Looks like another hot and humid day in Southern California. I have the same classroom for all three of my summer courses, and it is exceedingly well air-conditioned. Many of my poor students who dress for the heat end up shivering in the freon blast. I’ve always suggested that they layer a down jacket over swimwear — the only way to be truly prepared for the unpredictable nature of our college’s ancient heating and cooling system.
I’m thinking more about modesty this morning. I wrote about the topic last Thursday, primarily in response to the pastoral letter from the Catholic Bishop of Amarillo on women, dress, and attending mass.
I never finished the koine Greek classes I started, but I do know enough to know that the word the New Testament uses that is usually translated as "modesty" is kosmios. Kosmios generally means "orderly" or "proper", neither of which are helpful words in clarifying skirt length! Given the subjectivity of what it is that different cultures and different individuals regard as "proper", it’s hard to find evidence anywhere in the New Testament that suggests a clear standard for how much skin women were to reveal.
But one aspect of modesty is well-covered (pun intended) in the New Testament: the importance of avoiding displays of wealth. In fact, the New Testament only explicitly defines immodesty not in terms of revealing flesh but in terms of ostentatious displays of property.
1 Timothy 2:9: I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes…
Gold, pearls, and expensive clothes are set up as the opposite of kosmios; the decency and propriety here is economic rather than sexual.
1 Peter 3:3-4: Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as braided hair and the wearing of gold jewelry and fine clothes. Instead, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God’s sight.
These are the two most explicit references to how women ought to dress in the entire New Testament. In neither instance is there any evidence of concern with dress as a symbol of sexual impropriety. In both cases, the emphasis is on avoiding crass displays of wealth — particularly gold and expensive outfits.
But Bishop Yanta didn’t preach a sermon based on the New Testament understanding of modesty. Had he done so, he would have found no support for his position in the use of the Greek kosmios. What he did is what so many folks across the theological spectrum regularly do: he took a word that had one meaning in the first century A.D. and reconfigured it to fit his own contemporary political agenda. I’ll be the first to admit that many of us on the religious left do this; we are as sure that we know what the bible means when it speaks of "justice" as the right is when the bible speaks of "modesty." In many cases, we’re likely flat-out wrong.
It’s telling that most churches in America are so attentive to issues of sexual propriety and deliberately unconcerned with economic display. Imagine if Bishop Yanta had had the courage to preach a truly biblical homily about modesty! Building on 1 Timothy and 1 Peter, he could have asked his congregants not to wear gold, platinum, or diamond jewelry to Mass! He could have preached against the sin of wearing designer labels, or of pulling into the church parking lot in a 7-series BMW. Such a sermon would have been far more closely based on the original use of kosmios!
In the comments below last Thursday’s post, we’ve been debating back and forth as to whether or not women have a responsibility to dress themselves in a way that will "protect" men from lusting. For both biblical and psychological reasons, I’ve argued "no". But for the sake of discussion, let’s suppose I grant the conservative case that women are at least partially responsible for the lust their bodies arouse. If that’s true, is not the well-dressed rich man equally responsible for the envy he arouses with his Rolex?
Bishop Yanta quoted the Commandment: "You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife". If you read his sermon, that’s the only kind of coveting he refers to. But Exodus 20:17 reads:
You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his manservant or maidservant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.
Bishop Yanta is engaged in the classic modern conservative mistake: elevating sexual sin to a level of greater concern than economic injustice. The Commandment makes it clear that coveting one’s neighbor’s wealth (symbolized by house and donkey) is as great an offense to God as coveting his spouse. In modern terms, there is no theological difference between staring longingly at someone’s jewelry or brand-new car and staring longingly at the exposed body of the woman in front of you at the altar rail. Both are acts of coveting — but the good bishop, like most theological conservatives in this country, comes close to giving a free pass to those of us who want to indulge our materialist fantasies. The longing for someone else’s body is labeled the sin of lust, while the longing for someone else’s car is refashioned (in the modern American heresy) into praiseworthy ambition! That’s just rotten exegesis, Bishop Yanta. If you’re going to preach on kosmios, know what the word means! And if you’re going to preach on coveting, preach the entire commandment, my brother!
