Modesty, the Church and True Sexual Identity.

Ok, an earlier thread has me thinking about modesty in dress and the destruction of feminine virtue. I have also been thinking on how this has altered Western culture.There are two passages in the NT that deal with the issue of modest in 1 Timothy and 1 Peter.In addressing Men and women in the context of prayer in 1 Timothy 2 -- Paul says this: 1 Timothy 2:8-10 8Therefore (A)I want the men (B)in every place to pray, (C)lifting up (D)holy hands, without wrath and dissension.Women Instructed 9Likewise, I want (E)women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments, 10but rather by means of good works, as is proper for women making a claim to godliness. I maintained in the Master's Thesis on 1st Timothy that the instructions to men and women were both conclusions to Pauls's statements about prayer in verses 1-7. Therefore, it is just as important in the context of a life of prayer for a women to have a modest heart that is refected in dress. This passage also points to both sides of the dress issue in that on the one hand don't be showy and on the other don't be sensual (descrete being the opposite here)(OK, just so I don't get asked later here is my education: B.A. Biblical Studies / Ministry - Trinity Bible College 1993 and M.A. Theological Studies -- Asbury Theological Seminary 1996) Peter adds to this discussion but in the context of the relationship wives should have with their husband.1 Peter 3:3-5 3(D)Your adornment must not be merely external--braiding the hair, and wearing gold jewelry, or putting on dresses; 4but let it be (E)the hidden person of the heart, with the imperishable quality of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is precious in the sight of God. 5For in this way in former times the holy women also, (F)who hoped in God, used to adorn themselves Peter adds the idea of this ornimentation should focus more on the inner heart than outward appearance. He does not contradict Paul, but the focuses on the fact that all holy women adorn themselves in this way-- with a gentle a quite spirit. Both of these passages go on further to mention the ugly word for women - 'submission'. In Timothy it is women to men and in Peter wives to husbands (Peter uses some very strong language on this I might add)That said: I have studied my history and I have looked at this issue from multiple angles. Briefly my historical observation (Ginnyrose you can correct me if and where I am wrong): In the 1960's a cultural revolution took place where all previous moral foundations were discarded. This started earlier as Ginnyrose pointed out but it really blew up here. Women discarded the notion that their value was in having children, raising them, being part of marriage and family,even homemaking became something of a lost art over time till the present day. As a result divorce, unwed motherhood, illegitimacy increased. I note -- so did pornography (as men searched for women who would give them what they want now for women became objects who were judged on performance. Hate to be rough there but it is true), domestic violence as men became increasingly frustrated as women failed to recognize their leadership. After all women redefined themselves but men did not. Some women tried to redefine man's role and some have suceeded but for the most part men have said -- wait a minute you don't want us telling you what to de why do you turn around and try to define who we should be?, and sexual openness in dress. Now I am in no way justifying domestic violence or pornography but there are cause and effect reasons for these increases and these are some of them. What did the church do? Well,they became another reason for the increase in these things.1) The church entered politics and tried to fight these things with legislation. Millions of dollars was poured into elections, protests and petitions. Money that could have been given to empower the church to preach the life changing gospel. Sad now to look back at it.2) In an effort to keep people in the church . There was a toning down of 'offensive' rhetoric from the pulpit in general. Hell, the day of judgment, the law, sin, etc. became bywords of a 'less enlightened' age. One of these doctrines -- the holiness of the beleiver -- was lost in this . partly becasue of desire not to offend, but also the understanding of sanctification in the beleiver was changed to allow even habitual sin ( or I am sorry -- 'our problem') in a born again Christain. Antinomian grace became the main staple of the mainline church. 