Nudity, Modesty and Culture -- Part One -- Defining Modest

One of my mentors once told me to remember that modesty is culturally defined. He said if I didn't believe him that I should go to the Bible and find a definition of modesty. I think I did find a definition, but there is no way to be clothesline preacher with it.

1 Timothy 2:9-10 "Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments, but rather by means of good works, as is proper for women making a claim to godliness.

I want to note something here Paul never defines what proper clothing is. What modest means is also left undefined -- discretion is a matter of not being flashy or boisterous in the way one dresses.

Peter my shed some light on this as well.

1 Peter 3:1-4: In the same way, you wives, be submissive to your own husbands so that even if any of them are disobedient to the word, they may be won without a word by the behavior of their wives, as they observe your chaste and respectful behavior. Your adornment must not be merely external--braiding the hair, and wearing gold jewelry, or putting on dresses; but let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the imperishable quality of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is precious in the sight of God.

What this passage causes me to ask is whether modestly is about clothes so much as it is attitude of heart. Jesus asks us to judge not on outward appearance (John 7:24), but then we look at these passages and use them as a licence to judge a woman's modesty on how she dresses when that is not what Paul or Peter are advocating at all. It is simply a misapplication of the passages to use them this way. The real issue is the heart of a woman -- whether it is quiet and gentle is the issue.

One thing should be noted that neither of these passages addresses nudity. I can say that, because the culture of day included massive slavery and slaves often were naked as it was a symbol of their station. It's a point we often miss in this ancient Greek-Roman world culture. If either Paul or Peter excluded people from Christianity simply because of nakedness their would be lot of people forced by the culture out of the faith. The fact remains that Christianity spread through the slave cast very quickly; a group where nudity was common because of who they were in relation to their culture.

Paul and Peter are actually addressing free women who are rich -- that they should not allow their upward station to cause themselves to be snobs, think more of themselves than they should or be unsubmissive to their husbands. The two apostles are not addressing nudity or skin, but actually the opulent display of wealth and status in clothes before those who do not have wealth or status.

In missions the nudity/modesty question has always dogged us as Christians. In Africa where the heat causes clothing to be not much more than a scrap of cloth around the waist and the women were and are topless, many missionaries made the mistake of addressing the outward dress (or lack there of) instead of addressing the gospel. In South America one tribe was discovered whose definition of naked was 'beltless'. To us they would be considered naked all the time but they consider themselves naked only if they take off their work belt -- the only thing they wear.

Here at home in the USA, the issue is muddied because we have two cultures. The traditional culture which sees any sign of skin and cleavage as immodest and a more open culture which does not see this as so but would like to see women walk around topless just like men can. There are of course two million different views in between these extremes.

As people argue this from the Christian side the great problem is there is no Biblical definition of what constitutes proper clothing. Paul tells women to wear proper clothing but never defines what he means. The issue of how Christian men in or sex crazed culture are supposed to deal with more and more skin being shown by women is still a problem. Looking down at the ground all the time or sticking one's head in the sand does not work as you will eventually run into something hard and hurt yourself. The real question might be how does God see nakedness.

Next: Does God Hate Nakedness?

Bible Bull – “Dead in Sin"

Ok, I know what you are thinking – how could I say this is ‘bull’. Well word search time on BibleGateway.com. Perform a Bible search for ‘dead in sin’ – the exact phrase. Search any version you like and you know what you find. Nothing. Absolutely nothing.

Now maybe like the concept of the Trinity. The word is not actually used but the idea is there if you look at a couple of Scriptures and do the math. Ok, new search –dead, sin – match all words. Now I used five versions, KJV, NIV, NASB, NLT and ESV. I got 10 hits, but I had to eliminate Number 6:11 and 1 Samuel 25:39 because this is the dead body thing or someone died because of their sin against God. I also had to remove Romans 6:1, 2, 11 and 1 Peter 2:24 because it is about a believer being ‘dead to sin’. Romans 6:7 and 13 are dismissed as well because it is the same context as the others about ‘dead TO sin’. That leaves only two verses that might say something directly Romans 7:8 and 8:10.

Romans 7:8, in context, is talking about how death came to Paul through the commandment. When he realized he had broken the law he died. That of course brings up a question: How is it possible for one to die through sinning (committing acts of sin) if one is already dead in a state of sin? In any case, it is not really helpful in proving that we are dead in a state of sin because that is not the point of the passage.

Romans 8:10 doesn’t help either. It talks about our bodies being dead because of sin but our spirits being alive through Christ. It is in context about the new life a believer has in Christ and because of this it does not help the discussion about ‘are we ‘dead IN sin’ before salvation.

This leaves us in a quandary. Well, one more search ‘died, sin’. 5 hits and once again once we eliminate Numbers 27:3 and all the ones from Romans 6 we are left with Romans 7:9. This unfortunately has the same context as Romans 7:8 – gone.

Only one verse in the whole Bible comes close to saying ‘dead in sin’ – Ephesians 2:1-2:

“1And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience.”

Now here is the problem. This does not say we are dead in a pre-existent state of sin, but through actions of ‘trespasses’ and ‘sins’ were are dead or better the idea is we were killed. Verse 2 also gives us a cause. No it is not flesh or sinful nature – but the prince and power of the air and the world system through the sons of disobedience. In is not a state we are born in – we are taught it.

I have to painfully conclude that the idea that we are ‘dead in sin’ is Bible Bull – it isn’t there. That leaves a very painful possibility that all of us in some way face our own Garden of Eden like experience with commandment – and we all fail. The why is the same reason that Adam and Eve failed in that same garden: ignorance and arrogance. The fact is that our parents didn’t make us do it. Oh they have been the devil’s henchmen in presenting the temptation, but it is we that made the choice to sin willfully against God. It is not: ‘I couldn’t help it I am a born sinner’ it is “I was presented with an option and I willfully took the one that made me an enemy of God.” Ignorance of the consequences and/or arrogance that they would not affect us is why we sin- not a preexistent state.

It is interesting however how much people defend this idea to the bitter end but then turn around and say the Christian is still a sinner despite at least four verses if not a whole chapter (Romans 6) that directly say the opposite in straight shooter language too. Why is it the ‘dead in sin’ is hailed as absolute truth, with no direct Biblical support and no indirect support either, but the concept of ‘dead to sin’ is debated when it has several verses that directly say so? Because our flesh (our earthly nature) likes the one doctrine and not the other, that’s why. It is simply the fact that carnal Christianity has done a bang up job at justifying sin inside the pure and spotless bride known as the church. But more on that subject for another day’s writing.

‘Dead in Sin’ –Sorry that’s Bible Bull.