white christian males, for most of the world's problems).

But I've just given the solution, above. The problem has solved. Done. Let's move on.

Or do you (enlightenment thinkers) want to continue to try to divide and conquer - based on old news from 1500 years ago?? If YOU ('enlightened ones') can change, what makes you think that the rest of christians (worldwide, and in America) have remained the same for the last 1500 years? Uh, .... they haven't. In fact, we've changed a lot, through the reformation, the awakenings, etc...

Get with the times. Or are you just going to repeat old lines that you learned in college, as you try to make portray a lady such as Rebecca St. James as a self-hindering sexist (against women) by participation in a poorly-thought-through phrase (that is nonetheless funny and mildly helpful, I'd say).

Fact is, christians are generally uneasy with Sharia Law as it is expressed in the middle east. Conservatives in America don't want that kind of modesty-tracking SYSTEM of punishment. Rather, we should boldly proclaim (to ourselves and those that we teach) what our views on modesty are. And in so proclaiming, realize that it is the responsibility of BOTH PARTIES to avoid promoting, encouraging, or lusting after anything lower than our own personal threshhold of modesty. This isn't hating the body: for implicit in 'modesty' is what modesty is good for. In modesty, there is a time and place to be unclothed and still be modest. When one is in the shower and isn't exposed to the public, for example. Or when one is in bed with one's partner - and it is between the two of them. Let's not get stupid in this conversation, and play games by actively TRYING to mischaracterize the other side!

If there is a problem with my logic, PLEASE point that out. But I have blasted gaping holes in the logic of the article above. It is simply illogical, unscriptural, pretentious, incites a civil war in the church between sexes (based on facts that have already been dealt with and resolved), and it should not have been published (even on the web). The author needs to re-state her case. The above article was extremely clumsy.

Now, does that NOT satisfy everyone in this discussion? You may not like my derision of Sarah's article, but have I said anything about decency/modesty that you disagree with???

Posted By: E Harris | December 18, 2011 5:05 PM

(and by my comment two posts back... I dare say that many who support the article written above, whole-heartedly and without reservation, are also fairly pro-Obama-as-president. Am I right? ... Obama is a product of the enlightenment for the most part. So I'm not surprised. I'm not saying that because he's black - I wanted a black president too...but wasn't willing to sacrifice my soul to an idol back in '08, for the sake of having a different skin color in office. So, don't say I'm a racist or a sexist... I'm just avidly anti-"Englightenment" in the sense of the French Revolution - Darwin - Marxism & Communism - Freud - Keynesian Economics - etc. etc.

And basically, feminism (of the last 50 years) can be thrown in the pot with the rest of the 'isms' I've just mentioned - because it operates as an arm of them. In other words, who the left hates - is usually who feminists disparage. And who the left accepts... feminists usually accept, regardless of how much they have to stomach the hypocrisy. The article above was an attack on R.S. James and those like her... because that is what feminists do.

Posted By: E Harris | December 18, 2011 5:21 PM

@ Tamara: There is such a thing as feminine authority. There are ways that a woman can subtly guide a man and suggest things to him, even without his awareness. This is part of the feminine charm. This is one of the reasons men seek women out, and why God said it isn't good for man to be alone. Because women are a gift. How that gift (of style, presence, voice, etc) is honed, disciplined, and educated...makes a WORLD of difference to how a woman will be able to bless a man in the future.

All authority is not evil... you need to read the Bible a little more. You will find plenty of cases of GODLY authority that is not abusive. I wish I could apologize for any instances when a man may have objectified you & lusted after you or abused you in any way. But there isn't a single woman on earth who hasn't encountered these things. We live in a fallen world, and sin touches us all. It is grace that empowers us to guard against sin and imbalance...even the imbalance of thinking about men TOO MUCH.

This conversation was poorly framed (by the nature of the article that began it all). It got men involved in a discussion that men were then told they had no part in. The discussion should have been better framed, by leaving men out of the picture entirely...and strictly addressing the women about standards of modesty or lack thereof. Leave men out of the picture!

Why were they included in the first place? Oh, I forgot... so the ladies can have a good time beating up on the men (even if they are already dead).

Posted By: E Harris | December 18, 2011 5:34 PM

Now, if a woman wants to be fulfilled in a way that has no relation to a man... I would suggest a topic different from dress. Many women enjoy dressing up...but how many women dress up, and then stay at home? Uh, very few. Because dressing up is meant for the eyes of OTHER PEOPLE.

So, if you need some alone-time, growth, and 'self-fulfillment'... may I suggest a topic OTHER than dress and modesty (since by it's definition, it involves OTHER PEOPLE).

Basically you cannot have a conversation about modesty, and then tell other people to BUTT OUT. Because MODESTY is an inter-personal social/public issue, by the very nature of the word.

I don't think that we need to be POLICE about it. But we need to be educated & aware of what modest dress and conduct IS. Many women (and men) sadly cannot appreciate modest dress and conduct. They have not been raised to appreciate it. They don't know of it's usefulness in God's kingdom (which is personal righteousness, peace, and joy IN THE HOLY SPIRIT).

Posted By: E Harris | December 18, 2011 5:39 PM

I know everyone's probably tired of hearing from me piping up in here, but I MUST correct myself before anybody else does!

I fear that I may have put my foot in my mouth (it happens).

I said to Tamara: "Because women are a gift. How that gift (of style, presence, voice, etc) is honed, disciplined, and educated...makes a WORLD of difference to how a woman will be able to bless a man in the future."

I wasn't trying to appear cheuvenistic... If any of the ladies have a problem with what I just said.... uh, I'm sorry. Really, I am. When speaking of all of the things that women bring to the table, I meant to include 'guiding words' or 'intelligence' or something along those lines. BUT... I thought a more eloquent way of saying this was "voice". ...but in the sentence above it makes it sound like I'm a judge that is rating a beauty pageant... ugh. No. I don't view the women in my life that way. People are people, and everyone's an individual. So, I always try to be personable with people... I try not to "rate" people (of any gender) because for everything you know, there's always something you DON'T know. People are full of surprises. Just in case I angered anyone out there with my small list of what women bring to the table... uh, it was on accident. I know the list is almost infinately longer than that!!! I was just trying to sound 'eloquent' and look for creative ways to talk about a woman's intelligence, and the leadership/guiding effect that it can have on others in her life (especially the men). It is good to hone these intelligences in righteous & moral ways ... so you can MAXIMIZE your ability to counsel, lead, and guide. TO me, that's a big part of what modesty is about: provoking respect and refinement in people!

These days, ya gotta be careful - even with your compliments. This was an intense conversation, which I made even more full of debate. Nonetheless, I want it to be known that I am not condescending, and that I didn't intend to SOUND condescending. Ok... that's enough from me. I better leave this subject in better hands, before I really dig myself into another hole.

Posted By: E Harris | December 18, 2011 8:08 PM

I should hope that no matter what anyone says MODESTY is a virtue anyone SHOULD Be PROUD Of and Applaud any young woman for being this way in the world today! THIS IS A GOOD WAY TO BE. I have always been modest, most of the Native women I know are? Except for some of the newer generation that are just following the Crowds? THEY NEED to have Pride in their BODIES & not use them for anything except for MARRIAGE & HAVING CHILDREN like GOD INTENDED!

Posted By: DEBRA RINCON LOPEZ | December 19, 2011 9:50 AM

E. Harris, what happened? No one but you has run this discussion to some political place that it is not about. I am not particularly pro-Obama (nor am I a particularly Republican in any way), both parties, in their ideologies have lots a Christian should be wary of at best and run away from at worst. I believe that if you took a poll of the people who might disagree with you in some way, their political persuasions would be wide and varied.

You seem to want to take this debate where no one else is going and you are doing a disservice here to all who say they have been hurt or wrongfully shamed about this issue by misrepresenting their thoughts on the issue. I have attended many churches in my 42 years and almost all of them (even the really good ones) tend to miss the mark when it comes to any topic even related to sexuality (including modesty). Sure, there is appropriate shame in regards to sinful behavior, but that is not what is being talked about here. Even as a male, I often got the sense (implicitly or explicitly) growing up in church that sex was in some way dirty or deficient and not something to be talked about except to tell people not to do it. The women here are talking about being shamed for being a woman--for having body parts that should be covered not because they are precious and from God, but because they might inflame lust. The implication is that they are in someway deficient or dirty themselves. And then we men complain when our wives have issues with sex!=)

And to be clear, God does not shame us for being who we are, even a sinner. Rather it is our sin itself that shames us. God does not shame me for being lustful, prideful and selfish. He loves, forgives, and restores me. Does this distinction make sense? My lustful, prideful, and selfish acts can and should shame me into running back to Christ, but He is not shaming me Himself.

I have also (even very recently) seen the myth of the "visually-stimulated, can't control himself, please cover yourself lest I burn with lust" male perpetuated. As a visually-stimulated male myself, I have come to learn that the only way you gain victory over lust (or any sin for that matter) is to, more and more, wrestle with Jesus rather than the thing itself. The more you seek Him and his Kingdom, the less power those temptations have on you. The more your focus is on keeping yourself away from the sin and not on seeking Christ, the more the sin will control you.

I'm not sure quite what got you so, shall we say exuberant, in this thread, but the places you are most passionately exhorting seem only tangentially related to the topic at hand. I'm certainly open to any thoughts you may have.

As to the actual topic at hand, "Modest is hottest?" My whole issue is with "slogan" Christianity anyway. In almost every instance, slogans simplify a point. Of course, this is why we like them. They are easy to remember and seem to get the main point across. However, invariably, they are not only simple, but simplistic. They usually end up missing the point, misstating the point, or contradicting the point. . . or all three at once! They usually discourage conversation and true Godly debate. If it can be boiled down to a slogan and not suffer, it is probably a point we all agree on because it is so basic anyway. That's my two cents!

Posted By: Mark E. | December 19, 2011 10:48 AM

@ E.Harris: spamming the thread with tl;dr posts is counterproductive and trollish.

One might think you're simply trying to drown out opposing voices.

I'm not going to engage in discussion with anyone who is just trying to out-talk me while ignoring every point that is actually made.

Posted By: Tamara | December 19, 2011 10:52 AM

"The Christian rhetoric of modesty, rather than offering believers an alternative to the sexual objectification of women, often continues the objectification, just in a different form."

Exactly! As when men talk about their "hot Christian wife." It disgusts me. Christians are perpetuating their own version of the objectification of women. The rampant focus on outward appearance made me leave the "young adult" Christian scene as a 20-something. Yuck.

Posted By: Robyn | December 19, 2011 11:06 AM

This is exactly what I needed to hear! As a single woman, I feel constantly evaluated on my dress and behavior in church. I can hardly talk to a man without judgment. If I wear jeans, I wonder if it creates a stir.

I believe there is a balanced approach to this issue. We were created in God's image. We have value apart from our bodies.
Thank you so much for your courage in addressing this important issue!

Posted By: Janice | December 19, 2011 11:37 AM

Mark, I was responding to the article, and it's intent. There is plenty wrong with that article - both explicitly and implicitly. It seems like RS James just can't get it right, can she - when SHE endorses "Modest is Hottest"... either she is participating in the male 'objectification' of the female body... or in the male shaming of the female body... or in a long church history of shaming women into submission to men... or ... or .... orr...... But... no, she can't possibly be more RIGHT than wrong, can she? *I* didn't make this political. Look to the lady that wants to dig into her sister (in the Lord) and bring up church history from 1600 years ago as she taints the image of her sister, without TRULY understanding (or accurately portraying) the culture that RS James is a part of.