As some unknown wag put it, the great conservative American mistake is to suggest that "the sins of the pelvis are greater than the sins of the pocketbook." But a close reading of either testament of Scripture suggests that our forefathers and foremothers in faith considered the display of wealth to be at least as egregious as the display of the body, if not more so. And they considered the longing for material possessions to be as sinful as the longing for one’s neighbor’s partner. Though a few churches (like the Mennonites) generally preach a holistic understanding of modesty, one that embraces both the sexual and the economic, too many leaders are like the bishop of Amarillo: obsessed with the thongs that creep up over the backsides and out of the low-rise jeans of young female parishioners, and blind to the watches and rings that adorn the fingers of their parents.
guilty as charged. I don’t have expensive-expensive jewelry, but I do have a large selection of costume jewelry. On the other hand, I don’t wear the loudest costume jewelry at church, since the aim is to be non-distracting.
That certainly puts terms like “House porn” into a new perspective!
(House porn: looking longingly online at all the really nice houses you’ll never be able to afford…)
And let’s be clear here: the references in Timothy and Peter are to how people should dress in general, not merely in the church.
Hugo-
You made a really good point with your concerns about scripture and materialism. It does seem, however, that you have stereotyped “conservatives.” There are a whole lot of Franciscans who are dirt poor BY CHOICE and very conservative. I think that your beef is with Yanta. Invite the guy discuss it in public on this blog. It would be enlightening and probably fun to read.
Dave, Franciscans are members of an order who take a poverty vow. I’m talking about mores and standards that apply to all of us, not just those who follow in the footsteps of the gentlest of saints. And perhaps conservative isn’t really the right word — perhaps the right word is “American traditionalist”. Authentic conservatism is not sympathetic either to materialist display or sexual liberation.
Consistency is not the highest of virtues, but it isn’t the least important, either.
Hugo,
Your discourse is all well and good, but it seems you are asking the Bishop and the Church to ignore one problem because they aren’t dealing with another to your satisfaction.
I disagree that the Church, at least in the parishes in which I have been a member, ignores issues of immodest ostentation. At least three times I have heard preists address this issue where it most often arises, in first communion and confirmation settings where parents go “over the top” with dresses and parties. While I have rarely - only once - heard the issue of provocative or in appropriate dress addressed. I, myself, as a catechist for confirmation students have specifically made this point both in person and in writing to parents and confirmation candidates. We do this every year. That being said, I ALSO address appropriateness in dress, including what I understand you are calling sexual modesty.
Most importantly, what you are describing, ostentatious displays of wealth, I have never, and I mean never, seen as a problem in any parish in which I have been a member. Perhaps my churches have been too middle class for this to be an issue, but I think rather this is not a significant problem. On the other hand, every week I see dress that is inappropriate in public, let alone in a church.
Finally, what I find most confusing is that you and others who claim to be champions of women see a call to sexual modesty as a threat or as disrespectful of women. You immediately jump to the conclusion that the reason for “hiding” women’s bodies is some sort of shame. One also preserves and protects, and perhaps “hides” something because it is too precious to be treated commonly. That is how I see it. I have a teenage daughter, she is very beautiful and has a lovely figure. I don’t encourage her to wear appropriate clothing because I am ashamed of her beauty or afraid of sex, but because she is too precious to be treated as a common thing. When I see a young woman scantily clad, I am not thinking, “How bold and free!” I am thinking, “How sad that she thinks she needs to do this.”
Sean, the old canard of “covering women up to protect them” is one that feminists regularly debunk. “Precious” is a term applied to a possession — not to a rational, independent creature.
When I see a young woman scantily clad, I am not thinking, “How bold and free!” I am thinking, “How sad that she thinks she needs to do this.”