3) The Biblical roles of women and men were set aside as the church came up with new interpretations to explain away problem passages (Like the two above) to line up with the world's view on the sexes. "That was relative -- to that culture' became the catch phrase of scholars to get the Bible to line up with new views. (I know, I have been there -- especially at Asbury) It was interesting to note that eventually everything that the early church became relative as well -- preaching in the street, go into all the world, make disciples, etc. have all had this problem as many of you well know.The Battle of the Sexes continues largely because of the lack of one word -- 'submission'. Men do not submit to God and women do not submit to God and men. Men do have it 'easier' in that they only have to submit to one thing, but in theat one thing they stumble because men, of all people, do not like to submit to anything but themselves. Women are more submissive by nature but they too have the problem of not submitting to God in this area (modesty in particular becaue they do not see its spiritual significance)and well submitting to men who are flawed is another matter.It seems to me if man submits to God and women submit to men the battles are over. Peace would reign. Given the statements in Timothy on this I would say that it is true. Men would obey God in that they would cherish women (especially their wives) as part of their own bodies -- they would love them as Christ loved the church -- domestic violence, unwed mothers, illegitimacy and even divorce would disappear. Women would see their value in not what they do, but in who they are and what they do would change.Women dress immodestly these days because of one thing -- they do not want to submit to men -- they want to manipulate them. Often it backfires as I am sure Ginnyrose could tell you. Every girl is taught by this culture: Dress to intoxicate men with you sensuality (and boy does it work because men don't think in this area -- they really need God's help), use your sexuality to get what you want from men and then when they no longer suit your purpose use the same tools to snag someone else. Men however are a jeolous lot and when a women treats them this way -- they feel used and someone is going to pay for it. Often the girl is the one who eats it: 'Fine sweetheart -- you wanted a baby -- you got one now but if you don't mind I am going to split becasue what attracted to me to you (your body and sexual openess) aint what it was babe (those stretch marks and well gee what happened to your figure?)and the added responsiblity isn't worth it to me -- se ya'Women have come off the throne and into the gutter because they think this is what they must do, but in the end it burns them.If a women develops this quiet, gentle and submissive spirit is there any need for her to atract a man by dressing like a harlot. No. Sorry in this culture they shine like beacons. They earn a man's respect so quickly that genuine love for them quickly follows. The fact is women have actually diminished their own respectability by doing this but they do it in the name of being free and liberated. But ultimately they hurt themsleves. Dress becomes the outward sign of this. Modesty comes from the heart. I think by ignoring these verses teaching opportunities for young women by older ones is lost. There is the real value of a woman in these passages and if a young lady is taught modesty as a heart condition she should have -- dress will reflect it. If a woman is taught that he value is not in what she does for men and children but who she is to them because of her spiritual qualities and if a woman lets God and his word define what it means to be female, all of her struggles in this area end.It is sad day for us in the church -- because we are afraid to preach these passages in this light for fear of being labeled as sexist when we have the God given definition of what it means to be male and female. The struggle of sexual identity is not about a man or a woman finding it, but by submitting to what God says about it. Real liberation is found in submission all the way around. Blessings.

