Modesty, immodesty, men and women....

[ItinerantPreacher]

The point of proverbs 7 is "don't succumb". 

24 Now therefore, listen to me, my children;
Pay attention to the words of my mouth:
25 Do not let your heart turn aside to her ways,
Do not stray into her paths;
26 For she has cast down many wounded,
And all who were slain by her were strong men.
27 Her house is the way to hell,
Descending to the chambers of death.

A prostitute is a prostitute.  It's the man's fault if he lets his heart turn to her ways.

See you make the point with your post. The Bible doesn't say she was a prostitute, you assumed that because she was dressed like a prostitute, she is one. You made a judgement based upon appearance.

It is only logical to conclude some simple things from this.

1. Prostitutes dress so people understand what they are about
2. Christian ladies should not dress like prostitutes
3. How we dress is important.

When we talk about "standards of dress", we all have them. Even TRT admits that by his very post. The question is how do we conclude what is acceptable and what is not.

Well it would appear that if the flesh "rises" so to speak then she is dressed wrong.  :

I think there are other criteria, the flesh could rise even if a woman was dressed in a burkha (sp?).

 

[MrsRow]

Modest isn't the issue.

Modest means "not costly", and the modest apparel of a godly woman is "good works".

I find the phrase "all that do so ARE an abomination" to be unique to cross-dressing, and not to involve appeal.

So that leaves the whole subject to be even more subjective.

I agree that modest means "not clostly" but i dont feel it is exclusive to mean only that.  I also personally believe it means to cover ones nakedness.
Are you suggesting that it's wrong for a godly woman to do good works?

 

[ItinerantPreacher]

Modest isn't the issue.

Modest means "not costly", and the modest apparel of a godly woman is "good works".

I find the phrase "all that do so ARE an abomination" to be unique to cross-dressing, and not to involve appeal.

So that leaves the whole subject to be even more subjective.

I agree that modest means "not clostly" but i dont feel it is exclusive to mean only that.  I also personally believe it means to cover ones nakedness.
Are you suggesting that it's wrong for a godly woman to do good works?

To say it simply means not costly is ignoring the meaning of the word, and the word it was translated from, and the context of 1Tim2:9

 

[prophet]

Modest isn't the issue.

Modest means "not costly", and the modest apparel of a godly woman is "good works".

I find the phrase "all that do so ARE an abomination" to be unique to cross-dressing, and not to involve appeal.

So that leaves the whole subject to be even more subjective.

I agree that modest means "not clostly" but i dont feel it is exclusive to mean only that.  I also personally believe it means to cover ones nakedness.
Are you suggesting that it's wrong for a godly woman to do good works?

Sorry, maybe I was unclear.

The post was built on an assumption that we all had this passage memorized:

1Ti 2:8-10
8 I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting.
9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;
10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.

The sentence starts "just like the men: dress....and ends with: "with good works".

So the entire sentence is telling ladies to be clothed in (becoming) good works.

My point was, that even this passage isn't talking about physical dress, but, rather spiritual dress.

Modest isn't the issue.

Modest means "not costly", and the modest apparel of a godly woman is "good works".

I find the phrase "all that do so ARE an abomination" to be unique to cross-dressing, and not to involve appeal.

So that leaves the whole subject to be even more subjective.

I agree that modest means "not clostly" but i dont feel it is exclusive to mean only that.  I also personally believe it means to cover ones nakedness.
Are you suggesting that it's wrong for a godly woman to do good works?

Sorry, maybe I was unclear.

The post was built on an assumption that we all had this passage memorized:

 

[ALAYMAN]

To say it simply means not costly is ignoring the meaning of the word, and the word it was translated from, and the context of 1Tim2:9

Yes, "shamefacedness" certainly has a reference to an attitude relating towards appropriate physical conduct and displays.  In addition, if it is contextually relevant to say that the passage is dealing with not being irresponsible and distracting in public worship then by way of application it seems common sensical to say that our outward appearance shouldn't be too fleshy so as to present a natural temptation for those of the opposite gender.

 

[MrsRow]

Modest isn't the issue.

Modest means "not costly", and the modest apparel of a godly woman is "good works".

I find the phrase "all that do so ARE an abomination" to be unique to cross-dressing, and not to involve appeal.

So that leaves the whole subject to be even more subjective.

I agree that modest means "not clostly" but i dont feel it is exclusive to mean only that.  I also personally believe it means to cover ones nakedness.
Are you suggesting that it's wrong for a godly woman to do good works?

Sorry, maybe I was unclear.

The post was built on an assumption that we all had this passage memorized:

1Ti 2:8-10
8 I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting.
9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;
10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.

The sentence starts "just like the men: dress....and ends with: "with good works".

So the entire sentence is telling ladies to be clothed in (becoming) good works.

My point was, that even this passage isn't talking about physical dress, but, rather spiritual dress.

