Defining Modesty

[ChristianResearcher]

What is our dress standard? I was prompted to question this for a couple of reasons, and a major reason is I read that until 1937, it was illegal for men to be topless. Now, society in general and I think most of the church is okay with it.

First, I won't accept 1Ti 2:9 because of the context, and the greek. Regarding the context: "modesty" is defined in the same verse: not with gold, pearls, etc. It's not about the amount of skin showing, but about excessiveness. The argument for clothing could go both ways, if we use this verse. First, dressing with too much on (relative to who/what's around) could be immodest because it draws attention to us (i.e. if you don't show enough skin at the beach.) However, it could also be argued that showing too much (shorts that are very short at walmart) is immodest. In any regard, that's not the primary context of this verse. Second, the greek word that people argue from is not translated as modest, but as apparel (of course, I'm not going to argue from what the translators did.) Apparel is the word καταστολη, and the standard argument is that the prefix κατα on στολη means long/cast down/flowing. Perhaps it does in general, I don't know greek that well. But first, what would that mean? The στολη was already long, so this serves no purpose to the argument that our clothing must be long (and well-covering.) More importantly, though: καταστολη didn't have the meaning they make it to. Καταστολη was a specific article of clothing, worn over the στολη, and it only came down about to the waist (see Clark's commentary, I believe he's the one that addressed this.)

Second, causing others to stumble ... This is a reasonable argument, but I don't think it applies. Of course, we're not to sin and teach others to do the same. We're also not to tempt another to sin against his conscience by his seeing us do the very thing he thinks is wrong. However, I don't think this extends to dress standard. For comparison: if I buy a Gallardo Lamborghini and then invite my brother to ride with me, have I tempted him to stumble and am I guilty for doing so? Because, of course – he's likely to be jealous. Now, if my goal is to incite that – my heart is evil. But, if I'm merely sharing this beautiful creation with him, as I would if I invited him to visit the grand canyon with me during a sunset, I haven't sinned even though I know he'll be tempted to covet.

Third, Genesis 3 ... This is the strongest argument, in my opinion. Adam and Eve ate, and then they knew they were naked and they made themselves loin cloths. So, their initial (now ontological, you might say) reaction was to cover their genitals. However, after making these loin cloths, they still considered themselves naked (the reason they hid from God.) In addition, God clothed them with both tops and bottoms. I don't see the tops being required as clear-enough, because there are other possibilities still. They covered themselves with fig leaves, and it's possible (even probable, I imagine) they weren't very well covered. I've seen videos of primitive people who cover their genitals with similar things, and if they bend forward -it's not a pretty sight (this correlates well with the priests who had to wear relatively long bottoms so the people underneath them wouldn't look up and see their genitals.) They may have seen themselves as still being in a relative state of nudity; as Saul was naked because he wasn't in his kingly attire, or Isaiah because he was in his underwear (supposedly.) Also, God's making tops for them may have related to the curse: now there would be thorns to cut them, etc. In any case, these counter arguments relate ONLY TO WHETHER A TOP IS REQUIRED. I think this verse is very clear that the genitals must be covered (and considering the priests wore long bottoms *in order to* hide the genitals shows that this region is either solely sinful to expose, or especially sinful to expose, in my opinion. I'm not sure which of those two, though) and I think that Rev 3:18 (I counsel you to buy from Me gold refined in the fire, that you may be rich; and white garments, that you may be clothed, that the shame of your nakedness may not be revealed; and anoint your eyes with eye salve, that you may see.) implies that full nudity is not merely shameful, but also sinful. However, I acknowledge that it's an implication and I might be stretching. In closing on this point, I'm not stating that Gen 3 is insufficient to prove tops must be required, but I'm throwing out ideas I'd like to have challenged. Right now, I'm not bold on this section one way or the other – and I'd like to be. Help me to understand it rightly.

