Where "Modesty" Leads, and the response of one very brave woman.

http://news.yahoo.com/sudan-woman-risks-flogging-over-uncovered-hair-143126249.html

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/09/08/sudan-woman-risks-flogging-over-uncovered-hair/

Amira Osman Hamed is fighting a law in Sudan which says that she must wear hijab and cover her hair. SHe refuses to do so, even though her refusal could mean a severe beating. My hat is off to this woman, who is risking much in standing up for right and justice.



Says the article:

"Sudanese woman says she is prepared to be flogged to defend the right to leave her hair uncovered in defiance of a "Taliban"-like law."

Amira Osman Hamed faces a possible whipping if convicted at a trial which could come on September 19.

Under Sudanese law her hair -- and that of all women -- is supposed to be covered with a "hijab". But Hamed, 35, refuses to wear one.

Her case has drawn support from civil rights activists and is the latest to highlight Sudan's series of laws governing morality which took effect after the 1989 Islamist-backed coup by President Omar al-Bashir.

"They want us to be like Taliban women," Hamed said in an interview with AFP, referring to the fundamentalist militant movement in Afghanistan.

She is charged under Article 152 which prohibits "indecent" clothing.

Activists say the vaguely worded law leaves women subject to police harassment and disproportionately targets the poor in an effort to maintain "public order".

"This public order law changed Sudanese women from victims to criminals," says Hamed, a divorced computer engineer who runs her own company.

"This law is targeting the dignity of Sudanese people."

Modesty, Part 5: Biblical Modesty

Mat 6:28  And why are you anxious about clothing? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow: they neither toil nor spin, yet I tell you, even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. 

Modesty is taught in scripture, and as it is taught there it is an important lesson for both men and women. The sort of modesty we find in the bible, however, has nothing to do with covering skin or sexuality of any sort. Rather, biblical modesty is synonymous with simplicity, humility, and having the right priorities.

(1Ti 2:8-10)  I desire then that in every place the men should pray, lifting holy hands without anger or quarreling; likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, but with what is proper for women who profess godliness--with good works. 

(1Pe 3:3-4)  Do not let your adorning be external--the braiding of hair and the putting on of gold jewelry, or the clothing you wear-- but let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God's sight is very precious.


I see this as an admonition to Christians to resist the temptation to be obsessed with the latest fashions and the temptation to put all our resources into maintaining a competitive appearance. It is natural to want to be beautiful, and admired, but the most important adornment for a Christian is our heart of love and service and the good works which flow from it.

Matthew Henry says, "Those that profess godliness should, in their dress, as well as other things, act as becomes their profession; instead of laying out their money on fine clothes, they must lay it out in works of piety and charity, which are properly called good works." 

A practical example of this teaching would be the emphasis we Christians sometimes put on appearance in our worship services- do we require that worshipers dress expensively to fit in among us? Do we have a tacit dress code that cannot be met by those with limited resources? Do we care more about how nicely we are dressed for church, or how nicely others can see Christ in our actions when we're there? Do we accept all visitors to our fellowship as they are, endeavoring to see them as God sees them, as people with hearts, souls, minds, hopes, and pain of their own?

Barnes says, "The word here rendered “modest” (κόσμιος  kosmios), properly relates to ornament, or decoration, and means that which is “well-ordered, decorous, becoming.” It does not, properly, mean modest in the sense of being opposed to that which is immodest, or which tends to excite improper passions and desires, but that which is becoming or appropriate."

(Jas 2:2-4)  For if a man wearing a gold ring and fine clothing comes into your assembly, and a poor man in shabby clothing also comes in, and if you pay attention to the one who wears the fine clothing and say, "You sit here in a good place," while you say to the poor man, "You stand over there," or, "Sit down at my feet,"  have you not then made distinctions among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts? 

Also, dressing in such a way as to be situationally appropriate, simple, and pleasant without demanding a spotlight is an art form that we all, men and women, should attempt to practice. This has less to do with sexiness or coverage, and more to do with cultural context, practicality, and intentional simplicity, in my opinion. And, simple needn't be drab; it's more the antithesis of gaudy, extravagant, or garish. A two piece swimsuit can well fit into this paradigm at the beach, but the most covering, sexless swimsuit would not be the best choice for worship or school or a funeral, as the loveliest church dress would probably be inappropriate while working in the food bank or weeding the garden. 