Modest isn't the issue.

Modest means "not costly", and the modest apparel of a godly woman is "good works".

I find the phrase "all that do so ARE an abomination" to be unique to cross-dressing, and not to involve appeal.

So that leaves the whole subject to be even more subjective.

I agree that modest means "not clostly" but i dont feel it is exclusive to mean only that.  I also personally believe it means to cover ones nakedness.
Are you suggesting that it's wrong for a godly woman to do good works?

Sorry, maybe I was unclear.

The post was built on an assumption that we all had this passage memorized:

for me, the passage addresses both spiritual and physical

 

[ALAYMAN]

for me, the passage addresses both spiritual and physical

No, it's not just "for you". You're absolutely correct in saying that the context is about both the spiritual (inner) and the physical (outer).

 

[ItinerantPreacher]

for me, the passage addresses both spiritual and physical

No, it's not just "for you". You're absolutely correct in saying that the context is about both the spiritual (inner) and the physical (outer).

Generally speaking, a spiritual change results in a physical change. So too with clothing.

 

[subllibrm]

I think there are other criteria, the flesh could rise even if a woman was dressed in a burkha (sp?).

Which is the whole point. No one that I know of is suggesting that our ladies dress like a streetwalker for Sunday service. At the same time, you don't have to scratch to far to find men who will say that "her attire" was what caused his reaction.

 

[ALAYMAN]

for me, the passage addresses both spiritual and physical

No, it's not just "for you". You're absolutely correct in saying that the context is about both the spiritual (inner) and the physical (outer).

Generally speaking, a spiritual change results in a physical change. So too with clothing.

Right.  Which ties into one of my pet peeves (that is tangentially related to this topic by the way).  Those who point to the I Samuel verse that says "man looketh on the outward appearance but God...." as justification for all sorts of irreverence (almost to the point of justifying nudist colonies) DRIVES ME UP THE WALL!.

 

[subllibrm]

Generally speaking, a spiritual change results in a physical change. So too with clothing.

I would generally agree. But if you find a hem a little too short is that an indicator that she hasn't sufficiently "changed" or that you are leg man?

 

[ALAYMAN]

I think there are other criteria, the flesh could rise even if a woman was dressed in a burkha (sp?).

Which is the whole point. No one that I know of is suggesting that our ladies dress like a streetwalker for Sunday service. At the same time, you don't have to scratch to far to find men who will say that "her attire" was what caused his reaction.

Strictly speaking, it likely WAS what caused his reaction.  Not that acting on natural tendencies morally justifies the reaction.

 

[subllibrm]

Those who point to the I Samuel verse that says "man looketh on the outward appearance but God...." as justification for all sorts of irreverence (almost to the point of justifying nudist colonies) DRIVES ME UP THE WALL!.

I know that guy! 

 

[ItinerantPreacher]

Generally speaking, a spiritual change results in a physical change. So too with clothing.

I would generally agree. But if you find a hem a little too short is that an indicator that she hasn't sufficiently "changed" or that you are leg man?

It could be either. She would have to examine her heart, and so would I.

 

[subllibrm]

I think there are other criteria, the flesh could rise even if a woman was dressed in a burkha (sp?).

Which is the whole point. No one that I know of is suggesting that our ladies dress like a streetwalker for Sunday service. At the same time, you don't have to scratch to far to find men who will say that "her attire" was what caused his reaction.

Strictly speaking, it likely WAS what caused his reaction.  Not that acting on natural tendencies morally justifies the reaction.

And around the bush we go again! 

How does the average women determine where to draw the "hem line" so that he doesn't "react"?

FWIW I just mentioned to a co-worker today that I find the prevailing level of cleavage exposure to be distracting at best. Add a few (or a lot of) pounds, a couple of "hey look right here" tattoos and the whole trip to the market is an exercise in averting the eyes while trying not to run into display shelves or other customers.

But I digress, since we are talking about Christian ladies or so I assume.

 

[ItinerantPreacher]

I think there are other criteria, the flesh could rise even if a woman was dressed in a burkha (sp?).

Which is the whole point. No one that I know of is suggesting that our ladies dress like a streetwalker for Sunday service. At the same time, you don't have to scratch to far to find men who will say that "her attire" was what caused his reaction.

Strictly speaking, it likely WAS what caused his reaction.  Not that acting on natural tendencies morally justifies the reaction.

And around the bush we go again! 

How does the average women determine where to draw the "hem line" so that he doesn't "react"?

FWIW I just mentioned to a co-worker today that I find the prevailing level of cleavage exposure to be distracting at best. Add a few (or a lot of) pounds, a couple of "hey look right here" tattoos and the whole trip to the market is an exercise in averting the eyes while trying not to run into display shelves or other customers.

But I digress, since we are talking about Christian ladies or so I assume.