The author is coming from a political persuasion that disparages almost everything traditionally western. And I'm being political by pointing that out? I think not. I waited A LONG TIME in this discussion, before I lost my patience with people beating-around-the-bush and not making sense. The reason it's not making sense... is because this WHOLE DISCUSSION isn't about the body. It's a political propaganda attempt, in disguise.

I'm sure there are many wounded women. But in this discussion, these wounded women are used to disparage the church as it existed 1600 years ago, and also used to pretend that the church as it existed 1600 years ago is THE SAME AS the politically conservative branch of the church today. *I* didn't make this political. I'm just your average white western male - and my name is not Tertullian. I respect women. And I think modesty is a good thing - and a thing to be encouraged, respected, and taught. 'Nuf said. I'm sure that I have a lot of women who agree with me. May THEY speak for me in this forum...because we're just guys. And only a guy who stands up against openly advocating for 'standards' is acceptable in feminist circles. A woman can say whatever she wants - but just let a man advocate FOR standards...and wow. (Notice I didn't get very specific about standards. We're not even THAT far into the discussion! I'll propose one standard, and let's see how it floats: I don't think women should expose ANY cleavage. And I generally distrust beauty pageants, because a beauty pageant is the act of comparing women. What do you people think of that???)

Quite frankly, there are people who will swallow a camel if it's a problem with one of their friends (or one of their political persuasion). But just let someone from a different side of the spectrum make a MINOR mistake (like advocating for a slogan: "Modest is HOTTEST") and it's like they are participating in the destruction of the world (or at least an entire gender). C'mon. Let's get some perspective here. Stop trying to trace RS James' approach back to empire... and start being real.

Tamara, I'm not trying to drowned anyone out. I'm simply a little too excited about advocating for a particular side - because I think I have something to contribute in this discussion in defense of the culture I was raised in, and one of my childhood stars: Rebecca St. James.

If you cannot understand me, based on what I've already written... there's nothing I can do.

Posted By: E Harris | December 19, 2011 11:42 AM

It was the tenor & direction of the article I was responding to, but if you need quotes...

"Instead, the church needs to overhaul its theology of the female body."

Really? I wish the author would be a little more specific about what she means. This seems to be the PURPOSE for this article. Just what ON THE FACE OF THE EARTH is the author talking about? I don't know ANY christians who go around shaming women, or calling them gateways to the devil! The author goes into Tertullian and Origen, and then says that we need to overhaul our theology - in respect to the actions (or at least one slogan) mentioned by Rebecca St. James. Overthinking just a little? Or maybe we just need to get up to date.

"All this negative talk about the female body..."

WHAT negative talk about the female body, within the last 50 years, or even 100 years? That women can tempt men? That's negative talk, now? Men cannot even admit to being tempted, without encouraging women to feel condemned or enticed? C'mon. I know some people go overboard with standards, but it's counter-productive to try to bring Tertullian & Origen into the discussion! It's HIGHLY confusing and distracting. Keep it present-day, at least!

"Women continue to be associated with their bodies in ways that men are not."

Uh, yea. Women feel differently about almost EVERYTHING in their lives, than men do. Because women are different from men. Not ALL of that 'stigma' is the result of male effort.

"How do we discuss modesty in a manner that celebrates the female body without objectifying women, and still exhorts women to purity?...Second, we must affirm the value of the female body."

I agree.

"The value or meaning of a woman’s body is not the reason for modesty."

What?! Then what is the reason for modesty? If it was just the woman and God...there would be little reason for modesty. It seems to me that the reason for modesty, is when there is more than one person present... and it's for the sake of mutual respect. Because the body should not be compared or disparaged or objectified (outside of it's context, meaning, and function).

"Women’s bodies are not inherently distracting or tempting."

No. Not inherently. Only when there is more than one person in the room (man or woman) does body appearance, dress, or demeanor become an issue. No - they are not inherently distracting or tempting... to the person, themselves, alone. But just put other women in the room, and they may begin to compare...especially if there is a man around that they are attracted to. Physical temptation is real, ladies. And so is the temptation to compare ourselves amongst ourselves, a little too much.

"Finally, language about modesty should focus not on hiding the female body but on understanding the body’s created role."

Ok, I agree with the second part, about understanding the created role. And part of that understanding would undo the first part of the sentence. Part of the body's created role is to be a mate. And if we desire to be a faithful mate, and not tempt or illicit others attention (too much)... we will dress fashionably & modestly.

...and the rest of the article I frankly don't understand. Maybe it needs to be dumbed down for me. But... would the author please explain what modesty is GOOD FOR, what it IS, and how to go about it? Or am I just to have one big question mark, after acknowledging the beauty, value, and worth of every part of the female body? (By the way, that is a one-dimensional image of modesty in the first place - modesty also includes demeanor.)

"Men and women are urged to pursue a modesty by which our glory is minimized and God’s is maximized."

Is the author saying this...or disagreeing with it? In either case, I don't know of anyone who agrees with this. The aim of modesty isn't to MINIMIZE our glory. It's to properly FRAME our glory, so as to direct attention toward higher ideals & attitudes, and away from baser ideals & attitudes.

"When we make ourselves central instead of God, we display the height of immodesty."

Well, Amen! (I must confess here, that for the sake of standing up for a highly-misportrayed segment of society... I have chosen to be a little immodest. Sometimes, ya just gotta speak out & let yourself be heard. And "my side" has gone almost 100 years, being misportrayed by academia.)

"“Modest is hottest” is foundationally human-centered, whereas biblical modesty is first and foremost centered on God."

I do agree with this. But I believe that we first need to recognize the BATTLE that gave birth to this poor slogan, before we attack the slogan itself. The battle isn't a fruit of Tertullian, in any sense of the word. The battle is a fruit of a poorly-thought through REACTION against a culture that is sliding into blatant, wierd, wild immorality...and young people don't know what to think, when they are barraged DAILY by the likes of Britaney Spears and Lady Gaga.

Those two gals have more to do with the reason for "Modest is HOTTEST" than does Tertullian and Origen. Maybe we shouldn't over-react, as over-reaction is usually of the flesh. THAT is a proper way to frame it, while discussing specific scripture passages.

But the author is trying to INSERT a particular paradigm, that seems to revert back to fighting against old white Rome-centric men. That's the enlightenment talking. The author seems to be heavily educated & involved in enlightenment thought. That's not politics. That's reality, based on how the issue was presented to the reader.

Posted By: E Harris | December 19, 2011 12:29 PM

I have heard this debate for years, I went to a small christian college where virtually everything I wore was causing someone to stumble. I'm talking jeans and tshirts. My solution to this problem was this... Tell the person saying things to me to go put a bag over their head. Now if I was wearing skintight jeans and shirts, they would've had a leg to stand on. I wore untucked tshirts and Levi's. As they mother of 4 beautiful daughters, I do not want to make them think there is anything shameful about their bodies. I tell them to dress in a way that respects the body Jesus gave them, and as long as they are comfortable in it, and they are not exposing parts that should remain covered,I am good with it. They very rarely pick immodest things. To say God made men in such a way that the sight of female body parts causes them to lose all rationality is selling God short. What about the people around the world who live in areas where they don't wear shirts, or clothes at all for that matter? I have been to these places, and believe me, they think the culture of clothes is really strange. The men are not staring at the womens' breasts with their tongues hanging out, and women are not staring at manly bits either.
I wonder what would happen to the christian marriages in this country if the people who say they love Jesus stopped trying to demonize an aspect of marriage that God finds delightful. You can't teach young girls to be ashamed or embarrassed of their bodies, and then when they get married to let the years of seeing and being told that their sexuality as sinful fall away because they stood in front of a church full of people in a white dress. We need to teach our daughters that their bodies are a delight, not something shameful. Modesty is a mentality that you choose to live, not the clothes you buy.

Posted By: moehut | December 19, 2011 1:33 PM

E. Harris, you accuse Sharon of being politically motivated, yet give no evidence of such. Just because she disagrees with you? Just because she talks about the historical stances on the issue? I don't get it.

You seem bound and determined to keep misinterpreting what is said though. No one, including Sharon, is saying that modesty is not important or God-mandated. She IS saying that we might need to rethink how we get that across to our young people.

She brings up history (and does not ONCE mention or disparage anything specifically conservative) because it is pertinent--here is how some of the church has traditionally looked at this issue. She is asking us to test those spirits and make sure they are truly of God and not man.

Her point, if you care to really hear and address it,as far as I can see, is that modesty is not about what we cover or don't cover up, but rather that we have a God-centered view of our bodies and treat them accordingly.

The more this issue is about specific standards and weaker brothers, the less it is about God. The more this is about protecting the "visually-stimulated" male animal and even hinting that the vast majority of women are somehow implicit in their sin, the less it is about God. Instead of even equating the issues of mens' lust and womens' modesty maybe we should pay more attention to 2 Corinthians 10:5 and Romans 12:2. They are much more pertinent than womens' modesty. The more right a man is with God, the less this will be an issue for him.

Your arguments about Britney Spears and Lady Gaga miss the point. Of course the world is not the place to look for guidance on these issues, the Church is. Tertullian is a part of the church tradition on the issues. Sharon is saying we might need to look at what the CHURCH is saying. And as I said before, and you ignored, the church has gotten issues to do with sex wrong much of the time.

You said, "Women feel differently about almost EVERYTHING in their lives," which again misstates what was said. You even list the quote in your reply and then completely miss the point. Sharon said nothing in that quote about how women feel. She DID say that women are "associated" with their bodies. Meaning when we, as Christians, talk about modesty and women, and sex and women, it is all about their bodies and we don't do the same in regards to men. She is trying to say that the Church, more often than not, misses the Biblical mark in these areas.

I would agree. We have SOO many people struggling with sexual issues because we don't give them clear views beyond do/do not lists. I believe this is what Sharon was getting at with creating a new theology of the body. I would go a step further and say the American church as a whole needs to take a look at its theology on sex in general, particularly in how we pass that on to our next generation.

If so many women feel damaged about these issues do you think it is because all women are broken in this area and must just be wrong, or do you think it could be because they have a point and, as loving brothers in Christ, we should be listening more than condemning?

Posted By: Mark E. | December 19, 2011 1:45 PM

yea moehut, you & many others have a good point. I really can't believe that someone would be giving a person a hard time for wearing average jeans and an untucked t-shirt. ... wow. I know of people (in my circles) who used to give the ladies a hard time for not going according to certain standards of appearance, and it went beyond modesty. I never quite understood all of that. In fact, now, in those same circles, our preachers are telling us to "loosen up" a bit - and not be so hard on people. I mean if YOU have convictions that's great! Do it yourself. But don't push it on someone who really doesn't want it, or isn't 'getting it'. There are many other things that are FAR more important.

Posted By: E Harris | December 19, 2011 2:59 PM

"that modesty is not about what we cover or don't cover up, but rather that we have a God-centered view of our bodies and treat them accordingly."

I absolutely concur. We MUST begin with where we desire to end (logically speaking, you arrive at the end of the equation with what you imply and assume at the beginning of it). If we desire to please God and not man... then we must begin with how we can please God & how we ARE pleasing to God.

"The more this issue is about specific standards and weaker brothers, the less it is about God."

Well... there is still some room MADE for the weaker brother, because that is what he is. However, even when things are as they should be - a brother's mind can still wander. It's up to HIM to guard himself. And it is up to the lady to have her focus directed in the right direction, too. But I'm not saying anything new that other's haven't written already AT me.