Modesty, Part 4: A Guy's Perspective

I have always loved my husband's take on the modesty issue, so to that end I would like to "interview"/ converse with him about it here so you guys can hear it as well. When I was growing up, any time I heard the phrase "from a guy's perspective" I remember a perspective being shared that differed substantially from the one my husband is going to share. I think his thoughts are very valuable here, both on their own merit and as a counterpoint to other views expressed by his fellow christian men. So without further ado, here's my husband! (My questions are in bold, his answers are not)

First, Nathan- can you tell us a little bit about yourself? I would love to hear what your church background is, what you were taught as a kid about modesty, etc.......
Well, before we get into history and background, and I associate myself and family with some pretty crazy ideas I want to make your audience aware of something.  Despite the issues I have with some of the Fundamentalist doctrines and dogmas I was taught, I have to clearly state that I hold no animosity toward my parents. Without their instruction I would have no basis for the reevaluation and evolution of my faith. My parents lived out an honest system and eminently equipped me with instruction including both a love for God and the Bible, and critical thinking and logic.  These are the tools of strong faith that also enable me to defend and support that faith. In short, without my parents and their instruction I would be lost.

I was raised in various fundamentalist evangelical churches.  My earliest memories of church involve me sitting (or standing) in a pew in the Fairview Primitive Baptist Church   it was a very conservative and exclusionary doctrine, closed communion, a capella hymnal music, and hard core 5 point Calvinism.

Through growth and their own spiritual exploration (including a very real move to another state) my parents began attending a PCA church (Presbyterian Church of America, again a conservative, Calvinistic environment but more liberal than the Primitive Baptist Church).  As my parents eyes were opened to the untruths and false dogmas they had been taught, our family became a part of a small church that corporately was exploring what it meant to walk in the gifts of the Holy Spirit and to move out of some very rigid dogma.  Looking back this church was in a state of flux from its inception There were at least four different families with a modicum of leadership and each family had its own direction to go.  Each family had its own ideas about Christianity and modesty so I was exposed to everything from hijab-like modesty standards to shorts and a tank top.

My parents raised me with a respect for other people and were very open in discussion regarding attraction to/from the opposite sex and any details I needed regarding sex.  I count myself very lucky because throughout their teaching (particularly early on) they were able to impart a respect of the body and not associate it with shame and sin.

As I approached puberty my family joined ATI/IBLP.  With that curriculum and environment the standards of modesty required by our family were elevated in public for the sake of conformity to the standard set by the program. My parents never bought into the ATI/IBLP ideas completely. They would always warn us children about the danger of legalism and a works (conformity) based gospel.  However as immature children we did not really understand and so we let the curriculum and peer pressure drive our standards.  My parents, (I think they did not understand the damage it could cause) allowed false ideas of modesty to fester and grow.

Do you believe that modesty is a fixed standard or a relative one?
Easy answer, and short. Modesty is a relative standard.

I really don't know anyone that would seriously argue that it isn't (granted I don't know many people in the grand scheme of things.)  The ones I know might argue that since we don't know if/what God's modesty standard is we should be as modest as possible. However that is an impossible argument based on arbitrary opinion.

What do you think about the concept of modesty as it relates to our responsibility for others? Do you think that christian women have a responsibility to dress modestly so as not to be a stumbling block to their brothers in Christ?
No.  All individuals have a responsibility to dress in praise to the Creator.  There are no special modesty requirements for women versus men, other than what may be legally dictated by society.

I put the responsibility for "stumbling" at the feet of the stumbler.  If a man is going to sin by wallowing in a possessive lust because he saw a tank top and short shorts, he's gonna do it if he sees a navy jumper with a giant white collar.  One of the great dangers of this overbearing focus on "not causing a brother to stumble" is that men are not taught self control.  Men (especially young men and boys) begin to believe that they have no control over their primal desires.  These ideas so focus men on the id that they forget about the ego and super ego, those tools the Creator gave us that allow men to be more than an animal.  When I refer to "self control" I mean control over both emotions and rational thought.  It is dangerous to teach young men that "self control" is to "flee youthful lusts" and to merely run from something they think is a sin.  One day they won't be able to run and they will need to know how to control emotions with intellect rather than replacing one emotion (lust) with another (fear).