Here is how I find the line, I go with a sincere heart to the scriptures and say is there anything for me to get an indicator of "how long a hemline" to have. Not to nitpic, but to see what God has to say.

Exodus 28:42  And thou shalt make them linen breeches to cover their nakedness; from the loins even unto the thighs they shall reach:

Isaiah 47:1-3  Come down, and sit in the dust, O virgin daughter of Babylon, sit on the ground: there is no throne, O daughter of the Chaldeans: for thou shalt no more be called tender and delicate. Take the millstones, and grind meal: uncover thy locks, make bare the leg, uncover the thigh, pass over the rivers. Thy nakedness shall be uncovered, yea, thy shame shall be seen: I will take vengeance, and I will not meet thee as a man.

Now, in fairness, thats all I find. But, it seems to indicate that the thigh is to be covered. So, covered standing, and covered sitting. Thats all I got. No verse that says this long or that long, but an indicator that the thigh is to be covered. And thats how I teach it. BTW, for both sexes.

Now, it will be easy for someone to scoff at what I said, and pick it apart, but I believe that if I come to the scriptures with a sincere desire to get God's mind, this is the conclusion I will reach.

 

[ItinerantPreacher]

Should "Christian" women dress modestly?  Of course.

The reality is, fundamental Christians make up a small minority of the population anymore.  So, unless you are going to lock your men-folk up in a closet somewhere, they are going to be exposed to varying forms of immodesty (still a relative term, based on your own paradigm). 

We live in the greater Fort Lauderdale area.  There is plenty of non-Christian skin to be observed if one wants to indulge themselves.  (And I'm not talking just hot women... there are plenty of good looking men here, too...)  So, you either learn to avert your eyes, or train your eyes to stay at collarbone and above, or you fall prey to the weakness of the flesh. 

"But we're just men, we're wired that way..."  And to that, I say a hearty Bull-dukey.  I know plenty of godly christen men who have made it a *habit* to protect their hearts, minds, eyes, and marriages.

But you are talking about two different things.

It is completely true and important that Christian men learn and train themselves to protect their hearts, minds, eyes and and marriages.

It is also completely true and important that Christians dress in a manner that brings glory to God. While the lines may be somewhat subjective, you almost imply they don't exist.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

The point of proverbs 7 is "don't succumb". 

24 Now therefore, listen to me, my children;
Pay attention to the words of my mouth:
25 Do not let your heart turn aside to her ways,
Do not stray into her paths;
26 For she has cast down many wounded,
And all who were slain by her were strong men.
27 Her house is the way to hell,
Descending to the chambers of death.

A prostitute is a prostitute.  It's the man's fault if he lets his heart turn to her ways.

See you make the point with your post. The Bible doesn't say she was a prostitute, you assumed that because she was dressed like a prostitute, she is one. You made a judgement based upon appearance.

It is only logical to conclude some simple things from this.

1. Prostitutes dress so people understand what they are about
2. Christian ladies should not dress like prostitutes
3. How we dress is important.

When we talk about "standards of dress", we all have them. Even TRT admits that by his very post. The question is how do we conclude what is acceptable and what is not.

Okay, I'll amend my statement.

A woman dressed like a prostitute is a woman dressed like a prostitute.  It's the man's fault if he lets his heart turn to her ways.

Men don't have to respond to her advances. The woman in proverbs didn't just look like a slut, she acted like one, too.  She even admitted to cheating on her husband.

 

[ItinerantPreacher]

Should "Christian" women dress modestly?  Of course.

The reality is, fundamental Christians make up a small minority of the population anymore.  So, unless you are going to lock your men-folk up in a closet somewhere, they are going to be exposed to varying forms of immodesty (still a relative term, based on your own paradigm). 

We live in the greater Fort Lauderdale area.  There is plenty of non-Christian skin to be observed if one wants to indulge themselves.  (And I'm not talking just hot women... there are plenty of good looking men here, too...)  So, you either learn to avert your eyes, or train your eyes to stay at collarbone and above, or you fall prey to the weakness of the flesh. 

"But we're just men, we're wired that way..."  And to that, I say a hearty Bull-dukey.  I know plenty of godly christen men who have made it a *habit* to protect their hearts, minds, eyes, and marriages.

But you are talking about two different things.

It is completely true and important that Christian men learn and train themselves to protect their hearts, minds, eyes and and marriages.

It is also completely true and important that Christians dress in a manner that brings glory to God. While the lines may be somewhat subjective, you almost imply they don't exist.

You may be misunderstanding my point.  The OP referred to "women", not "Christian women."  My point was that we live in a culture (in America, anyways) where Christians are not the majority.  So, the reality is that "women" in American won't always dress modestly to keep mens eyes from wandering...

I agree with this.

 

[Recovering IFB]

I guess the question is, what dress brings "glory to God"? I mean what does a person wear that makes one go "Praise God!", when we see it? Who determines what that is? It a dress a half inch shorter get an amen at least?