"Your arguments about Britney Spears and Lady Gaga miss the point. Of course the world is not the place to look for guidance on these issues, the Church is. Tertullian is a part of the church tradition on the issues."

Uh... I never even heard of Tertullian or any of his beliefs until I was in college. Nor was I interested. But my more Lutheran brothers were...to them, these were the people they adored! (Not so for me... of course, part of that is because I was brought up oneness pentecostal. I DON'T consider many of the early church fathers to be all that accurate about much. Deep, yes. Accurate, sometimes - in a muddled way.) My charismatic/pentecostal background doesn't really consider Tertullian or Origen as part of our heritage AT ALL. I cannot even identify with his line of thinking - or his near-roman/statist STYLE of thinking. It took me much study just to realize how far beneath my child-like understanding Tertullian & his ilk really were. I'm serious. The culture that Rebecca St. James & that 'phrase' popped up in, have NOTHING to do with Tertullian, Origen, or what-have-you. So why bring it up? Why TRY (too hard) to make a connection?

Because the author's struggles are ELSEWHERE. The author is attempting to have a dialogue with someone OTHER than who she is claiming she is trying to have a dialogue with. The forward-moving Reformation IS NOT the Catholic Church. Two different entities! The author is taking her wrestling match with someone else (in the centuries leading up to the Holy Roman Empire) - and translating it over into a wrestling match with those like me. I resent it highly! (as if you could not tell)

In order to avoid confusion, I recommend that she refrain from trying to identify people (like me, Rebecca, or the youth groups with that slogan) with people like Tertullian and the like. We are not the same. There are too many cultural differences (and differences in TRENDS) to even CONDSIDER them even close to the same. I have FAR more trust in the potential of the simple people who use that slogan to figure things out & get it right all by themselves...than I do in the likes of Tertullian & his ilk in the days LEADING UP TO the Holy Roman Empire, which attempted to micro-manage the entire church people.

Maybe I was somewhat over-reactive. Maybe the author is also somewhat biased. In either case, I know her approach isn't effective.

Posted By: Anonymous | December 19, 2011 3:22 PM

Ok, to break it down... my experience growing up was as a male in the UPCI denomination. As oneness pentecostals, in the 1980's, we really didn't identify with too much of anybody beyond the Assembly of God and the holiness movement, as our heritage...if even them. (That's changed, of course, as we're opening up.)

But here's what some may consider "strange." Many of us believe (or at least used to believe) in long, uncut hair on the woman and short hair on the man. Women wear dresses, cut to knee length or below. And nobody wears jewelry (watches and wedding rings were the exception of course). We used to preach on such things.

However, in the same atmosphere where that stuff was preached, we had people standing & clapping & expressing themselves in worship. And the ladies usually out-danced the men in front of the church during worship...and I mean a worshipful free-syle dance... where... I have observed some actions (of many kinds) that I wish I could un-observe. But nobody rebuked it. In fact, we encouraged people to worship freely, and speak in tongues, and all of that.

So on one hand, you may say we had 'repressive' standards. On the other hand... we prized expression - especially toward the Lord in worship. We taught modesty and appropriateness (usually the ladies would speak to the ladies, and the men would speak to the men, but sometimes the preacher in front would address (in a respectful way) the standards for both.

At no time was ANY of this equated with tradition, recent or historical. At no time did I even think about church history before 1980. (I remember thinking that the 1960's were ancient.... and to the people in my circles, it is ancient! We don't identify with history - our eyes are always looking forward. Sure, history has influenced us. But I don't think that Tertullian had much affect on speaking-in-tongues, wild-dancing, loud-music pentecostals. We may have standards, and sometimes similar attitudes... but such is human nature. It has nothing to do with Tertullian. It has to do with the fact that we have over 1000 people in the same room, and maybe 300 slightly different opinions, life experiences, and understandings of scripture.

I really don't identify all that much with what's considered "church history." In fact, much of "Church" history is statist, and doesn't reflect the true church, in the first place! I cannot change what was. I'm not even going to try to change what was, and insist on "we must change our doctrines" as I look back to Tertullian. Our doctrines already have changed, and right now all I'm looking at is the Bible and moving forward with it.

The people who preach from our pulpits identify with the Bible. It's our one common language. Not tertullian. So if you want to speak to the UPCI-folk or the Assembly of God folk, talk scripture. It's not like we have to be Martin Luther, in the 1500's. He helped pave the way so that we commoners COULD speak in the language of the Bible. So now, let's do it!

Posted By: E Harris | December 19, 2011 3:49 PM

E Harris wrote:
I know everyone's probably tired of hearing from me piping up in here

No, it's just that you are spamming the conversation with irrelevant material. Verbosity doesn't win the argument. Good points do. So far, you're not doing well making points, you're running around in a circle saying the same things over and over.

Whether or not your tradition has anything to do with Origen or Tertullian is actually irrelevant to the discussion. Sharon's tradition (along with many others) does. She wrote from that perspective, get over it.

Posted By: Steve D | December 19, 2011 6:20 PM

E. Harris: FYI - I was born & raised A of G, had more than one A of G pastor in my family. Don't pull the "we know better than everyone other denomination and all the Christians that have gone before us" nonsense. It's arrogant and condescending. And frankly, it explains a great deal of your rhetoric. Sigh. This article nor the bulk of the comments (save yours) were ever about denominational theological schisms or political ideologies. It has to do with how men and women in the Body of Christ relate to each other and how that might need to be adjusted for the benefit of both.

Posted By: Katherine Gunn | December 19, 2011 6:38 PM

It was a great and informative read, but I don't understand what she's turning towards. She's turning away from man-centered objectification of the female body to God-centered honoring of the female body. But what does that look like not just in a mindset change, but also in a practical change? As a man, I admire modesty, but what am I now supposed to adopt as my mindset when seeing a beautiful woman? How do I connect "hot body" to "God's vessel" all while towing the "look but don't lust" line?

Posted By: Jamaal | December 20, 2011 12:04 AM

Steve, you're being myopic. Sarah (the author) was pulling Rebecca St. James and an American Christian pop-youth culture into a debate centering on Origen and Tertullian. ...but she overlooked the very issue she was addressing (the culture that gave birth to "Modest is Hottest") She ignored their concerns, in favor of a feminist enlightenment critique of the old Roman Catholic Church. Hence, I say that her article is largely irrelevant. Because it is largely irrelevant, and doesn't ake sense. If you cannot see past your own culture, Steve, that's not my problem. Just don't go assuming that I'm wrestling with the things that your culture is wrestling with. Because, man, you're stuck somewhere else - far away from the things that the youth of today are struggling with!

I think that turning towards God is good. But I think that trying to use Tertullian and Origen to hammer RS James (and those like her)... is a HUGE MISREAD!!!! Do you agree???

Posted By: E Harris | December 20, 2011 6:18 AM

If you cannot see the disparity, between the Roman Catholic Church and a Pentecostal/Charismatic - and between the year 400 and the year 2010 - then I dare say you have some more reading to do. The Christian youth culture being addressed has almost NOTHING in common with Tertullian. If you will not acknowledge this, after it's pointed out... you make me look for reasons why you refuse to acknowledge this. The only reason I can think of: is that you are a leftist (probably a democrat) trying to pounce on someone on the right side of the spectrum. Because that's what feminists do (even male feminists....a wing of the democrat party). If you want to be a wing of the democrat party, and look good doing it... well, I hope you fail at your attempt to sound impartially christian. If you cannot see the massive differences between Tertullian & Origen and Rebecca St. James... then YOU sir, are blind.

Posted By: E Harris | December 20, 2011 6:29 AM

E Harris, it is not Steve who is being myopic here! Sharon was never "hammering" Rebecca St. James, just using her as an example of someone using this type of slogan. She was not addressing the background that RSJ comes from. RSJ, as a popular artist, is a part of the larger Evangelical Christian culture and influences well beyond whatever denomination she may have grown up in.

Sharon was not "connecting" RSJ with Tertullian and Origen, she was showing some examples of how we, as Christians, have thought about these issues. No one said their were not differences between Tertullian, Origen, and RSJ. Who cares? There are differences between you and the person in the pew next to you. Does that mean you cannot be influenced by them? Or, on the flip side, that you cannot work together or see eye to eye on other issues?

We are all connected, and the history of ALL of us matters. Why address history? I would think that was obvious. . . we are doomed to repeat it! If we get together each in our holy huddles and say this is what WE think it means, without seeing what has come before and how that can help inform our thoughts now, we are just doomed to repeat mistakes of the past.

Why do you insist on making this political and making HUGE, unmerited assumptions about others? Why do you refuse to see that we as Christians are connected beyond our denominations? Why do you refuse to see how people like Tertullian, Origen, Luther, or any other theologian from anytime in history might influence how we think now? Just because they are not directly connected now, does not mean their thoughts have not influenced others who have influenced your own denomination.

You say Sharon ignored their concerns, in favor of a feminist enlightenment critique." How so? What concerns did she overlook. She is saying that with slogan Christianity we are doing that very group a disservice by teaching them bad theology, that leads to bad thinking, that leads to misguided and wrong behavior. All she was saying (no political agenda involved!) is that we might possibly need to rethink how we are addressing the issue of modesty with the younger generation.

Posted By: Mark E. | December 20, 2011 8:40 AM

@ Mark: By the way, the author's name is Sarah.

Ok, then. I appreciate the WARNING that "modest is hottest" could head in a direction similar to Tertullian or Origen. (But, it could lead in a MILLION other directions as well!!!!!!!!! Why instantly shout "Tertullian!")

The logic of "modest is hottest" and the reason the phrase was invented... has almost NOTHING to do with Tertullian or Origen. So why bring them up?? It would be much better to address your brothers and sisters AS THEY ARE (and recognize the culture they are in) than to distance yourself by overlooking their entire cultural background - in favor of making an argument based on events that transpired in 400 A.D. No, I flat out refuse to "acknowledge" any connection between Tertullian and "Modest is HOTTEST". It's a false connection, an EXTREMELY strained connection. And it's because the connection is so strained... that the article makes no sense, meanders...and refuses to TALK TO the origin (denomination, CULTURE, people) of the examples that it used from contemporary culture! Instead, the author used RS James and "Modest is HOTTEST" as props to again slam dead white men, who have almost NO INFLUENCE in the culture that RS James is intimately familiar with, and dealing with.

So.... uh, YOU GUYS need to back off! Because you apparently don't know the culture that you are trying to speak to, and you cannot relate.

Ok, we are all connected. Ok. Then if Sarah feels like she needs to confront Tertullian and Origen... then so be it... but don't go on a witch hunt looking for contemporary examples of shaming women. Or AT LEAST find a better example than RS James & "Modest is HOTTEST" (a funny, flamboyant, ridiculous, showy T-shirt)!!! You obviously don't understand the DYNAMIC if you think that it is in danger of mirroring Tertullian. Some of the commenters on this very post have STATED (in defense of the article above) that the T-shirt demonstrates a selfish pride that rejoices in being "undercover bombshells." That doesn't sound one bit like Origen's saying that women are the gateway to the Devil. C'mon, now. Someone comes up with a sloppy slogan, the youth wear T-shirts, and we jump to shouting "Tertullian!" ... we're not headed in that direction.

The T-shirt is in reaction to the likes of Brittany Spears and Lady Gaga. It is an attempt toward Godly modesty. At least acknowledge the real-world movement behind the slogan. Don't just pick up the slogan, and assume that the real-world movement is mirroring Tertullian. That shows that the author could use a trip AWAY from college, and maybe across town to her AoG youth group.