Please read two points from "HOW TO PREACH INEFFECTIVELY" by Charles Finney o\tDon't rebuke the worldly tendencies of believers, especially in their dress, lest they get offended and feel uncomfortable. o\tAbove all, be especially careful not to hurt the feelings of anyone. Make it your great aim to please your hearers and to make them pleased with, you as well. Follow the above principles, and you will be a first - class servant of Satan. "If I seek to please men I cannot be the servant of Christ" - Gal. 1:10Pastor. Sir_Edward, I appreciate your boldness to stand as a counter-cultural man for the sake of God's truth without legalistic spirit. In Him,Shibu

shibu,Pastor. Sir_Edward, I appreciate your boldness to stand as a counter-cultural man for the sake of God's truth without legalistic spirit.That's what I am going for here. We have changeed culturally in the West and no one is saying -- "Is this a good change". I just want people to understand the orignial intent of the holiness movement was holiness of heart. Once that is achived -- dress and behavior line up accordingly. The fact is we dismiss a lot of Scripture because we do not like the 'plain English' of it. That's where I challenge myself to say -- what does it say, how does it apply and how is it expressed in love.Finney was right on, God bless him. But we have forgotten these parts of what the early revivalists said too.Blessings.

There's two awesome books that touch on this subject, but in more of a way than just talking about the outward adornment and actions. They're called "Wild at Heart" and "Captivating", by John and Stasi Eldredge. Description: Hungry for a dash of daring in your marriage? Eldredge serves up a provocative look at gender roles. He challenges men to abstain from passivity, be fortified by their God-given dreams, and walk the road least taken; and encourages women to recover their feminine power, freedom, and beauty. I haven't read "Captivating" (it's for women), but my wife has. I guess it's a great book talking about women- and so much more than outward adornment alone. It's all about what's inside the heart...Anyway, I'd reccomend this to anybody who wants to look deeper at what the roles of men in women really are.Grace and Peace...

Sir Edward, you said it perfectly! I am so thankful you shared this info. You did it better then I did!As I ponder the Reformation, the period of time when bold young men stood up to the status quo, I wonder what would happen if young men today would get bold and speak up, what would happen? You hear the cry for revival on this forum, but how many would care to touch the issues you just mentioned, Bro. Edward? Is it not ironical that while the western churches are backing off from telling women how they need to become more humble, submissive, the Moslems are making fast headways in recruiting American women into their ranks where they are subject to far more limitations and dress far more radical then any Christian women, including the Amish! Females chafe at the restrictions placed on them, thinking it it far too restrictive, citing some of the OT laws. I am very fascinated by the OT laws concerning women after birthing a child. They were declared unclean for a period of time, depending on the gender of the child. When you read this law, how it would be lived out in everyday life, I am struck with awe and wonder at the Creator God who so loved and cared for women that He went so far as to make it a religious law to restrict womens' movements. She was very liminted in what she was allowed to do right after the birth of her child. These laws meant she was to bond with her child, care for her body so it can heal, so she can regain her strength and have more children in the future. I also suspect it protected her from health problems in later years. Methinks women could learn from these OT laws and if they would understand the underlying principles they would be healthier and happier! This, obviously, is my opinion!Keep it up, Sir Edward. ginnyrose

Great thread.It is sad day for us in the church -- because we are afraid to preach these passages in this light for fear Preach brother, preach!Must heard sermons on this subject are:Practical Principles For a Godly Marriage by Keith DanielHusbands Love Your Wifes! by Keith DanielKire

Ginny,Yes it seems that females in western culture chaff at Biblical restirctions never realizing that much of what God did was to protect women.One of my favorites is in the case of an unwed mother or fornication, the man was REQUIRED to marry the girl and loses all options for divorce. I wonder how much that caused men to keep control of themselves ;-). (note: In our society there are no controls at all so men act like dogs -- it seems that this protection runs both ways) It prevented the mother from being both unwed and unsupported. Now we could argue that it still wouldn't stop the man from fooling around later, but the law against adultry was pretty stiff in its penalty too -- DEATH. Simply put --there was no unwed mothers in Jewish society when the law was followed. Widows maybe (But even they had rules that protected them as is seen in the story of Ruth)but no unwed mothers. If there were, it was only because they would not reveal who the father was.Another is the laws concerning female cleaness. If followed they actually produce less infections for women. The point is that God really is looking out for owmen with a lot of the rules and setting up a balanced playing field for intersex relationships to take place with them. The problem is how to present these things in church without causing a stir.Blessings.

Sir Edward, I have a suggestion on how to teach these principles in your brotherhood: Solicit the help of your wife and let her teach the women. In the meantime, you teach the men! Now I have it all figured out for you! Sounds easy, doesn't it!! :-) ginnyrose

Here is short clip (4min.) of Dr. Michael Brown giving a teaching on this subject.FOR THE GIRLS - Don't Give Into The Pressure!!!

"if a women develops this quiet, gentle and submissive spirit is there any need for her to atract a man by dressing like a harlot. No."Amen to that! That was wonderful and i pray that this truth will be revealed to all the women in and out of the church. and while your teaching the guys on this like ginnyrose suggested, can you please tell them to stop shopping in the womens section for the "tight fitted" girl pants!!!