Note: I've seen no justification for men to be allowed topless and not women. I'm fine with whatever the scriptures teach, I'm fine with banning both men and women from being topless, but none of my studying has shown discrepancy to be allowed here. Either both men and women need to cover their chests, or neither do. Some people quote verses about breasts, but they've always been non-sequiturs. Or, they're taken entirely out of context: a woman's breasts are fondled and they use that to prove they shouldn't be displayed.

Second note: Please do not take our culture into account. That is: don't tell me that men should be allowed to go topless in our culture but not in a more modest one because it offends the sensibilities of that culture. That may be true, and it may be a correct answer: but it's not what I'm trying to learn. I'm trying to learn whether the scripture has a minimum standard that applies to all cultures, and what that standard is.

I was also going to ask about defining lust, but I realized my post is very long. I hope to address that another time, in another OP.

[chosenone]

To say that men being topless is the same as a woman, is one of those crazy modern ideas. The breasts are sexual and because of that need to be covered. Having said that my husband won't even wear a sleeveless top unless he is going swimming or is doing a job at home and he gets very hot. 
I honestly think that we Christians in the west are well aware of what is modest and what isn't. I don't see why it something that needs to be argued about.

Modesty applies to all areas of our life, including what we wear. Most dress immodestly to get attention, and that's what we are told not to do, and if we love our brothers in Christ then we will think of them when we dress. So if we put God and others before ourselves, then we won't dress immodestly.

I don't think you can have the same applying to all cultures. Many cultures are far more modest than ours is, but we have to live where God has put us and apply modesty to where we live.

[ChristianResearcher]

To say that men being topless is the same as a woman, is one of those crazy modern ideas. The breasts are sexual and because of that need to be covered. Having said that my husband won't even wear a sleeveless top unless he is going swimming or is doing a job at home and he gets very hot. 
I honestly think that we Christians in the west are well aware of what is modest and what isn't. I don't see why it something that needs to be argued about.

Modesty applies to all areas of our life, including what we wear. Most dress immodestly to get attention, and that's what we are told not to do, and if we love our brothers in Christ then we will think of them when we dress. So if we put God and others before ourselves, then we won't dress immodestly.

We've adapted ourselves to the culture. Men can go topless, women can't.
Before 37, the church would have condemned men. Now, it's seen as a special sin if women do this, but not men. (It used to be a 'crazy modern idea' that men could go topless.)
In other cultures, it's standard for both men and women to be topless.
And in other cultures, it's taboo for a woman to expose her hair. What makes our view of breasts correct, and their view of hair wrong? This is why we need the Bible to tell us.

In my opinion, the western world has hypersexualized the female breast and it's not a unique sin to expose it. Again, it may be wrong for both genders, but I can't accept the view proposed by the western church either scripturally or culturally. But if you can give me scripture to show otherwise, please do - that's why I'm here!

I don't want to interpret the Bible according to culture, I'd like it to tell us what the truth is. After that, we can take culture into account. And culture may indeed be enough reason for women to cover their breasts, but that's the second step.

[chosenone]

We've adapted ourselves to the culture. Men can go topless, women can't.
Before 37, the church would have condemned men. Now, it's seen as a special sin if women do this, but not men. (It used to be a 'crazy modern idea' that men could go topless.)
In other cultures, it's standard for both men and women to be topless.
And in other cultures, it's taboo for a woman to expose her hair. What makes our view of breasts correct, and their view of hair wrong? This is why we need the Bible to tell us.

In my opinion, the western world has hypersexualized the female breast and it's not a unique sin to expose it. Again, it may be wrong for both genders, but I can't accept the view proposed by the western church either scripturally or culturally. But if you can give me scripture to show otherwise, please do - that's why I'm here!

I don't want to interpret the Bible according to culture, I'd like it to tell us what the truth is. After that, we can take culture into account. And culture may indeed be enough reason for women to cover their breasts, but that's the second step.

Most men don't go round topless unless they are on a beach or whatever anyway. We all need to live in our culture and our culture says that woman's breasts are highly sexualised. Therefore they need to be covered, men's chests arent.
Why is this such an issue for you? Do you hate it when men go topless?  Or do you want women to go topless?