If we christians are so connected (and we are)... then why did the author SO MISCONSTRUE the intent behind the phrase? Maybe because of too much college academics. I realize that the feminist critique can be a hard thing to see past, when you see things that tick you off... everywhere. But we should see past our biases and reactions. My response to this article stands on firm ground. There is NO REASON why Tertullian or Origen should have entered this discussion. No reason. Not when you look at the CONTEMPORARY CULTURE (I'm not talking about denomination) that the phraseology came out of. At least the author knows enough to know that it's not a bunch of stuffy old white men who invented or perpetuated the phrase. It's young, female hipsters - in predominantly pentecostal/charismatic cultures - who usually prize loud music, and ambiance above substance... Hardly Tertullian-ish.

It is jumping the gun QUITE A BIT to take a phrase, and try to make the case that we're on a short road back to 400 A.D. ...simply on the evidence of... a little-known phrase.

I'm not the one who's out of touch here. The pattern of thinking behind this article is what is out of touch.

I have a hard time believing that someone is THAT out of touch, to bring Tertullian to a pop-culture youth-culture T-shirt slogan fight! You think that's the way to do it??? Really? I think it's far MORE likely that the author WANTED to talk about Tertullian and Origen - and that's why she brought them up. This show me that she is fairly educated, in critiquing old white european men. It also shows me that she is more than willing to use her critique of an old empire to shout for "changes" to our "theology" of how we 'view the body.' ....while PURPOSEFULLY ignoring the culture that she is speaking to. She lives in a virtual world, not in the real world. Go MEET the people that you want to talk to. Get to KNOW their real-world concerns, desires, and direction in life. And you will easily see that they are (IN NO WAY) headed in a Tertullian direction.

Posted By: E Harris | December 20, 2011 12:13 PM

I respect people's intelligence. The author has shown that she is capable of deep thought, by the nature of the material that she brought up. Because of that, I find it EXTREMELY HARD to believe that she made blatantly FALSE CONNECTIONS on accident.

I do believe that Rebecca St. James, and those who wear those T-shirts, deserve an apology. The article above TRIES (very hard) to mis-present them. And I believe that the author has done this on purpose. We are not some props for you to use. Get to know US and our struggles. And speak to US, not some dead empire. WE are not THEM. In SO many ways, we are not them. (and if you're wondering what sub-section of christian culture, I call "we"... I'm speaking about conservative, pentecostal/charismatic types, who are foward-looking, and Bible-based. You know, the real Bible-believing christians...not the ones who prop up their arguments using the feminist critique...and neglect to use Bible verses.)

If you want to speak to us: there is a simple way. Use Bible. And it would also do well to apologize to those that you hurt, before you begin to use Bible on us.

Posted By: E Harris | December 20, 2011 12:24 PM

I'll say it again to all of you people who are steeped in "enlightenment"-influenced ideology:

The Fruit Of The REFORMATION Is Not The HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE Waiting To Happen!

The Reformation and the Holy Roman Empire are TWO TOTALLY SEPERATE HISTORICAL MOVEMENTS, and must be recognized as such. The Reformation is splintering and becoming increasingly individualistic ON ITS OWN (the enlightenment didn't do this... it was the Reformation that concieved of religious freedoms, as represented in America). The enlightenment is pathological in it's assumption that IT is the individualistic, freedom-creating movement, and that the Reformation is just another strain of the Holy Roman Empire. Not so. The Reformation gave birth to a bunch of denominations, that over time have become FREER in their expression - not more closed off. The Reformation is where the true center of church life can be found...not in the dusty cannons & creeds of the past. The Reformation is Bible-based, individualistic & personal, treasures a personal relationship with God, and values moving forward with our eyes on an active God and a solid Bible understanding. We care about the Bible, far more than creeds of the past.

There is a big difference between the papacy and the people who are currently comprising various denominations. The enlightenment doesn't WANT to see the difference - because it wants its arguments to apply everywhere, equally. It wants to remain forever on-top of every discussion. It doesn't trust GOd or the Bible...so it doesn't trust people who place their belief in Scripture. But trust me, we're not heading back to Babylonish Holy Roman Empire. Jesus came as a single man, who didn't police his fellow men (or women). But he DID proclaim truth, and we shall continue. No matter how others may malign, misunderstand, or mischaracterize us, whenever we make a (very minor) mistake.

Posted By: E Harris | December 20, 2011 12:36 PM

The author uses a T-shirt slogan, and throws in a mention of a contemporary singer (RS James)... precisely in order to seguay into a discussion about Tertullian and Origen...so that she can then have the authority to cry out for a "change" in our "theology" of how we view the body.

Meanwhile, the people in the culture that invented the slogan that she used in order to spark the article... have already moved on (in fact, they have moved on GENERATIONS AGO). They aren't in the same denommination as those folks. They don't really identify very much with the culture of those folks. And they are losing respect for those folks, and all of the councils & creeds that those folks produced. (Though thy retain a respect for Bible and God.)

Who's stuck in the past? Who's isolating themselves from their contemporaries?

The article itself didn't deserve as much critiquing as I have given it. But the logic and subtle intent behind the article absolutely DID deserve such a critique. Because this is just one example of a large agenda: to REFUSE to admit that the Reformation has already occurred, and that we Christians are not Empire-minded. Her logic refuses to assume that there's been any difference or change over the years (centuries...millenia...). And so, she has disparaged nearly all christians who do not believe exactly as she does, who stand outside of HER theological circle calling for "change" (when changes already occurred!!!)

It's easy to beat a dead horse.

Posted By: E Harris | December 20, 2011 12:52 PM

The article can be summed up in two words: "straw man". Sarah used a "straw man" argument.

She inserted a "straw man" into the debate, in the place of the people she used to begin the article, and then proceeded to punch holes in the "straw men" who died about 1600 years ago.

That is what the atheistic enlightenment usually does with the Reformation. The enlightenment does not perceive or value ANY difference between the Roman Catholic Church - and the fruit of the Reformation. Because the denominations (like the Lutherans, etc. etc.) act like the RCC... it is assumed that they are all the same. They are not. Their theologies, culture, origins, history, and INCLINATIONS all differ. And as more time goes by, denominations are losing their power entirely. Now, to call for "change" while citing the Roman thinkers that are highly respected by old institutions... is to totally miss the spirit of the people that she is addressing. They're already changed, and changing still more. She should at least SPEAK DIRECTLY TO the people that she is using as examples...instead of indulging in "straw man" arguments.

In fact, I hear that in some college circles there is something actually called "dead white man theory". Maybe "dead white men" are resposible for most or all of the world's current evils? Hmmm... an interesting treasure trove of "straw man" arguments seems to be coming from the universities, these days. I prefer the real world, and simply being REAL with the christians that we are speaking with.

Posted By: E Harris | December 20, 2011 1:04 PM

"As a visually-stimulated male myself, I have come to learn that the only way you gain victory over lust (or any sin for that matter) is to, more and more, wrestle with Jesus rather than the thing itself. The more you seek Him and his Kingdom, the less power those temptations have on you."

I know it was several posts back, but can I just say that this the best comment anyone has made yet. It is true for anyone who struggles with any sin regardless of gender. Thanks, Mark E!

Posted By: Anne Acker | December 20, 2011 2:58 PM

"As a visually-stimulated male myself, I have come to learn that the only way you gain victory over lust (or any sin for that matter) is to, more and more, wrestle with Jesus rather than the thing itself. The more you seek Him and his Kingdom, the less power those temptations have on you."

I think the issue here goes both ways, though. As a man, I am certainly responsible for my thoughts, and my actions. I am responsible for whether or not I give in to temptation to lust. But on the other side of the same coin, women also have a responsibility to do whatever they can to protect the minds of the men around them. Personally, I think there is just no other way around it. Biblically, women are called to dress modestly. At the most foundational level though, it isn't that dressing modestly makes one more godly, it's the fact that often times dressing modestly is just a natural outpouring of a godly perspective.

Certainly the motto of "modest is hottest" is really just pointless, because the whole idea is that "hot-ness" in the eyes of culture shouldn't be our aim, whether we are men or women. However, I don't see how the idea of dressing modestly is harmful to women.

By saying that it is wrong to cause others to feel shame is also just not coming at it from the right angle. This is a popular tack lately, the idea that admonishment is akin to public shaming. This sometimes brings up the "log in your own eye" and "cast the first stone" arguments, but in reality, those defenses are often exactly that, defense mechanisms meant to shift the focus. In many cases, these defense mechanisms simply aren't coming from the right place. I cannot claim to know each human heart, but I know from experience, because I've done it myself.

Posted By: Seth | December 20, 2011 5:38 PM

Never heard the term and don't like it, but "Women’s bodies are not inherently distracting or tempting" come on!!!! Let's see Adam, Solomon, Sampson, David, Jacob... are just some of the biblical examples that prove this wrong. Wars have been fought over women! Any man that has dealt with lust knows that statement to be false and who hasn't lusted-Thus Jesus' teaching on lust in the heart being the same as doing it. I also remember a scripture that says a mans desire will be toward the woman. Yes woman ARE more than a sexual object, but don't think that they are not also inherently tempting. Even if I was to agree with the statement that women's bodies reflect the glory of Go(which I do) who is not attracted to the glory of God?! Lust is natural but also needs to be dealt with as sin because we are born with a sin nature. That being said, I agree that "modest is hotest" is a contradictory phrase because the term "hot" does itself exude sexual immorality. Another huge problem and what this article is basically about, is everyone has their own idea of what is modest and what is hot. My opinion is if how you dress can be labeled "Hot" or "Sexy" it is probably not appropriate for a Christian. Beauty can be portrayed without the "hot" attachment.

Posted By: Lou H | December 20, 2011 7:47 PM

"As a visually-stimulated male myself, I have come to learn that the only way you gain victory over lust (or any sin for that matter) is to, more and more, wrestle with Jesus rather than the thing itself. The more you seek Him and his Kingdom, the less power those temptations have on you."

Thanks Anne, for highlighting what Mark E said. It's one of the best statements in this conversation (and this conversation is full of a LOT of good statements!) I've read every post in this conversation, but I missed that one!

Men need to FOCUS on THE LORD, and (as I like to put it) "wrestle with the Angel." That is, whatever challenges us... we need to approach God WITH the problem and do whatever we have to to turn from our condition/problem and overcome it. For the believer (and this includes the women) the victory is already on the inside. It doesn't depend on other people. The purity and truth of God's Spirit needs to be allowed to direct fallen flesh. No excuses. No excuses for immodesty, either.

The fact is, if the men exibited more self-control the things that they watch and pay for - we would have far less immodesty in our culture. Tamara had a point: when she said that men ENCOURAGE immodesty just with their eyes alone. So...if we exalt modesty (and this requires VERBALLY singing it's praises) and de-throne immodesty (and this includes VERBALLY saying what is and is not acceptable on television, for example)... then this will help the man know what is acceptable, and the woman know what is an acceptable way of pleasing the men in their lives.

Is that sexist - to say that a man has authority to do more than "avert his eyes" but that he actuall has the authority to SPEAK about what is proper for him to lay his eyes on? Is that imposing on a woman? So...a man should be silent, and never offer moral commentary... and leave his fellow men (and women) in the dark? And let the world continue as it always does?