"The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God." Deut 22:5 :-D

Strange, is it not about cross dressing: if a male would wear women's clothing he would be looked at crosseyed by the general population, considered a weirdo and a homo. However, let a female do the same, it's practice is defended, even by males! Oh my! something is really screwed up here! I am very uncomfortable when I look at a human being and wonder what gender I am looking at!!! We do know how what God says about it.....ginnyrose

ShirHashirum wrote:

"The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God." Deut 22:5This verse used to trouble me some, wondering what it means when men wore robes, looking like women. One day I went to the public library and got a book about styles of clothing people wore in ages past. Only thing I noticed that was different during the time of Christ is that men wore 'mini-skirts' or kilts. After pondering this some more I came to two conclusions: 1. Men and women dressd different, as most cultures do and from my perspective in the 20th century I may not be able to discern totally what form this all took. 2. God made male and female and he called it 'very good', the only time he used this description was after the end of the sixth day of creation. Adam & Eve bore the image of God. They were different, made to compilment each other..fit together absolutely perfectly. He now wants us to celebrate this awesome wonder by each wearing a different costume so people will be able to marvel and give thanks for his work of creation! Both genders bear the image of God, seriously marred by the fall, but it is still there. How we relate to others depends a lot of what gender I am and the one I am relating to. People will respond differently because of gender. Nothing wrong wih that, it's just the way we are made. So dressing like a different gender, blurs this line of distinction. It is saying we are not pleased with the gender God made us which is a slap in God's face. About work dictating what clothes one should wear. (Now this will definately be controversial). Obviously, when one lives in the frigid climates one will dress for warmeth and survival. Even so, I would guess there may be some distinction. But most of us do not live there. The work we females do....I grew up on the farm, did all kinds of chores, fed the animals, fowl, caught the chickens for crating to be sent to the market(nasty work, I promise!), drove tractor, played in the hay mow....like all farm children do. Mom never dressed us in pants thinking they would be more modest for work or play. Dad was very careful we girls would take care of our bodies, not subject them to real hard work which could damage our child bearing abilities! (Between us three we had 13 live births and maybe one miscarriage). If our work means our modesty would be compromised, perhaps we need to carefully consider what can be worn to minimize that and still honor God with our apparel. The scripture quoted says it is an abomination to God to dress what pertains to the opposite sex. Some scholars have said what God calls an abomination will always be one unless he comes along later and nullifies it with a different command, e.g., Peter was told in a vision to rise and eat unclean animals which heretofor were an abomination. A very interesting study is to take Strong's Concordance and do a search on abomnination, study the context and compare it with NT teaching.How to dress? would it not be best to ask the Holy Spirit for inspiration, to teach us? What say?ginnyrose

It is very intersting the way this discussion has turned.I am looking at the issue of sexual identity, but in our minds we immediately turn to dress. I am not saying it is wrong but it is interesting to not e that some think that dress does not have anything to do with sexual identity but the moment you talk about sexual identity the discussion turns to dress.The verse is a very interesting one becasue the fact simple is that men and women should dress differently. When everyone dresses the same the lines get blurred as to sexaul idenity. Histroically in the USA. Has anyone else noticed how much homosexaulity increased and became more accepted once ladies decided that they could dress and act like men. wonder why? :smart: The fact remains that Bible points to this in this verse as a principle that those cultures who dress in such a way that you can't make distinction are indeed an abomination to him. He created male and female and he expects the differences to be noted and celebrated.Ginnyrose,My mother's expereince on the farm is similar to yours. She and her sister stayed in the house and helped with the cooking, cleaning, they kept a small garden, took care of the chickens (eggs), they fedd the animals but they did none of the heavy work like haying or out in the field or wrestling with the cattle, etc. Her brothers helped with that. My mother's sister had 4 children (no miscarriages) and was one of the best homemakers and i might add very happy. My mom became a medical technologist and all he early life worried about things concerning her career -- result I am an only child, several miscarriages and difficulty getting preganant in the first palce. My mother then turned ot God so things have gotten better for her. But in the 60's when she was getting started the womens lib movement had an impact on her in college -- the difference is obvious.There are two questions as to sexual identity and dress. One is this issue of dressing like the sex we are and two, what exactly does it mean to be modest in dress?The first becomes difficult in when you consider that as times have changed -- dress in different cultures is well different as well concerning this. This is also a problem with dress on the modest question. Culture play some part in it. You mention cold climes but hot ones also exist. In soem palces too many clothes or ones that don't breath well can kill you. In some cultures being covered up in any way would be modest. A women in a culture near the equator faces the fact that see must be modest, but modesty may simply mean she wears a short skirt and something over her chest because the rest of the women in he culture wear nothing at all. Is modesty culturally realative? It does make it hard to address this question because is the smae cultures where the women where nothing or very little the men dress the same. Only for special occasions and cerimonies do you see the difference. Are they in a sense dressing the same? If we are going to maintain that modesty and difference in dress is part of sexual identity then we also must be ready to preach to such cultures that their culture is in some way wrong as to how they dress and they need to cover up and make a distiction in how they dress. There is a lot of opposition to this out there now because missionaries are not supposed to --'westernize' or 'Christanize' a culture. This is wat they would be considered to be doing if they did this.For the good ole USA -- I think the differences in dress may have come down to one article of clothing -- the dress itself. When a man wears one he is considered 'abnormal' even in this liberated culture, what is interesting is that the opposite is not the case as someone pointed out. Am I wrong here? I realize there are other ways to look feminine without the dress, but it seems to be the dividing line. Hard one to consider for me. it is hard to find a girl or woman in my own church that wears a dress all the time.What's a pastor to do?Blessings.