How on earth can you be sure of her intentions? It’s the height of presumptuousness to assume that scantily -clad = insecure. That’s a profound overstatement; it may describe the few but not the many.
1 TImothy and 1 Peter forbid braided hair and gold. Are there no women in your parish with gold jewelry and braided hair? If you’re going to use Scripture to argue a point.. use it!
Sean H. leaves me sputtering, Hugo. Your response is better than anything I could put words to.
To me, Sean H., your words reek of ownership and of propriety. Personally, my perfect world would involve no male ever caring about what I wore. If it’s hot, I’ll dress in fewer clothes; if it’s cold, more. It infuriates me that I am apparently first a potential sexual object, and after that, MAYBE a human being. I am still spluttering, so perhaps I should stop here.
Thank you, Hugo, for your words.
Sean:
“Your discourse is all well and good, but it seems you are asking the Bishop and the Church to ignore one problem because they aren’t dealing with another to your satisfaction.”
Hugo calls the Bishop on misrepresenting what’s actually said in scripture. This isn’t about ignoring one problem in favor of another, but rather calling out that the first “problem” isn’t one based in sound theology at all. Perhaps “immodest” dress is an issue. If so, it would be advisable for the Bishop to support his views with Scripture that actually says so. What he quoted didn’t.
Emily: “House porn.” Tee-hee! Guilty.
Hugo,
Please look at my post and show me where I argued from scripture at all.
Second, since when is the term precious reserved exclusively for things? My dictionary includes in the definition “highly esteemed or cherished” and “characterized by feeling or showing fond affection for.” “Esteem” meaning “the regard in which one is held; especially : high regard.”
I never said anything about protecting anyone. It is very typical of “progressives” to reduce everything to some sort of power relationship, but that was not my meaning at all. My point was this. When something is of value, you treat it as such. That is common sense and common human experience.
As for being presumptuous, I make judgments based on what I see and what I have experienced in two score plus of life. It has been my experience, virtually without exception, that young women (and young men) who act out sexually and dress very immodestly are needy and unhappy people.
No one is calling for burkhas or veils - just a little common sense, decency and self-respect.
As for scripture try this
1 John 2:16-17
For all that is in the world, sensual lust, enticement for the eyes, and a pretentious life, is not from the Father but is from the world. Yet the world and its enticement are passing away. But whoever does the will of God remains forever.
Sean H–
I’m no biblical scholar, but John 2:16 is a condemnation of those who’s lust blidns them to God, rather than the objects of that lust.
notice again, that it mentions “the world and its enticement” and “enticement for the eyes” could well include jewelry.
I think that “worldly” as a euphemism for sexual is a mdoern linguistic phenomenon. worldly as a euphemism for mercenary is perhaps older, though I could be wrong.
Malachi’s got it right on 1 John. The NIV translation is:
For everything in the world—the cravings of sinful man, the lust of his eyes and the boasting of what he has and does—comes not from the Father but from the world.
The “lust of his eyes” puts the blame solely on the luster, bud.
Sean, I am in my fortieth year of life. I’ve been teaching college students for a third of that time, have been a youth leader for years and years. I have teenagers in and out of my office and my home all the time. And your observations about the motives of those who are sexually active and wear what you describe as “immodest” clothing simply is at radical odds with what I’ve noticed in my work as professor, youth pastor, confirmation teacher, and mentor.
But arguing from anecdote will get us nowhere; Scripture is the subject of this post and Scripture is where I’ll fight this battle.
Your daughter is not your own. If she is “precious” to you, she better be precious in her own right, not because of her body or clothing.
What does it mean that appropriate everyday clothing for women has become more revealing and sexual over the past, say, 50 years (or even 20 years), whereas the same has not happened for men? (Look at your average open-mike night or American Idol - the gals are all dressed to kill and the guys, well, you’re lucky if they shaved and tucked in their shirts!) In other words, how did sexualized clothing choices become a mark of liberation - but only for women? Let’s think more carefully about this free-choice rhetoric. Sexist peer pressure is not the unique preserve of right-wing moralists.