At some point, we have to get up off the couch, and begin to say (out in public, in the open) what is acceptable to us, and what isn't. What is acceptable to the Lord and what isn't?

I believe that if the men had it figured out, and were obedient to the Lord... that the women would follow their lead. But in order for the men to figure it out - - they are going to have to TALK. And maybe a woman might overhear.

Posted By: Anonymous | December 20, 2011 8:18 PM

"Immodesty is not the improper exposure of the body per se, but the improper orientation of the body."

If something is improper (in the sense of exposure)... doesn't that make it immodest? Just sayin'. I'm sure that the author was trying to talk about something - but it's unclear because the exact word choice appears to be contradictory (just as the phrase 'modest is hottest' is contradictory).

Posted By: E Harris | December 20, 2011 8:29 PM

E. Harris, I'm not even sure what to say, except that you are doing what you accuse Sharon of doing. And yes it is Sharon! You "corrected" me with the wrong name. Just go to the top of the article and it is right there. This is indicative of almost all your interpretations of this article. You seem to be reading something different than anyone else (and apparently by a different author named Sarah!) You take the mention of some old time theologians and blow it up all out of proportion. You keep going back to some subculture or denomination (you keep changing) that has little to no bearing on the article or the subject at hand. And you seem to not want to concede a single point to anyone.

I almost feel like you are trolling here now, trying to have some fun at others' expense. Otherwise, I don't know what to make of your posts. Anyway, it has been fun!

Posted By: Mark E. | December 20, 2011 10:46 PM

Yes! Thank you! I made this very point a few months ago after a comment by a male in my congregation of single adults (during a meeting about encouraging dating between members of the church), to the effect that the women in the congregation should not be afraid to be "modestly sexy." Many in the congregation laughed in seeming agreement with the guy's comment (I guess they were thinking disapprovingly of women who dress very frumpily and assigning blame to them for their poor dating lives), but I spent the next several weeks trying in vain to explain to church friends that you can't be both intentionally modest and intentionally sexy. If members of the opposite sex are attracted to you because of/despite your modesty, well and good--and of course one person's modest attire is another's alluring attire--but as far as the person him- or herself, he/she can't INTEND modest dress and sexy dress at the same time. Nor should we wish to--especially women, for the reasons stated in the article. Association with fellow Christians is one environment where a woman should be able to expect that at least the rhetoric (and hopefully the behavior as well) will frame her as a complete, complex child of God whose key beauties are internal, rather than a sex object with a Christian twist.

Posted By: Marie | December 20, 2011 11:18 PM

Yes and amen to everything in this article. The problem with the "Modest is hottest" approach, from my perspective, is the same thing that is generally wrong with discussions of modesty--it focuses exclusively on what men think of how women dress. While, of course, men *are* affected by the way women present themselves, I believe it is out of balance to see them as the primary beneficiaries or as the party to whom women are obligated.

The problem with immodest, seductive dress is precisely that women who dress that way are doing so based on what men think of them. They are dressing in a way that they think will please men. To tell Christian women, "modest is hottest", is to tell them, still, to base how they dress entirely on how attractive men will or will not find them. It places women's perspective in the wrong place and leaves them living for the pleasure and desires of men.

Modesty is critically important to my generation. I get that. I affirm that. I wish there was more modesty in the church, not less. But we have got to figure out how to frame modesty in terms that does not center solely around the male sex drive, because that is a shifting, fleshly standard--a standard which falls far short of the holiness of God anyway.

Modesty must be defined as an act of honor towards God firstly and foremostly. Men certainly benefit when women honor God with their bodies, but women's modesty is not primarily an obligation towards men, but to God.

Posted By: Amanda B. | December 21, 2011 6:05 AM

Quick addendum: I think it is also worth mentioning, as Marie said in the comment right above mine--often, the same women who are getting shamed into modesty are also getting lectured about how it is their Christian duty to look pretty. Such women understandably find themselves walking a frustrating tight rope between being yelled at for either looking too flirty or else too frumpy. All the while, they are being held captive by the opinions of men of their clothing and bodies.

Something is really wrong with that picture.

Posted By: Amanda B. | December 21, 2011 6:09 AM

I wish I had time to read all the comments. This is such an important subject, going back to "original sin" and blaming Eve. And shame to motivate ourselves. And well, it's excellent. I especially shook my head in agreement that "the church needs to overhaul its theology of the female body. Women continue to be associated with their bodies in ways that men are not."

Posted By: Melody H Hanson (@melodyhhanson) | December 21, 2011 10:03 AM

Thank you for such a great perspective on a phrase that has been directed in many forms (shameful and otherwise) toward "good Christian girls". Dare I ask that we also back away from labelling God exclusively as "He"? I can't help thinking that identifying God solely as "He" and "Him" exacerbates this issue of women being perceived as innately UN-godly. Again, thank you so very much for writing about a subject that so many of us Christian women carry with us at all times. Well done!

Posted By: Lori McVay | December 21, 2011 9:41 PM

to the author of this article: thankyou so much :) At just about every christian youth gathering i have attended since I was 11, I have been outcast because of this saying. Why? because instead of wearing a mans t-shirt, and sweatpants, I would choose to wear a brightly colored t-shirt with a little frill, over loose jeans. Sometimes a red turtleneck instead. Also i wasn't afraid to talk to boys as well as girls. I was careful to be modest, but i wanted to display my body as I saw it: a beautiful gift from God, created to show his handiwork, as much as any butterfly. I was always careful not to show to much, but because i dared show that i have a waist, i would often hear "i'm sorry, i don't talk to girls like you. Y'know what they say, modest is hottest." even though i was dressing modestly. because of this i thought that i would never be good enough for any christian man, and God must not like me all that much ether. With that logic i left the church for about 3 years. I still attended church, but i didn't bother listening to anything, or talking to anyone. I didn't want to be christian. Eventually God showed me that i really can't get along without Him, and that i should not be ashamed that i do have a woman's body, and i was right to dress the way i did. I started talking to people about it, and found that a lot of friends of mine, who i had thought couldn't possibly be Christians, were. They had done the same thing I had. I did not know a single person who had not professed that christ was their savior. They just didn't talk about it unless you asked them. About three months later God led me to the young man who is now my fiance. And he is christian, and loves me for who I am, not because i decided to wear a burlap bag the rest of my life.

Posted By: Amanda | December 21, 2011 10:33 PM

It would also be wise if we could finally recognize the FEMALE aspects of God, and quit always referring to God with male terminology. The Bible states that humans were created in the image of God; male and FEMALE they were created! If women are also in the image of God, then God also must have female characteristics, and therefore, is not solely HE! Once society is able to recognize and accept that God is also female, then the disparaging, discrimination and condemnation of women would also cease, as people would NOT put God into those types of degradating role states!

Posted By: Brenda | December 21, 2011 11:56 PM

Dennis,

I take issue with your statement about women's magazines. While it is true that this is what is being taught to females, it is because of what males want! Everywhere in this world, women are taught to cater to men, and that translates over to commercials geared towards men's desires, sexual discriminating education from the time a child is born (pink for girls, because she is to be soft and gentle, and blue for boys because he is allowed to be whatever he wants; the giving of dolls for girls so they can learn to be caretakers, while boys are not "allowed" to play with dolls because it might make them sissie's or gay; and boys given action type of toys that teach him how to go out into the world - they also do not ever teach responsibility, which, if more males took, would result in less unequal responsibility placed onto the female). Additionally, sports magazines definitely promote the sexual views of women...for instance, the SWIM SUIT ISSUE that sells out every year! If Jesus is the example that we are to follow, and he was tempted just as any other human being is, then you should understand that Jesus NEVER, EVER treated a woman in a disrespectful and demeaning manner! There is nothing in the Bible to suggest that Jesus ever leered at a woman's breasts, or that he couldn't control his sexual desires around a woman. He didn't EVER tell women to cover themselves completely so he could maintain control! That whole things is absurd! Men CAN control themselves, and CAN live without being so led simply by what a woman looks like! Jesus did it EVERY DAY OF HIS LIFE! It is the placing of responsibility onto the female that promotes male freedom. Women have, for centuries, been blamed for men raping them, instead of putting the responsibility and blame on the men who are doing it! And society continues to blame women for men not taking responsibility in other ways...a woman having to cover herself so a man won't get out of control is, again, placing that responsibility on the women, instead of on the man! Men need to be held accountable, and society needs to quit shifting the blame from where it belongs, to the victim of that action! It would be like blaming children for being molested or beaten! We wouldn't THINK of doing that, but that is, in fact what men do all the time when taking the responsibility off of themselves, and making the woman cover herself so he can "control" himself! Child molesters do try to blame the child, but we all know this is not accurate! We hold them accountable, and ALL MEN should be held accountable for their own choices and their actions!

Posted By: Judi | December 22, 2011 12:09 AM

Dear "Anonymous | December 15, 2011 4:29 PM,"

Why don't you have the courage to put your name on here? Another coward that blames women for everything that men do! And, no, you are COMPLETELY WRONG; women were not "fashioned after the man or from the man! In the original Greek, the translation actually means that God began to create humans, stopped, put the man in the Garden so he could be acutely aware of his need for the woman, after which God CONTINUED on in the creation of the humans!" This means that God did not create Adam, realize what an absolute mistake SHE/He had made (they were created in the IMAGE of God; male and FEMALE they were created - God's IMAGE included the female aspects of God, otherwise women couldn't have been created in that image!), and then decided to go back and create a woman for the man to misuse, abuse, and disrespect! The creation was a two-step process, intentionally, and what was begun with was continued on with, as represented by the taking of the rib that was necessary to make Adam, and then to remove that to add to it, as God had done with Adam, and to complete the creation. The two-step process was necessary, since Adam wouldn't have recognized his need (he would have been self-centered, which is what we see with men...more like the character of Satan than that of God, since God is giving, and not focused on Him/Herself!), and he would have lived as men now live under sin. Women were not created in the IMAGE of Adam, but rather, they were created in the IMAGE OF THE CREATOR - GOD! What a fool you must be to be that egotistical to think that God fashioned a woman after a lower part of creation, and to make a woman! BOTH men and women were created as a reflection of God, not as a reflection of either one or the other! Sin is the ONLY thing that brought about disparity (look the word up!), and hierarchical structure in relationships. That was NEVER God's design, and we should never strive after what God had never intended!

Posted By: Ray | December 22, 2011 12:25 AM

EHarris,

Where do you get in the Bible that a woman is supposed to want a man to lead? The Bible refers to the man as the "head," but that this "head" as being the person responsible for sacrificing and giving himself up for the woman. It is never referred to in the Bible in such a manner as to indicate force, hierarchy, or anything else.

Christ, as head of the church, was the example that the Bible has given. "For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church (meaning men too!) submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. (Apparently, men are supposed to submit to God FIRST, before ever expecting their wives submit to them! You don't see men talking about their own expected submission, nor do men submit to God. Most people leading their children to Christ are women! They are the one's taking the kids to church, while men think it is not something they have to do. Women are also most often the spiritual leaders in their home, while the men do not take their God-commanded role, and be the spiritual head...reading the Bible, praying, etc.). Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her."

So your whole notion of women wanting the man to lead comes from the desire on the part of the woman for the man to be the CORRECT head, as Christ gave the clearest example of! It is not a hierarchical notion, as society has promoted. The relationship, as created, was an equal one, and that has not changed. We are supposed to strive after what was God's intent, and if we don't, then we are living by the world's standards...a sin-based life. Jesus never promoted sexism, shame on a woman (even to the woman caught in "adultery," where, here again, the man was just as responsible, but society placed the blame solely on her!). Jesus always respected women, and had them in the same positions as the men...women disciples, workers for Him, etc. In fact, if there is ANY hierarchy, it is indicated time and again in the Bible where Angels, and Jesus himself appeared FIRST to the woman, and then to the man!