I can testify that both intellect and morals are active during libidinous excitement.  I have personally had offers of an erotic nature made to me (it was before I was married and the individuals making the offers were endowed with bodies fit to tempt) and it was no great (or small) thing to turn it down.  My mind was perfectly able to respond to that emotional stimuli with rational thought. Man's intellect and morals can only be over ridden by our primal mind if we choose to let them be.  If we have been trained to think that men revert to the primal nature when exposed to sex.  Then when we (men) are exposed to sex our minds WILL revert to that primal nature because we have a perfect excuse to satisfy it.

How would you define "biblical" modesty, or the modesty that is mentioned in the New Testament?
Is there such a thing?  If we take the Bible literally and use the biblical culturally specific mandates of modesty in the Bible, then women cannot braid their hair, wear jewelry or makeup, or wear any clothes or uniform that is worn by men.  The danger here is that if we are that literal with scripture in one place, to be consistent we must be just as literal EVERYWHERE ELSE in the Bible; including stoning disobedient children and  innocent people whose only crime was being related to an oathbreaker (Joshua 7).

If however we take the view that those "modesty" references are culturally specific, then the Bible really has no "opinion" on modesty.  Instead it deals with personal responsibility Philippians 2:1-9.

What are the responsibilities of men when it comes to modesty? What are the responsibilities of women? Do the two differ?
The responsibilities of men are exactly the same as the responsibilities of women in regard to modesty. There is no difference.  Modesty is not about the clothes worn, but personal conduct.  The idea of "modesty" is cheapened when it is only about the physical accoutrements.

How has working in a service field affected your view of modesty and temptation?
It hasn't affected my views of modesty at all.  Modesty is a factor of personal and social responsibility and morality.  Temptation also is a factor of personal morality and opinion.  Having worked in the service field for several years I was regularly exposed to scenarios that could/would be considered to "immodest" or "tempting".  However, due to the differences in personal opinion, temptation is impossible to define by any specific behavior or action.  I could be tempted by something that another person would find innocuous and vice versa.

I do think my work in the service field gave me a great deal of practice in exercising modesty for myself and in self control.  It was being exposed to things that tempted me which proved and crystallized the instruction I received as a child.  It was in those times, when I had a responsibility to my employer to stay near  a temptation, when I realized that control of my emotional responses was a necessity, not a luxury.

Do you believe that men and women have different sexual needs and struggle with different sorts of temptation? Err, No.
Why or why not? Because it is the acme of foolishness to define temptation or what constitutes a "sexual need" by gender.  Two randomly selected men will have as divergent of views on what constitutes temptation, as a randomly selected woman and man.  As far as "sexual needs" go they are such personal ideas that they cannot be quantified by gender.

How do you define lust? Is it possible to be attracted to or notice a physical form without lusting?
In the Bible the word "lust" is defined in a multitude of ways including everything from a flame or glow, to a covetous, possessive desire, synonymous with the word "covet" in the 10th commandment.   The word translated "lust"  in Matt 5:28 is not just sexual thoughts.  It is a covetous response to temptation.  It is a possessive thing that goes way beyond temptation or even thoughts of a sexual nature.  To be sexually attracted to an individual is not the same as a desire to own or possess that person.  To have thoughts of a sexual nature about a person is not possessive covetousness.  But, if we dwell on those thoughts and allow them free reign in our mind it can quickly lead to a possessive, covetous lust.  However, the initial sexual attraction and subsequent thought response is not automatically lust.