I’m not disputing Hugo’s original point that the responsibility for lust belongs with the looker, not the looked-at. But I think it’s going a bit far to say there’s no Biblical basis for being concerned about the porn-ification of women’s fashion. Maybe the New Testament doesn’t talk about this because it was taken for granted that modest dress was a good thing?
I’ve never thought about modesty and wealth in relation to one another before. Very interesting. I’m not a biblical scholar, but I have a few things to add. As is the case with me, I usually use stories to express my points. So here’s my take on all of this.
I attended Mass and SRE classes with many poor kids, rich kids and those in between. My family isn’t made of money. Heck, my grandparents lived in a trailer park! However, many of my peers grew up in rich families. They attended private Catholic schools, their parents drove fancy cars and they often wore expensive clothing (I remember envying the girls whose entire wardrob consisted of Limited Too clothes). Here’s a frequent conversation I had with many of my rich peers and their parents at church:
“So what school do you go to?”
“Cloverly.”
“Oh, is that public?”
“Yes.”
“Oh…”
It was as if to say that they were a cut above us public school kids. Our church, or the Catholic church in general, has never talked about this kind of material and social vanity that goes on within the Christian community. They need to. And that’s why I truly feel your point, Hugo. I think that the Catholic Bishop of Amarillo needs to expand his focus to be more about the obsession with appearance as a whole, and not just about modesty in terms of dress. Thanks for the great post!
Again with the blame game. No one is saying someone who lusts is not to blame for his or her behavior. St Paul also warns against the dangers of excess in strong drink. If I give alcohol to a drunkard am I blameless because scripture doesn’t say - thou shalt not give booze to a drunkard? It’s his sin after all. Bishop Yanta was pointing to the age old and consistent Catholic doctrine that holds we sin in the encouragement, facilitation and enticement of others to sin. YOUR interpretation of his letter was facile, literalistic, and frankly stupid.
And bud - anyone who mixes Kabbalah and Christianity and says he’s the proud father of the most amazing chinchilla on God’s green earth is hardly worth taking seriously.
And bud - anyone who mixes Kabbalah and Christianity and says he’s the proud father of the most amazing chinchilla on God’s green earth is hardly worth taking seriously.
Then by all means, Sean, feel free to take your comments elsewhere. In our father’s house, there are many rooms — and you and I are in different wings of a large building, but we’re beneath the same roof. Peace.
You had me nodding there, Sean, till you undercut your own credibility with a mean personal attack. How is it un-Christian to love God’s nonhuman creatures? I’m sure Matilde never scolded anyone for how they dressed, or looked down on people for being poor, or said nasty things to win an argument. (Tho she didn’t wear any clothes to church….) The animals have it all over us humans in some respects.
I remember the story of Orderville in southern Utah.
The story goes that one summer a boy visited his grandparents in Salt Lake City and returned to Orderville with a fancy new suit. Rather than take his suit away from him, the local elders made an identical suit for each boy his age; each boy and girl in town received a new outfit. As a result, this boy did not stand out in his new suit, and no one in town could covet his new clothes. No mention is ever made of the response of the boy who got a gift of clothes from his grandmother. All the land in Orderville was owned by the community and held in stewardship by each family that worked the land. Houses and other properties were owned in common by the community. Named after the United Order, it was a system of Christian Communism which its followers hoped would end poverty, achieve income equality among all members and result in a Utopian society.
The United Order didn’t last long – it was actually destroyed when its leaders were imprisoned and driven underground by the US Government’s anti-polygamy campaigns. But while it lasted, it created a unique society – one which resulted in a surplus of goods and income for the people of Orderville.