Posted By: Anonymous | December 22, 2011 12:48 AM

Women are expected to be "modest" and to not think about sex or act in "sexy" ways, so that men can control their own lusts without any responsibility placed on them to do so, until she gets married, and then she is supposed to meet his every desire, to know how to turn him on and to please him, and to suddenly be a sexual creature, when prior to that time she has been taught to be "not sexual," to not act in sexual ways, to have NO interest in sex (while males are allowed to be sexual powerhouses, having sex with every female they can get their hands on to show what studs they are), and to NEVER be the cause of any man getting turned on by her! What a contradiction! How STUPID it is! Shame is FULLY in place in regards to women and the messages that they receive! Shame is placed on the woman if she has sex prior to marriage, if she thinks about or acts in sexual ways, if she dresses sexy (and then is blamed for being raped - which is an act of power, domination, control, and aggression, NOT of sex or sexual desire!), or if she has any type of sexuality at all! The man, on the other hand, is fully allowed to have his sexuality, in ANY manner that it occurs, and is considered a "stud," while the same is NOT attributed to a woman who is sexual! There are a plethora of terms that are attributed to a woman who is sexual...whore, slut, tramp, easy, etc. I have even seen women who were sexual to meet their husband's needs called whores or sluts because they had a natural bodily response, as created by God, when they desired sex with their husbands! SICK, SICK, SICK! Double standards, and shame based messages and behavior towards women!

Where is the shame based messages to men? When are we going to talk about the modesty Christ expects out of men too? The Bible clearly states that both men and women are supposed to give their bodies to each other. That means that women are SUPPOSED to be sexual creatures. And God expects men to have self-control! So when women are being blamed for not being "modest" enough, that usually means that a man has messed up, and has treated a woman (or women) in a manner not in accordance with God's stated rules for how men are supposed to treat women...disrespectfully or abusively toward that woman or to multiple women!

Posted By: Ted | December 22, 2011 1:05 AM

The first time I saw one of these shirts, there was a group of young men wearing them to convey what they found to be attractive to them. It may also have been to boost the self esteem of girls around them being shown by media and in real life that skin equals attention. I haven't read through all the comments, but saw reoccuring themes of guilt/shame based motivation. I would argue that the slogan can only be seen as a personal truth, or opinion of the wearer. This is a strictly subjective matter and who am I to say that the wearer doesn't actually believe the slogan on the shirt? Such hypocritical or subjugating tones could be perhaps inferred by the slogan wearer's comportment when a "fleshy" vs "modestly" attired woman is around. These can be vocal or behavioral cues.

I understand this is a heated issue as most matters of opinion are, and I found the article to be insightful, particularly about the way women feel they are treated at church or by church members. I have personally seen new Christians walk away from church after hearing others tactlessly tell them they are dressed immodestly at church. Perhaps the author's frustration could be better summarized along the lines of: I want to dress in a way that makes me feel comfortable and confident. Don't try to guilt me if my personal taste, opinion, or conviction of how I should dress myself differs from yours. That is not how our Lord has taught his followers how to behave themselves.

Posted By: Jacob | December 22, 2011 3:20 AM

@ Mark E. : I would like to think that I am a little more deep than your average troll. I had to look up that word "trolling"... and apparently, yep, I match the definition (almost). I wasn't trying to provoke an emotional response, however. I was hoping to provoke thought, not just reaction. I admit, I haven't really read a lot of feminist literature... so reading this article took me off-guard. I wasn't expecting what it had to offer, or tried to offer. So... I may have over-reacted to what I saw (or thought I saw) in the article. It is abundantly apparent that Sharon (and I apologize for getting the name wrong) only valued the phrase as a way to springboard into a conversation about the old bad habits of the institutional church some 1600 years ago. She was attempting to bring it forward, into a critique of today's church culture, by showing evidence of a slogan, a t-shirt, and a contemporary singer. But not enough connection between the past and present was established, in the course of the article. ...which only made me surmise that she was trying TOO HARD in the course of the article to blame someone, instead of letting it be more natural and looking for the truth as it is. I know I WAS rather troll-ish in all of my wordiness, I was just having fun (you were right) trying to provoke some thought and discussion. I'm afraid that I did much more than that, and my utter lack of manners and restraint may have been counter-productive to those who really don't want to see my point anyway.

I apologize to Sharon for getting her name wrong. (I read the bottom of the article, where it said that it was posted by "Sarah" and got confused.)

Posted By: E Harris | December 22, 2011 4:39 PM

Dear Anonymous at 12:48am: In my defense, due to my intense verbosity... (or due to other's unwillingness to understand) I think I may have been misunderstood. But it is what it is. I mostly agree with you, except about "the 12"...those were men. Women disciples didn't need to be formally recognized, to be just as committed. But something in the male "structure" or "ego" sometimes needs a more official-sounding "recognition". This is also true in other areas. I do believe that this is why the Bible uses male-dominated patriarchal language...because men need to learn things that women seem to already know by instinct and intuition. Men need to be taught on a more intellectual (mechanical) level, on average. I'm just generalizing here, ok? Don't chop my head off. But there are differences - and the Bible (and the structure of the cultural forms in the Bible that God endorsed) work with the differences, without putting either down.

@ Ray: take it easy. I may have over-reacted in my intensity toward unexpected feminist logical gymnastics... but you have doubly over-reacted to me. As far as I know, it is a Biblical position to state that women was created from the man's body, fashioned after him, to be a help meet for him. They are equal (morally) under God. One woman in this discussion agreed with my initial post - and that was the first thing I said in that post. They are each individuals. But they are one flesh, and in that union, there IS a head who serves, sacrifices, and proactively leads. It is the man. I believe that the failure of men to lead like they should - is the primary source of feminists in the world! The heart of feminism is: disappointed females. And men who are a little TOO into the feminist thing: confused males. I don't claim to know who they are, but I know that they're out there, and so do they (if they be honest).

...and one more thing Ted: I think that men would respond much more easily to "shame based" messages in our current culture, than women would. As evidenced by the feminist movement, in general! You can't tell them ANYTHING. Or it's called "shaming" and any amount of perceived "shame" is considered to be "wrong". I'm sorry, but most men have more sense than that... but our popular culture has lacked good male leadership that CAN properly "shame" misbehaving males, while also lovingly offering to guide them. Those kind of people are called FATHERS.

...and quite frankly, I don't think I've ever confronted anyone on the issue of modesty or what they are wearing. I'm a friendly guy, and not only would it be awkward - it's almost never my place to correct anyone in such a way!! I wish I could say the same thing about being attracted to ladies at church... but that's just the "male" side of me talking. I don't lay the fault upon the woman (as the feminists think I do, and charge me with). I simply think that we need to DISCUSS some solid STANDARDS, from time to time. ...as a way of lifting up a SOLID alternative to Spears & Gaga & nude California beaches!

Posted By: E Harris | December 22, 2011 5:05 PM

These days, to get upset over a slogan such as "modest is hottest" - and try to slam the slogan as somehow serving (in actuality) to objectify the female body... why doesn't the author take a sharp look at Spears or Gaga (or a zillions other things)? Why is a charismatic youth-group slogan singled out for this charge of (somehow) objectifying the female body... but all other cultural influences are let off the hook & not even mentioned? If the author was really concerned about those objectifying the female body, I think the author would have a lot to say about other influences. AT LEAST mention these other influences (which SPARKED the slogan) side by side with the little-known pop-church-youth-culture slogan (that is ridiculously funny ON PURPOSE).

But no... we're to assume that the slogan just popped up out of nowhere, as part of a long-standing tradition passed down from Tertullian himself (and those like him).

Posted By: E Harris | December 22, 2011 5:24 PM

E Harris, I appreciate at least the admission that you may have gone a bit overboard, but I still think you are missing the point and making connections that just aren't there. Sharon does not need to address Spears or Gaga, because it would be stating the obvious. No one here disputes that our culture is hyper-sexualized and that all of that confuses the issue even for Christians. But other cultural influences are incidental here. Sharon is trying to discuss the CHURCH's thinking and role in all this. Yes, the culture is messed up, but how do we address it as Christians? She has given some examples of how it was done long ago, with (what I thought) was the obvious implication that we have not lost some of that thinking and practice.

I don't know why you cannot get the connections from early church theologians to today. No matter what denomination we spring from, our theology and practice has been influenced and passed down through the centuries. Sharon is making the point that bad theology in regards to the body and modesty goes back along way AND continues into today. As you say, these ideas did not "pop out of nowhere." But we in the modern American church (including myself most of the time) are woefully uneducated in the history of Christendom in general and Evangelicalism specifically. We don't need to know it all, but knowing some of the basics would give us a much better understanding of where we came from and even where we are headed.

Everything else aside, I think Sharon was right to say that slogans like this cause confusion at best and really damage at worst. Slogan Christianity is simplistic in the worst way. To be honest I think the slogan came about more because it rhymed than it had any merit as an instruction for how anyone should behave. It misleads. If we hope to influence our young people, much less the world, we need to move beyond and deeper than slogans and t-shirts.

Posted By: Mark E. | December 22, 2011 10:16 PM

My central point is: the term "hottest" that Sharon objects to - is borrowed from THE WORLD (that she declined to mention). The idea of 'hottest' was not from Tertullian, but from the secularists that the youth group(s) were struggling against. It's not like they are inheriting something from old Tertullian here. They aren't. They are inheriting something from secular pop culture, and in a (slightly) misguided way: turning it on it's head, in an effort to combat secular culture. At LEAST know the people that you're talking to!

C'mon.

That's the central thing that I'm objecting to in the article above. And I think it's a valid observation.

(Plus, there are many sentences that are...blatantly false or imprecisely phrased, in the article above.)

Sharon aimed her FULL attack upon the church, without even mentioning the secular propaganda-culture that the church is struggling with. This is a HUGE oversight, that cannot be understated. This made me a little angry: attacking the church without mentioning anything good about her, or even taking notice of the REASONS for the developments. And the immediate REASONS aren't Tertullian in the 400's. They ARE Gaga and Spears, and the church's faulty co-opting of concepts that come directly from THEM. The objectifying didn't come from tertullian. It came from not understanding who we are in Christ - and trying to fight the world with it's own words. The article above makes it TOO complex and convoluted, when the matter is really FAR more simple.

Stop trying to bash the christian west. Start holding up the scripture (chapter and verse) ... and you 'liberals' may find a better reaction from us 'conservatives'.

Posted By: E Harris | December 23, 2011 11:07 AM

Ok, for all of the feminists out there (who aren't reading any more probably)... I was just as wary of Eddie Long wearing muscle shirts as he preached, as I am of the female congregant who shows clevage on her trip to a church gathering on Sunday. I am against the 'objectifying' of the body, and when we don't have modest dress, and we aren't acting modestly... we are putting ourselves 'out there'. We (many times) objectify ourselves. It is what it is. Let the Spirit of the Lord tell you (personally) when you are objectifying yourself, or being immodest. Intuition really can carry us a long way. But in case intuition fails, I don't think it's too overboard to preach a sermon offering 'guidelines' once in a while - so long as the 'guidelines' don't get codified into 'rules.'

I'm an equal opportunity "shamer", I guess. Because I think we should have some standards, and be able to freely talk about them.