Sir, I read your original post, and the most recent one, and I can see you have a good grasp on the realities of how the church got to where it is. As I see the world and remember well what has been and from reading history, I have come to one conclusion. We will never see revival unless these gender issues are resolved IN the church. Forget about the world: it will never be converted; it is those people who call themselves by God's name who we are concerned about. (Obviously, I do not believe in 'once saved always saved'). This would include fathers taking responcibility of their children - read Malachi 4:6: "And he shall turn the hearts of the fathers to the children and the heart of the chuildren to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse." If the fathers would be reconciled with their children it would go a long way in solving these gender issues and cut the divorce rate among church people (Mothers love it when their husbands love their children!).How to do it? You can not do it alone. One faithful Indian lady suggested we need to pray for a mighty visitation of the Holy Spirit. Sounds like the only solution to me...and in the meantime one needs to educate and encourage brethren to take the leadership in this issue. This I hope I am doing....ginnyrose

Amen, Karl!

Karl,What does holiness got to do with clothes?I know people who are not even believers who dress accordingly, so again I say, what does holiness got to do with clothes.The assumption you seem to have is that the answer is nothing -- would you back that with Scripture please. No. Let's use logic first. If you really believe this I want you to go to church one Sunday and tell the women that because holiness has nothing to do with clothes and we are free from legalism then they should all experess this by showing up topless or in string bikinis. It is the logical conclusion of what you are saying. You even in a sense contradict yourself with this statement: As long as your covered, covered with rags, or a banana leaf or covered in Egyptian cotton, the main thing is that your covered and you do it modestly. Now wait a minute --first you say that it doesn't have anything to do with clothes but then you say it does because you still need to be modest in dress. But how do they dress modestly without clothes? If you really think about what you saying I think you would admit that it is not well thought out which is what we are trying to do here. What exactly does modesty mean is the question we are engaging. So if you remove the clothes and seperate the clothes from the teaching of holiness, I wonder what the outcome would be. Because everyone who speaks about holiness always without fail talk about what the women should wear, and then they go on talking about hair......need I go on? Unfortunately this part only shows that you have been brought up to assume that holiness is sometihng that that the holiness movement only expressed in dress. This is very far from the truth. They (the first generation of the holiness movement) started with holiness of heart. Dress in this matter was not their original concern but their desire to be holy and not BE A STUMBLING BLOCK TO OTHERS led them to consider it. Dress also was not the only issue here -- how one conducted oneself at work, interpersonal relationships, holiness in marriage, dating (although most did not date but courted one person they beleived they would marry) as well as many other issues were addressed. Dress was only one of them and it was because it was mentioned by the Bible. Sorry your observation only shows you ignorance of what the original holiness people believed (note I did not say yo uare stupid -- just that you show a lack of knowledge) -- you know that they talked about dress, but you have not engaged in WHY they talked about it. I wonder what ole Peter and Paul would think of our pitiful rendition of holiness, I think they would rent their clothes and rebuke us harshly until we at least start to see that the outward man is perishing the inward man is being renewed day by day. Paul said in 1st Timothy: NIV -- I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, 10 but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God. NAS-- Likewise, I want (U)women to adorn themselves with proper clothing , modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments, 10but rather by means of good works, as is proper for women making a claim to godliness. Ummm -- kind of speaks against you orignial idea here that dress has nothing to do with holiness. Paul certainly links the two direstly in this single sentence. Oh -- I almost forgot Peter.Your adornment must not be merely external--braiding the hair, and wearing gold jewelry, or putting on dresses; 4but let it be (E)the