[Alan]

We've adapted ourselves to the culture. Men can go topless, women can't.
Before 37, the church would have condemned men. Now, it's seen as a special sin if women do this, but not men. (It used to be a 'crazy modern idea' that men could go topless.)
In other cultures, it's standard for both men and women to be topless.
And in other cultures, it's taboo for a woman to expose her hair. What makes our view of breasts correct, and their view of hair wrong? This is why we need the Bible to tell us.

In my opinion, the western world has hypersexualized the female breast and it's not a unique sin to expose it. Again, it may be wrong for both genders, but I can't accept the view proposed by the western church either scripturally or culturally. But if you can give me scripture to show otherwise, please do - that's why I'm here!

I don't want to interpret the Bible according to culture, I'd like it to tell us what the truth is. After that, we can take culture into account. And culture may indeed be enough reason for women to cover their breasts, but that's the second step.

In this part of the country you are free to go topless as desired, of course that is a sociological condition and is well aside from the modesty that Paul speaks of. When a person becomes a christian through devotion, humility, and humbleness, the idea of modesty becomes clear as crystal and what others are doing (wearing) seems to matter much less. 

[ChristianResearcher]

Most men don't go round topless unless they are on a beach or whatever anyway. We all need to live in our culture and our culture says that woman's breasts are highly sexualised. Therefore they need to be covered, men's chests arent.
Why is this such an issue for you? Do you hate it when men go topless?  Or do you want women to go topless?

Because I refuse to live in a bubble and just 'go with the flow.'
Practical example: Someone asks my opinion about whether it's right on wrong, morally - biblically. I can't answer in the affirmative or the negative if I don't have a solid reason for my opinion. Then, they're left in the dark; I couldn't help them.

I'm analytical. I need data/facts, that's who I am.

[NorrinRadd]

There is no Scriptural definition of "modesty" that directly applies trans-culturally.  And yet Scripture does advocate modesty, and gives some specific instructions that apply to the target First Century churches to which they are addressed.

The most reasonable conclusion would be that Christians should follow the modesty standards of their culture.

[ChristianResearcher]

There is no Scriptural definition of "modesty" that directly applies trans-culturally.  And yet Scripture does advocate modesty, and gives some specific instructions that apply to the target First Century churches to which they are addressed.

The most reasonable conclusion would be that Christians should follow the modesty standards of their culture.

Which instructions?

[chosenone]

There is no Scriptural definition of "modesty" that directly applies trans-culturally.  And yet Scripture does advocate modesty, and gives some specific instructions that apply to the target First Century churches to which they are addressed.

The most reasonable conclusion would be that Christians should follow the modesty standards of their culture.

[chosenone]

Because I refuse to live in a bubble and just 'go with the flow.'
Practical example: Someone asks my opinion about whether it's right on wrong, morally - biblically. I can't answer in the affirmative or the negative if I don't have a solid reason for my opinion. Then, they're left in the dark; I couldn't help them.

I'm analytical. I need data/facts, that's who I am.

My husband is highly analytical and works with data all the time in healthcare research. However, he knows what modesty means.
We are also told to obey the laws of our country and that includes women not going topless.
Living modestly as Paul tells us, means in all things, which includes what we wear and how we present ourselves to each other and to non-believers.
Also if we are to love our brothers and sisters, as we are told to do, that surely means dressing and acting in such a way as not to make being pure harder for them.

Anything that draws attention to ourselves is wrong according to Paul. So for example, if a woman wears a very low cut top, many men will struggle not to look and to just look at their faces when talking to them or sitting near them. Some women in the churches are guilty of this sadly. It should be one place where we are able to be free of these temptations.

BTW we dont 'go with the flow', we are supposed to go against the flow and dress and act modestly, unlike most of society. 

[RB]

What is our dress standard?

Modesty with a single eye to please God first and foremost.

until 1937, it was illegal for men to be topless. Now, society in general and I think most of the church is okay with it.