Posted By: E Harris | December 23, 2011 11:38 AM

E. Harris, I have read most of your comments on this blog posting, and I realize that by exposing my views, I am exposing my flank for attack. So be it. I would like to point out, as you so vigorously defend western philosophy, western theology, and the "Western White Man," that Christianity was not founded by western white men. It was founded by God, first-most, and implemented by middle-eastern swarthy males. Your false dichotomies (western vs. eastern, male vs. female, liberal vs. conservative) actually places you in an antagonistic us vs. them ideology. Your voice here is not serving to uplift or even to debate an idea, but instead to dogmatically and bobmbastically divide and conquer. Christianity is neither liberal nor conservative. Those are politically connotative words, and they are doing more to cause destruction and division in the church than anyone would really like to admit.

Regarding this post, I have to say I was heartened by the frank and open discussion of this topic. For a long time, I felt that the phrase "modest is hottest" was silly and trite, reducing a culturally sensitive issue to a Paris Hilton catchphrase (ad hominem argument. sorry.). Modesty should not be valued over and above all other issues of womanhood, and it's more sad to me that societal pressures have forced people to need to come up with some kind of phrasing to equate their view (modesty) is better than the other sides' view (hotness, sexuality). This places Christians in a weak position because we are no longer emphasizing what a beautiful Christian woman is, but rather expressing how Christian women can win in the battle of attractiveness.

That young women today are feeling pressured by society from within church culture and without to become overly obsessive about their bodies is a serious problem, for it ignores the other adornments of living a life that is pleasing to God, a life that is so much more than just physical.

The modesty issue and the Holy Grail status placed on it seems like an issue where the standards of humanity have been placed over the standards of God, and, dare I say it, the legalistic rule and emphasis on modesty has actually become an idolatrous issue.

As to the weaker-brother argument, my husband suggested that we might be better off following the advice given by Christ that it's better to enter Heaven with one eye than enter the gates of hell with both eyes intact. (Logically, this means plucking out the eyes of young boys before they can sinfully apprehend women.) Problem solved! (Please do not pluck out the eyes of young boys.)

Finally, lest anyone misinterpret or misread my words, I am not advocating "immodest" behavior or dress. I am simply questioning why modesty has been endowed such salvific powers as the ability to cleanse and change both men's and women's hearts and minds, when the Bible is crystal clear that this power of renewal and regeneration rests in the hands of the triune God.

Posted By: C. Givens | December 23, 2011 12:53 PM

Here is a blog post taking on the newer "I'd Rather Have a Proverbs 31 Woman than a Victoria's Secret Model" campaign that has been gaining ground in the last few weeks. The author discusses the false dichotomy that exists in these either/or scenarios and the objectification of women as either "walking vaginas" or "walking wombs". Though not identical theses, I think it supports Sharon's well-constructed thesis for this type of forum and may help any who are confused as to the point of her article.

"On Femininity, Sexism, and Sensuality in the Bible"
http://theoprudence.com/?p=386

Posted By: Angie | December 23, 2011 12:58 PM

A couple of posts have challenged the use of masculine pronouns to refer to God. It is true that God is not a man, or human in any way, and He does not have a body. However, the Bible uses masculine pronouns to refer to God, so most Christians consider it reverent to do the same, since the Bible is God's revelation of how God wants us to relate to Him.

If this seems problematic to some of my sisters, I would call your attention to the healing of the woman with the issue of blood. Luke 8:47 states that the woman, when called upon, explained the medical condition that caused her to seek healing. Imagine Jesus, a man standing in a crowd of men, listening to this woman talk about her "female troubles" and not running away screaming or dropping to a fetal position out of sheer embarrassment. Clearly, Jesus could be masculine, and yet be perfectly comfortable with every aspect of womanhood. No wonder He was beloved of the women who followed Him!

I put this here because a discussion of modesty really does pierce to the marrow of our femininity, and it is important to remember that God is perfectly comfortable with who He made us to be. We need feel no shame in baring our inmost longings to Him.

Posted By: Anne | December 23, 2011 8:24 PM

I appreciate many of the other articles written by authors at her.meneutics. But this article was so full of error, and subtle mis-characterizing... it should not have been written. It's progression of thought (from modern youth-group culture to Tertullian) is SOOO strained... it reveals an agenda! Period. And that is what I was responding (and reacting) to.

Many of those responding have refused to understand a "conservative" like me, in favor of saying something akin to "whatever man, you're polarizing people by using labels". ... uh, no. Many of those people who have responded to me have REFUSED to even mention or much less adequately REPLY to my main complaint. The slogan (that was used in the title of the article) was used as a stand-in prop for the usual feminist complaint about western civilization AS IT WAS 1600 years ago, and mostly is no longer! Not only that, but supposedly Tertullian gave us the idea for "modest" (uh, no...the Bible did that), or maybe "hottest" (uh, no... Tertullian probably would shy away from advocating for "hottest" as well). So just WHERE PRECISELY IS Tertullian & Origen's influence? Oh, the male objectification of the female body. I'm SURE that Origen and Tertullian came up with that, and such objectification could NEVER have come from any other source! Why try to pin the SHAME on old white 'church' theologians from 1600 years ago... when the idea of "hottest" is actually much more pervasive in a culture that actively REFUTES anything to do with traditional christianity???! It makes no sense.

But... feminists... proceed as you always do. You are going out of date with your tired arguments. And if that's all you are interested in - I have better websites to frequent. (Or at least I will be more selective about what articles I read on this one.)

It is not I who desire to divide and conquer (as one woman recently put it). It is the feminists who take on the male authority vs. female... western male-dominant empire vs. female... you-name-it vs. female (especially if the you-name-it is a popular straw-man to attack in liberal circles).

You feminists out there (and you know who you are)... you probably wonder why you frequently engender a polarizing response. Well... it's because there are people that you are mischaracterizing, who are tired of it. I'm sure that there are attitudes out there that need criticism and critiquing - but please try to do so more even-handedly.

I am not critiquing dress (as some may think). I am concerned about an abstract concept: what is modesty? what does it ask of us? what are its standards? what is immodesty? and how may we go about ENCOURAGING modesty and (in an appropriate, gentle, or spiritual way) DISCOURAGE immodesty?

Posted By: E Harris | December 28, 2011 5:59 PM

Rather than be proud about how much response you got for an article... why not pause to consider: maybe the responses should be read and considered, before you try to say that the value of an article is about how much response you can PROVOKE.

I could write an article telling a bunch of lies... and get a lot of response, if I got the right people angry enough! Congratulations! The intolerant people in this room (who consistently desire to mis-characterize my statements and those from my background) have succeeded in this thread.

Posted By: E Harris | December 28, 2011 6:02 PM

I maintain that feminists want to divide male from female, in many of their critiquing. They (in a very sly way) engender divisions, hoping to bring things to a higher synthesis after a fault has been harangued & exposed (or at least IMPLIED, when it isn't there).

I maintain that the purpose of this article wasn't primarily about modesty in the first place. It's agenda was to attack old western traditions in favor of celebrating the female body free from any verbal admonition to "put it away". (As a man should be encouraged to do, if he were being immodest.)

The main objective is a cheap form of "freedom" that does not APPEAR (prove me wrong) to have any specific standards that it will even TALK ABOUT much less adhere to.

Posted By: E Harris | December 28, 2011 6:11 PM

What about modesty for men?

Love this line: "Immodesty is not the improper exposure of the body per se, but the improper orientation of the body."

I love the emphasis the author of this post put on the beauty that God has built into women. It shouldn't be idolatry but to appreciate the beauty is good. I used to feel that I always had to wear jumpers and baggy shirts so I could hide that I was a woman. I don't feel that way anymore. Obviously, I don't dress skanky :-) but I do wear things that accentuate my form and make me look like a woman!:-)

Posted By: Rebecca | December 29, 2011 12:44 PM

I've read the article and almost every comment so far (with the exception of E Harris' I admit, after a while they got so repetitive and unrelated to the topic at hand that I tired of them), and there are a few summarizing points I think would be helpful for readers to keep in mind.

1. Nobody, not the author or any of those commenting, is advocating that women dress immodestly or expose themselves inappropriately. All sides acknowledge that the Bible commands—not just suggests—modesty, and that to fail to live up to any standard set forth in the Bible is SIN, and should be avoided at all costs.

2. Words have meaning. So even though saying "modest is hottest" to a youth group may help some girls to remember to dress modestly, and thus change their external behavior, what it is communicating to their heart is far more important, and what the word "hot" communicates to their heart is bad. It is saying, you SHOULD be sexy like the world, just in a Christian way so that makes it ok. Which is not true. Is it good for girls to dress modestly as a result of that statement? Yes, of course, God uses all sorts of things to get his messages through to his people. My own grandmother met Jesus through a friend who worked at a bar with her, and came over to smoke cigarettes and witness to her. (Incidentally my grandmother was the conversion that started a chain reaction that proceeded to effect our family forever, praise God.) But that does not absolve us of the responsibility to communicate his messages in ways that are MOST true to his revelation in Scripture, and I do not believe the slogan Sharon was addressing is the MOST true-to-the-Bible way of addressing the issue of modesty.

3. I am consistently reminded (and not surprised) that the sentiments on this topic usually fall on the same sides of the gender debate: those who want to put the responsibility for men's lust more on women are further towards the complementarian-"Christian patriarchy" side, and those who want to put the responsibility more on both equally or more on men TEND to be more on the "softer" complementarian/egalitarian side. This of course is not unilaterally true or true of every person who has commented, I am sure, but I see that it is true of many and it is something interesting to consider, how the views of women from these various perspectives determines who gets the brunt of the blame when the rubber meets the road.

4. One of my Bible college professors says that when we are still concerned about our "rights," we are not really acting as mature members of our community. I think this is true for the question of modesty as well. Women should not be fighting tooth and nail for their "rights" to dress how they please because "it's all men's fault anyway," and men should not excuse their "right" to struggle or sin because they are "visual and just can't help themselves." If we would be less obsessed about our "rights" and more obsessed with how to help our brothers and sisters love Christ better and better, more obsessed with how to serve and glorify Him more in humility and gentleness, I do not think this would be as big of a problem.

Clearly all of this leaves a lot of room for discussion on how to implement all of these thoughts practically, and that is the glory of the diversity of the body of Christ. But I think that love and grace should be the order of the day, not condemnation and self-absorption.

Posted By: Emily | December 30, 2011 12:19 AM

This comment from KR Wordgazer really sums it up for me:

"When women are able to do what men take for granted-- dressing appropriately for the situation, in clothes that they like and feel comfortable in-- when they no longer feel a need to be dressing themselves FOR the opposite sex, whether to attract lust or turn it away; when women can stop feeling like their bodies are all others see of them; then women will be free. This may never happen in the world, but it would be really lovely if it could happen in the Body of Christ."

Although I think it has a higher chance of happening in the world first before it ever happens in the church.

Posted By: KatR | January 1, 2012 9:55 AM

Wow - I was reading through this and was absolutely horrified at Tim's assertion that EVERY FEMALE knows the power of seduction. Tim, I can honestly say before the Lord, and I am a female, that I have never understood the dynamics nor wanted to be sexually seductive to a man. I was always turned off by seduction, and it just was never something I aspired towards and even if I had wanted to be seductive, I just don't have the finesse to be sexually seductive to anyone. How you get the idea that women are all closet seductresses who are well aware of some latent power they have in their sexuality is in my mind a sign that you have some stereotypical idea in your head of how a woman's psyche works. I was always far more focused on wanting to be understood and respected for my mind than I was ever concerned with being found sexually appealing by anyone.
Now that I am engaged, I am delighted to find that I have the ability to be sexually desireable to a man, although I can tell you it was something I discovered AFTER he fell in love with me and I him, and not something that brought us together.