And that, folks, is Husband's take. :)

Modesty, Part 3- Other Perspectives

Starting with Jonalyn of Soulation's response to Jessica Rey's talk, here are some other really good posts/series on the issue of modesty, specifically female modesty from a christian perspective.

http://soulation.org/jonalynblog/2013/06/is-itsy-bitsy-wrong-bikinis-and-modesty.html


http://soulation.org/jonalynblog/2012/08/modesty-is-a-chameleon.html#comment-905366910


http://www.fromtwotoone.com/2012/05/recap-modesty-myth.html


http://www.churchleaders.com/pastors/pastor-articles/164005-emily-maynard-modesty-rules-is-a-woman-responsible-lust.html?p=1



http://www.qideas.org/blog/modesty-i-dont-think-it-means-what-you-think-it-means.aspx

Modesty, Part 2- effacement of the female form

Another issue I have with modesty doctrines (besides the impossibility of defining modesty and the rapey ickiness of holding women responsible for someone else's behavior) is the seeming preoccupation with hiding the female form. Modesty rules look a little different for the fuller figured among us than for the more willowy types! It seems to me that some modesty teaching is all about hiding anything overtly feminine- a curve, a bit of skin, or anything else that screams "woman" as opposed to "man" or "child." If I had a nickel for every time I heard "oh, she can wear that- she's so skinny, her curves will never show" I'd be.... well, a little richer. (I'm not decrying my more athletically built sisters here- as long as you do it healthily, and love the body you have, there's nothing wrong with being skinny, or flat-chested, etc. Genuineness and good health should be the goal, and beyond that enjoyment of our diversity) It is extremely difficult, though, to hide a curvy figure and to find stylish clothes which fit well and mask curves- well, impossible really, because "fitting well" and "masking curves" should probably be seen as mutually exclusive. :) It's as though anything overtly feminine, or suggestive of feminine power or feminine sexuality, is inherently negative. When young women are told that they need to "find shirts that don't accentuate the bust" or "make sure everything is loose" or "only wear pants (if you must wear pants) which billow loosely down from your waist so as to not outline your derriere", they hear "don't accentuate your body- hide it!" and it sends the message that our bodies are something to be ashamed of, something to hide, something to be afraid of. This, of course, is untrue. I think it would be difficult to raise a daughter to wear loose clothing and "dress modestly" for fear of inciting lust or whatever without also raising her to have a very unhealthy body image.



The female form, or the male form for that matter, :) is nothing to be ashamed of. It is a gift from God for us to enjoy. Yes, there are ways in which we reserve enjoyment for ourselves and our spouse, but there are also ways in which it is completely appropriate to share our physical form with others. To see beauty and appreciate it is not, in my mind, synonymous with lust. If I'm dressed in nice jeans and a cute shirt and I'm happy and my eyes are sparkling and my face is animated and my hair is soft and shiny and yes, maybe I'm showing a socially acceptable amount of decolletage, it is perfectly appropriate for someone to see me and see in me a happy and beautiful woman and enjoy the sight of my beauty as the artwork of my Creator. I am a female, both biologically and culturally, and there is no innate holiness in obscuring that fact. My female personhood should not bar me from worship, from leadership, from respect, from admiration, or from anything that I am gifted and skilled to do. When women are arbitrarily banned from certain roles in the church or from authority or power because of our female personhood, it sends the same message- "to get ahead, be holy, whatever, obscure your femaleness."



When women are told that their bodies are something which must be hidden to avoid inciting lust in men, a part of them can begin to believe that there is something bad, dangerous, or wicked about not only their bodies, but about themselves. They can try to purposely obscure their beauty by unhealthy behaviors to either end of the weight spectrum, or they can become overly focused on trying to please others with the way they present themselves or their bodies. I truly believe that modesty, taught from a perspective of "do this so men won't see you and lust for you or objectify you" destroys healthy confidence and body image. That's a sad, sad thing.

Modesty, Part 1.- revealing our dignity?

"Modesty is about revealing our dignity."

~ Jessica Rey

The above video is of a talk given by Jessica Rey, a swimsuit designer (who does a fabulous job of promoting her business, by the way- I just wish she didn't use such poor logic to do it!) and modern proponent of "modest" swimwear for women. She basically argues that men objectify women who wear bikinis, as opposed to more "modest" (that term is never defined) swimwear, and that women showing skin is an invention of the modern fashion world. She says that "modesty" is about revealing dignity and being seen as people, rather than attractive bodies.