Still, it is NOT what society practices, or what most churches think, it goes back to pleasing God first and foremost. Men and even young boys should be fully clothed when in public view, with an exception for young boys swimming which does not cause anyone to lust, at least it should not unless a person is a very wicked pervert in which case there is not much one can do to stop them from carrying out there wicked uncontrollable lust. The reason why we do not allow young girls to swim without a top on is that we are teaching them to PROTECT their private parts, for the marriage bed and their husbands to be. We do not allow our young grandsons to walk around without a top on to teach them that their bodies should be covered when in public view.  By doing this, we are teaching them to suppress PRIDE in their members and help them to NOT think sexually UNTIL they are ready to enter into marriage. Young children are exposed to way too much before they should be. So with your first main point, it IS wrong for anyone to go topless for many reasons. My own children who are now (40 to 49) have never seen me without a shirt on, NEVER......nor will they.

I have a meeting this morning, so I will come back and finish.

[NorrinRadd]

Now that I'm old and fat and laden with man-boobs, I try to not even let ME see me shirtless.   

In general, I have no problem with men being shirtless at beaches or pools, or while working outdoors in the summer.  I find it vaguely tacky to see them walking down the street that way.

I do find it unfortunate that in our culture, unlike some supposedly more "primitive" ones, breasts have taken on such an erotic connotation that women can't enjoy the same freedom and comfort as men, and in fact are often "shamed" for breast-feeding.

[RB]

Now that I'm old and fat and laden with man-boobs, I try to not even let ME see me shirtless.   

My convictions are not based upon my body fat percentage~even though I m not where I was in my forties~which since I played sports and had a body that most men would have contended with~48 chest with a 34 waist.... now, almost seventy some of my chest went south, which is to be expected somewhat~even though I do not like it. I still wear size 34...BUT, 38 feels so much better, I buy them.... (well, the truth is my wife does)

[4WD]

I do find it unfortunate that in our culture, unlike some supposedly more "primitive" ones, breasts have taken on such an erotic connotation that women can't enjoy the same freedom and comfort as men, and in fact are often "shamed" for breast-feeding.

I don't think breasts are or ever were any less an erotic connotation - even in more "primative" cultures.

Pro 5:18  May your fountain be blessed, and may you rejoice in the wife of your youth.
Pro 5:19  A loving doe, a graceful deer-- may her breasts satisfy you always, may you ever be intoxicated with her love.

[NorrinRadd]

I don't think breasts are or ever were any less an erotic connotation - even in more "primative" cultures.

Pro 5:18  May your fountain be blessed, and may you rejoice in the wife of your youth.
Pro 5:19  A loving doe, a graceful deer-- may her breasts satisfy you always, may you ever be intoxicated with her love.

Sure, they apparently had erotic connotations in much of the ANE and various other places.  I'm not sure the same is true for, e.g., tribal places in Africa.

[chosenone]

Now that I'm old and fat and laden with man-boobs, I try to not even let ME see me shirtless.   

In general, I have no problem with men being shirtless at beaches or pools, or while working outdoors in the summer.  I find it vaguely tacky to see them walking down the street that way.

I do find it unfortunate that in our culture, unlike some supposedly more "primitive" ones, breasts have taken on such an erotic connotation that women can't enjoy the same freedom and comfort as men, and in fact are often "shamed" for breast-feeding.

There are modest ways of breast feeding as well.

[NorrinRadd]

 

There are modest ways of breast feeding as well.

Sure.  But exactly what those are will vary from one culture to another.

[4WD]

Sure, they apparently had erotic connotations in much of the ANE and various other places.  I'm not sure the same is true for, e.g., tribal places in Africa.

I think you might be surprised.  The fact that it is openly condoned does not mean that there is no erotic connotation connected with it.

[chosenone]

Sure.  But exactly what those are will vary from one culture to another.

In the west there are many ways of doing it modestly. Others make a decision not to, to make a statement. It's as if they invented breastfeeding.