Posted By: Heather G | January 5, 2012 11:35 PM

I am disheartened by the number of commenters who believe that shaming women is appropriate and that teaching women that their bodies are something to be ashamed of is appropriate. We all agree at modesty is a good thing. The problem is that it's defined differently by different people in different contexts. I've grown up in the church. It took me years of dancing to realize that my body is a wonderful and beautiful thing, not something to be semi-ashamed of. Christians give women more body image issues than we would already receive from our culture (which are many). This attitude harms women and men - and guess what, brothers and sisters, the women outside of the church are not following whatever you deem as the rules for modesty (note that there's a wide range between attractive and trashy, but Christians are often scared about even the modest, attractive end), so some number of Christian women are getting left behind when it comes time for men to find partners, because the men are attracted to women who know how to dress, carry themselves, and who aren't ashamed of the body that they inhabit (which is manifested in an attitude, not necessarily just in clothing). Again, I'm not advocating trashy clothing, but we shouldn't act like women have to wear garbage bags either.

We need a better theology of the body.

Posted By: Dawn | January 6, 2012 4:56 AM

http://www.bridgew.edu/soas/jiws/May10/Avigail.pdf

In a 2010 study, men were asked to indicate the degree to which they felt sexually aroused by women's revealing attire. Close to thirty percent (29.8%) reported feeling aroused all of the time when viewing women in revealing clothes and an additional 58.1% felt aroused most of the time. In addition, most men expressed enjoyment in gazing at women so dressed; 48.45 felt that way all of the time and an additional 46.1% almost always, and similar proportions of the male participants (35.8% and 55.3% respectively) expressed a liking of this form of dress."

In response to direct questioning regarding their perceptions of women's sexualized appearance, men expressed a belief that temptation and seduction are the primary intentions of women who dress that way. To the questions of whether they assumed that women dressed in sexy clothing were trying to arouse them or elicit sexual advances from them, 30.6% and 20.2% respectively stated that those were uniformly the intentions, in their opinion. An additional 53.2% and 55.6% thought those were the intentions most of the time.

Posted By: Jennifer | January 11, 2012 11:46 PM

have you heard of the book, "theology of the body" written by pope John Paul 2? I think that's exactly the answer you're looking for :)

Posted By: almasurfer | January 15, 2012 2:56 AM

Your article is written from a secular worldview. It is written in context to what the world views not what GOD views. You may quote scripture and refer to the bible...but you are still presenting a secular worldview. You have to take the entire context of what GOD expects from everyone..men and woman alike. You cannot fragment what the viewpoint is. Secular and biblical worldview hold totally different standards from one another.....and yours is secular. I hope more and more women become aware of the difference between the two.

Posted By: Jenn | February 1, 2012 2:40 PM

Modesty is not a state of dress or undress rather an attitude or mode of action. One can be immodest and still be fully dressed. In my opinion, the statement Modest is Hottest, with its innuendo and sexual overtones, emblazoned across a girl's breast is a good example of fully clothed immodesty.

Posted By: Almoustine | February 8, 2012 8:54 PM

This article is a frustrating one to me. As a graduate student familiar with feminist theory, a Christian who follows the Bible first and foremost, and the leader of a couples’ community group that focuses on new marriages, I feel like the article has focused mostly on secular feminist theory more than the pure life that God calls us to.

I agree that the phrase “Modest is Hottest” does invoke the sexual undertones that are associated with the notion of being “hot,” but the places in the article (and subsequent comments) where the author (and other women) have stated that they cannot be held accountable for the sin of men is a humanist, not Christian response, that puts self before others. Though I agree that to talk in terms of physical attraction does reduce the female to nothing but body, we need to think in terms of what is beneficial to our brothers and sisters in Christ before we first start spouting secular views of sexuality (a la Judith/Jack Butler).

The reality is that the spiritual war on men in the church is Lust. As someone who fights daily against this sin and someone who loves the Lord whole-heartedly, I can tell you that we are being attacked by advertising, by magazines, movies, and even by women in the church. I have spoken with several men in my group about this same issue, and what they are also shocked about is the irresponsibility of so many women in the church community. I spend my days on a college campus and walk at the mall regularly, but I am surprised to see that the women who dress most provocatively are at my church on Sunday morning. I am disturbed that mini-skirts and low tops are ever considered appropriate wear for Christian women to wear in public, but I find them particularly disturbing when we are gathering to worship the Lord.

Drawing attention to the breasts, butt, and legs is an act that sexualizes the body, and to claim that men just shouldn’t look does not take responsibility for the communal nature of the Christian church. In the same way that I am careful not to meet the emotional needs of women other than my wife (either to intentionally or unintentionally gain a response), women should be aware that they can intentionally and unintentionally trigger men’s sexual desires. It is a tragic state that so many Christian men are dealing with this temptation, but it is the sate we are in.

Lust, pornography, masturbation, and fantasy are at epidemic levels in the church. Ladies, you are deceiving yourself if you believe otherwise (See *footnote). While it is a man’s responsibility to resist temptation, it is the community’s responsibility to help him do so. As a Christian brother, I can pray for and hold accountable a man who is struggling with these sins. As a sister, you can stop tempting him with revealing/form fitting clothes.

Our standard has shifted with the standards of the world, and like the world, women in the church’s skirts are shorter, tops are tighter, and swimsuits are skimpier than they were years ago. Just as I would not serve alcohol to a known alcoholic on the notion that it was his responsibility to resist indulgence, women should not place a temptation before those who are struggling. I promise you, men all around you (including your husbands, boyfriends, brothers, fathers, and sons) are struggling. Don’t make them feel like they are fighting alone. Support them in appropriate ways and do not be seduced by the world’s notion that -self- is more important than -other- or that rejecting the notion of “woman as object” should make it okay to create a stumbling block for the men in your life.

(* Footnote: Because Lust is perceived and responded to in the church as a sin much worse than others, and because women respond to men who struggle with this issue as though they are sex crazed perverts, I would suggest that you not ask a man you are close to if he struggles with this area. Most likely, he will not feel that ha can be honest with you. For candid talk about the issue read “Everyman’s Battle,” “Not Even a Hint”; visit the “Pure Life Ministries” website; or Google search any terms about fighting lust. I am constantly amazed that we will listen with empathy to Christians talk about struggles with pride, selfish ambition, or a quick temper, but we respond to disgust at those who are tempted sexually.)

Posted By: JP Johnston | February 20, 2012 6:45 AM

Thanks to JP Johnston for a brave and honest post. JP, if you read this, some women will now say to you that men need to watch how they dress, too, and it isn't "fair" that women get all the blame. They will ignore all the facts and emphasis on humanistic world view and just bat it back to you. Would you post something on this, too?

Posted By: Christiana | February 20, 2012 7:47 AM

This year’s Superbowl provided an excellent example of issues of “fairness.” David Beckham’s underwear advertisement was (in my opinion) one of the most sexual advertisements that I have ever seen. Close shots of his muscles, tattoos, and underwear filled the screen for the full commercial. I have to say, I was as uncomfortable during it as I was during the suggesting Fiat commercial involving a woman in a tight skirt seducing a man by seductively licking whipped cream and spilling some down her cleavage. In both cases I looked away and only glanced back at the screen to see if it was over. The next night I heard two female classmates making explicit comments about Beckham, and my first thought was that their behavior was proof of a double standard, that this wasn’t fair. Had a man talked as explicitly to a classmate, the room wouldn’t have been filled with laughter but with women glaring and decent men trying to distance themselves from the conversation.

However, what is really at issue here is not “fairness” or whether a double standards exists about what men and women can and can’t do or say. What is at issue is that sin has become tolerated in various manifestations, and rather than fight for our right to push the boundaries we must cling to righteousness. Regarding my above posting and the article it responds to, I think all believers (men and women / attractive or unattractive / sexually appealing or quite plain) must flee from sin, and I believe we should help our brothers and sisters in Christ do the same.

From what I have read and come to understand, men are more visual than women (in most cases), so this is why I addressed my comments to women. I understand that women also struggle with lust, and as Christian men, we must look out for the well-being of those women. In the same way, men should realize the impact that emotional attention or a caring touch can have on a woman and protect her from temptation. I know that this is something that I did not understand when I was single and I triggered emotional/physical responses in women that I now regret. Some women are visual, and for those women, we must cloth ourselves modestly.

We should all take responsibility for creating an environment where the conditions for sin are unwelcome, and we should stop fighting for our “rights.” Jesus Christ had a “right” to not bear my sins on the cross, but he did so out of love for me. Rather than try to figure out how close I can get to the edge before falling into sin (or causing someone else to fall into sin), I should be thinking about how close I can get to Christ’s perfect standard. I cannot imagine Christ willingly acting in a way that would tempt others and saying, “Well, she just shouldn’t think of me that way. It’s her issue not mine.”

I once taught on Righteousness and drew a line across the board. On the right side I wrote “Righteousness” and on the left “Sin.” In the middle I drew a campsite and ask why it is that we want to figure out how close to sin we can “camp” without actually being in sin. Why do we want to push the boundaries so far? Instead, why don’t we cling to the perfect standard or Savior set and help others achieve this as well? If sin were a bear, we wouldn’t demand the “right” to camp close to the bear, and we certainly wouldn’t suggest that our brother or sister should be okay next to the bear because s/he should be strong enough to fight it. 1st Corinthians tells us to flee from sexual immorality, and Ephesians tells us that not even a hint should be tolerated. We should welcome news that something is a temptation for our friends, so we can help them flee temptation.

Perhaps it is not fair that we must bear each other’s burdens, but it is loving.

Posted By: JP Johnston | February 20, 2012 3:00 PM

Wise words, JP. Thank you.

Posted By: NJ | February 20, 2012 8:01 PM

"Second, we must affirm the value of the female body. The value or meaning of a woman’s body is not the reason for modesty. Women’s bodies are not inherently distracting or tempting. On the contrary, women’s bodies glorify God."

Too me, the most powerful lines in this article. Yes the church is a communal body and we have a shared responsibility to honor and protect one another. The fact remains though that the devaluation of women is drastically more severe than that of men. Yes, men are objectified and can be the subject of lust and sexual violence but when I look at our culture I am much more frightened by the way we sexualize women and violence against women than by the modesty or lack of modesty of Christian women.

http://browneyedamazon.com/2012/02/22/northamericanrapeculture/

Posted By: AnaYelsi | February 22, 2012 5:53 PM

Post a comment:

Name:

Email Address:

URL:

Remember Me?

Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)

Verification (needed to reduce spam):

Marriage, War, and Lent: Practicing Love During Separation

Want to Follow God? Go to Sleep

Clothing in Church: Why It Matters

Fractured Fairy Tale: The Appeal and the Danger of 'Once Upon a Time'

Unplanned Parenthood: The Blessing of an Inconvenient Pregnancy

The Problem with Westminster Kennel Club's View of Pet Adoption

On Valentine’s Day, Praying for Men Who Buy Sex

Why You Could Be in a 'Sh*tuff People Say' Meme

Seeing Jesus in the Old Testament: Nancy Guthrie on Her Newest Bible Study

John Piper and the Rise of Biblical Masculinity