Normally, I think it is a mistake to judge an argument by its source. This time, I think the correlations between and origins of this argument and a very, very similar one are significant, simply because of the implications for the status of women in a society which adopts them.



"In the ’80′s, most of the religious rhetoric about hijab that I was exposed to stressed religious obligation, as well as women’s dignity. Supposedly, hijab would protect our dignity, by focusing (male) attention on us as believing women, rather than on us as female bodies."
(http://sobersecondlook.wordpress.com/2012/06/08/hijab-empowerment-and-choice-the-darker-side/)


Substitute modesty for the word hijab, and you have Ms. Rey's argument. The only difference is the definition of modesty. The only difference between requiring women to wear full-coverage, one piece swimsuits to "avoid objectification by males"  and requiring them to wear full hijab or even a burqa is one of degrees. The same logic that holds women accountable for rape, even in some cases punishing them as adulteresses if they file rape charges, the same logic that excuses honor crimes and forced marriages and domestic violence, is the same logic that the evangelical Christian world is using to regulate the dress and behavior of women. This should be a sobering thought to those Christians who in all other respects decry the mistreatment of and sidelining of women by Muslims.



Now, to unpack the other ideas here- Ms Rey cites a study, done at Princeton, as evidence for males' inherent tendency to objectify women who are wearing bikinis. For a more in-depth look at the study, try this post. Suffice it to say that this study was of a limited number of male college students. Also, the pictures they were shown were not only women in bikinis, but headless women in bikinis. The only thing the participants could see, unlike real life, was the woman's body. Even if the data from these students led to Ms. Rey's conclusions, (and I do not believe it does) this proves nothing about other demographics, other times, other cultures, or any person who has not been socialized into thinking that an attractive woman in a bikini is an object and fair game. She assumes that the reaction to the bikini is an inherent one in all males, rather than a socially conditioned one, and one which reflects ideas about women and their bodies which may not, in fact be universal. Not all men see a woman in a bikini and immediately turn her into an object. Some men see a woman who is beautiful and exposed in her beauty as the sacred living art of the Creator and as an actual person, with needs, goals, talents, and a mind.


Another thing- women can be, and are, ogled by pervs no matter what we wear. Even if all reasoning for modesty rules was legitimate- folks, it doesn't work. Whether or not I get leered at depends, not on what I wear, but on who I'm around. That's a fact. Those guys in the grocery store who were making catcalls? They would have done so no matter what I was wearing. (A loose tshirt and jeans at the time) The guys who treated me with respect and conversed with my face, not my boobs, or else ignored me altogether, when I was in a two piece swimsuit at my college gym, treated me as they did because they were decent humans, not because I was covered up. When I am objectified, it;s not my form that's at fault- it's the pervs who are viewing me as an object created for their pleasure.

What exactly is modesty, and who gets to define it? Modesty, being completely a function of cultural expectations and norms, is relative. What would be "modest" in Papua New Guinea and what would be "modest" in Norway and what would be "modest" in Lancaster county, PA are all totally different. Modesty varies from occasion to occasion, place to place, and time to time. Women showing skin is nothing new. Belly dancing costumes are little more than bikinis, and they have been around for longer than this country. In Japan, it's weird to wear anything when you go to the hot tub, no matter the company. I could name quite a few societies in which clothes were/are limited or optional for some or all normal occasions. Making the history of modern, western culture perennially normative when it comes to this or any other issue is a mistake- at best, we end up with a very limited perspective, and at worst, incorrect conclusions. I would contend that "appropriate modesty" is synonymous with practicality, a total lack of misplaced shame, and general social acceptability. The most stereotypically "modest" (covered) swimsuit won't be appropriate for a funeral, and long pants and a shirt will be horribly impractical at the beach. In a historical context, I think it's a mistake to glorify the fashion of days gone by- yes, in modern history, women were (a couple of hundred years ago) more covered in general. But- why is that automatically a good thing? Were women more respected, did we have more rights and freedoms, and was our equality more a given then? Did men objectify less, respect more, and treat us as holy sisters, or as valuable persons equal to themselves? Not exactly! I cannot think of another age since perhaps the Minoan or Natchez societies in which women have been as close (we're still not 100% there yet) to equality as in our own.