Talking about money in our society is always fraught with difficulty. I know individuals whose parents have paid for everything in their lives – up to and including houses – who consider themselves self-made. If you suggest to them that their current success isn’t the result of their own labors, they get incredibly defensive. As a society, we seem more inclined to talk about sexuality than money because we’re more ambivalent about money than sex. As Americans, we often judge a person by his/her financial success, acumen what not – if you are wealthy, you are a good person. Many mega-churches survive by selling the health-and-wealth gospel (follow Christ, you’ll be successful, healthy and make lots of money). A persons entire self worth and self image get wrapped up in his/her financial wellbeing. It’s easier to tell them to stop sleeping around than it is to tell them to stop being greedy and hoarding their wealth. So we talk about sex not money.
Hugo-
If I were preaching here’s what I would use to as a scriptural basis for discussing immodesty (both financial and otherwise) . Remember in the synoptic gospels when Jesus is asked what is the greatest of the commandments. Summarizing, he says to love God with all your strength and love your neighbor as yourself. In the light of scripture, specifically the words of Jesus, a loving neighbor would not willfully disrespect someone with a problem. (be it poverty, lust, alcoholism, gambling addiction, etc.) A loving neighbor respects a neighbor with a weakness. Yanda has a point because he is talking to church members. Church members are supposed to treat one another like brothers and sisters. (words of Paul)
Note that the the words of Jesus are a radical departure from the intense legalism of the Torah, yet not a rejection of it. Everything starts with loving God. Personal relationship with him is of utmost importance. Living is done with guidance from God and includes proper respect for self and those around you.
In the pews of a traditional church a guy who struggles with lust should step up and sit in front. Same thing in the classroom. When I was in college I had a deed to the front row. Not every situation consists of rows facing straight ahead, though.
Would you disagree with the previous three paragraphs, Hugo? If you and Yanda are both Christians, then you are brothers. If you have a problem with his exegesis and what he is preaching, then maybe you need to discuss it with him personally.
Dave, I agree that a loving neighbor respects a neighbor with a weakness. A young woman ought not go and sit on the lap of a sex addict and breathe hotly in his ear; a friend ought not offer someone he knows to be a recovering alcoholic a Maker’s and Coke (thinking of one of my old favorite drinks). But those are explicit acts of offering a dangerous temptation — wearing a short dress is a fundamentally different act. I am responsible for living in community with my brothers and sisters, true. But while I ought not directly offer them an occasion to sin, I cannot take responsibility for the thoughts they have as they gaze upon me.
I believe Bishop Yanda is doing his best to lead his flock. Yes, he’s my brother in Christ. But he posted his views in a public forum, and I am posting mine in a public forum. IF our paths were to cross, I’m sure we could have a civil (if vigorous) chat. But in the meantime, I think it’s within the bounds of acceptability to question his interpretation of Scripture and his account of what it means to live responsibly in community. I can think him wrong on this issue without questioning his faith or his salvation, and I honor him as my brother in Christ. I would like to think my fellow Christians could do the same with me.
To go with the drinking analogy, I think it’s more like drinking around a recovering alcholic than offering him a drink.
And in AA, there is no campaign against folks who drink! If you “slip” in AA, try blaming it on someone who drank in front of you — your sponsor (if you have one in the program) will “pull your covers” fast. In AA (with which I have some familiarity), your protection against drinking lies in your relationship with your Higher Power — not in the actions of others. Twelve Step programs get this sense of accountability right.
So people should dress modestly to avoid tempting those who have a tendency to lust. OK.
Why does no one ever mention female lusters in this scenario? I mean, if women with lust problems are triggered by well-fitting pants on a man’s rear end, are all men now called to wear ill-fitting elastic waist leisure pants?
Also, I notice no one ever mentions who it is that should wear more clothes, but the discussion here always seems to imply attractive young women. I never hear anyone campaigning against grannies in short skirts or very large women in tank tops for their temptation of men (only, in the case of the muffin tops, for their unattractiveness in such clothing-another wierd issue since I know many many men that wear very unattractive clothing but hear no campaigns there either).
It really seems that calls for modesty always target 1)women and 2)only those that are sexually attractive to men. I don’t know what all this means, I’m just trying to unpack the logic a bit.