hidden person of the heart, with the imperishable quality of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is precious in the sight of God. Huh - -he talks about dress too and he says that they should not be mearly concerned about dress -- notice he does not say -- 'don't give any conern at all as to how you dress' -- he says there are simply weighter matters a than JUST dress. But he does not say that dress is not a concern at all -- just a lesser one -- that would be reading into Scripture here if we were to say he is telling them it does not matter at all.Simply put I agree that Peter an Paul would rend their clothes (modestly ;-)) in the fact that people think that, because the inward man (our spiritual side) is being renewed and the outward man (our body/flesh -- thus this verse really has nothing to do with dress because it does not address the question at all) is perishing that this renewal has nothing to do with outward conduct when James says that 'faith without works is dead.' Holiness is about inward heart and OUTWARD life. To deny this is to deny large chucks of what they both taught and the other apostles as well. To say that holiness has nothing to do with how we express ourselves outwardly is not Biblical.I see alot of believers that are holy, but they don't look like what the denominations want them to look like. T-shirts, Jeans and sneakers. I would agree -- I have never had much use for the idea that we must dress up to be holy either-- in fact the above quote from Paul seems to say that that is immodest too. I have always opened my church to anyone regardlesss of dress, but those who claim Christianity and christ should consider what it means to be modest in dress from God's perspective.When talking about holiness, clothes should never be talked about in connection to it, that is where the true root of legalism comes in. But if we talk about moderation all manner of things are discussed in this area. But if any man be contentious, we have no such custom neither the churches of God. :-)I would contend that as dangerous as legalism is . Antinomianism is a danger as well. Legalism does not come when we simple engage the topic of dress. If that is that case than Paul and Peter violate what you say. Because they talk about dress in the Scriptures -- so are they legalistic? Legalism comes when EVERYTHING is about the outward. As the holiness movement left the first generation this is what gradually happened. People don't remember the parents of the holiness movement so much as its children unfortunately But a desire to dress properly because of modesty of heart and a desire not to be a stumbing block to others considers both the inward and the outward.. You become Antinomian (beleive in a cheap and easy grace) when you only consider only the inward . It is faith without works. My study of church history tells me such a belief springs from Gnosticism, a heresy John the apostle deals with in 1 John, that beleived that you could do anything outwardly (even blatantly sin) and grace would cover it. "Pursue holiness -- without which know one will see the Lord." Holiness has everything to do with it and dress does indeed have something to do with holiness. I am not saying it has everything to do with it -- but it is part of it. What Ginnyrose, myself and other are trying to do here is engage the ramifications of these verses and what Biblical modesty means. Note in the Scriptures whenever modesty is mentioned there is talk about clothes as well so what we are doing is Scriptural. On the one hand we understand the perils of legalism -- we do not want to teach people if they do these things they are holy because they do them. Inward transformation must come first through faith. On the other hand we cannot say that holiness of heart will not express itself outwardly including in dress -- because Peter and Paul say it will. This also has a lot do with other things that clearly called sins of the flesh by Paul as well -- sensuality, efeminate (there is a direct reference to crossdressing with this sin by the way), homosexuality, nakedness, etc. all mentioned as works of the flesh have something to do with dress. Try to demonstrate what one of these is as a sin without mentioning dress in some way. Particularly sensuality.Thanks for you post by the way, but I have thought this issue out and I used to beleive much as you do -- further study of the Scriptures has changed my mind. Especially what Peter and Paul had to say about it.Please do not be angry with this post -- I do not mean to offend, but you have said what many others have said to me and I want to set the record straight on this issue. I ma sure you are a very sincere Christian, but you should reconsider this issue further. Blessings.