What in the World Is Modest Dressing for Women? The Gospel Coalition Claims It Involves Obedience to Authority and Reflects the Glory of God in the World

Jupiter Io Montage –NASA

“I do not believe in sex distinction in literature, law, politics, or trade – or that modesty and virtue are more becoming to women than to men, but wish we had more of it everywhere.” Belva Lockwood


I have been watching the series “Outlander.” I know I’m a few years behind. I watched as the main character learns how to dress as a woman back in the 1700s. It involved many layers, often uncomfortable, but they sure had to hide her shape. (Great show, BTW. -I had read the author’s book and it was decently presented on screen.) Back in the 1950s, my mother would dress with care and style when preparing to take an airplane flight. So did my dad. As we went through the 1960s, jeans and t-shirts became in vogue. When my girls started school, they were required to wear shorts under their skirts for the sake of *modesty.*(Christian school!) As time has gone on, I have seen women and girls comfortably dressed in leggings, sports bras, and t-shirts along with hoodies. As I travel more and more, I see women dressing similarly. I think they look great! In fact, they are quite comfortable, so comfortable I have adopted some of those styles myself. Modest dressing has changed through the years and just because a new style comes along, like athleisure, doesn’t mean they aren’t modest in current views. (Was that a double negative?) In other words, 1950s clothing would seem scandalous in 1750.

Throughout the years I have heard it is the woman’s responsibility to dress modestly to keep men and boys from lusting. Let me point out how this paradigm doesn’t hold up. Look at Josh Duggar. His sisters were made to wear long jean skirts. They even had to wear long clothes to go in swimming. He was taught to avert his eyes when women, not dressed in the requisite jeans skirt, walked by. Michelle and Jim Bob loved parading their solution to modesty. As we now know, Josh molested two of his sisters when a teen. He was on the Ashley Madison website despite the supposedly strict computer search blockers. Now, he’s been arrested for using child porn. Looks like all that eye averting was to no avail.

The Puritan

Recently, The Gospel Coalition posted The Modesty Conversation We Need to Have by Megan Hill. Hill is an unusual woman. She claimed she spent time in weekly meetings at college, discussing what modesty looks like. Weekly meetings? These women were serious.

Every week, my friends and I would spread a blanket on a sunny patch of campus grass and debate things like whether female modesty is inherent or cultural,

…Hearing about our discussion, a group of Christian guys on campus began to refer to us as “The Puritans.”

She was very, very concerned. If she didn’t figure out how to dress properly, she wouldn’t be able to help the next generation learn how to dress properly as well. What appears not to have been clarified in those weekly discussions was that the next generation may make different choices for what constitutes modest dress. Her choice of dressing may not be the cultural choice for other women. For example, I met a Christian woman who grew up in Brazil. She was confused by the seeming rejection of bikinis by some Christian women in American culture. She claimed that most of the Brazilian Christian women she knew wore bikinis because it’s acceptable in that Christian culture.

Modest clothing choices cause people in the world to notice that one’s daughter is reflecting the glory of God in the world.

Now this one is difficult to explain. So what glorifies God? The cute shoes you nabbed at a discount? The somewhat expensive sundress that only shows the upper breast bone? What about the cute LuLuLemon leggings paired with other forms of athleisure? I have news for Megam Hill who might hang around others who think like her. If one day your daughter wore a crop top that you don’t approve of, there will likely not be a single person who thinks “There goes that Megan’s daughter, ruining the glory of God.” This is one of those Calvinist constructs similar to the one which states that complementarian marriage helps people in the world to see the glory of God. No, it doesn’t. I have yet to hear one person claim that Fred and Ethel’s marriage reflects the glory of God, no matter how much they wish it was so.

We have an opportunity to point our daughters to the privilege of selecting clothing with an eye to glorifying God in the world.

Women should not aim at androgyny in their dress.

This is certainly confusing. What does androgyny look like in clothing? I sometimes wear jeans, khakis, t-shirts, etc. So do lots of men Is that wrong? What would a woman be wearing that Hill would consider androgynous? What does she mean that we women should dress like a woman who shows *delight* in the fact that God has made me a woman? Can’t I do that when I wear jeans?

Let me also say that I like to dress well and comfortably. However, I do not spend a lot of time trying to figure out if my dress is *womanly* enough or modest enough to meet Hill’s standards. Does Eileen Fisher work? How about J Jill?

But whatever we select, our clothes should not aim at androgyny. They should aim at expressing (and delighting in) the fact that God created us women.

She gives no examples of what androgynous dressing means to her but she gives a command to dress correctly! We must dress like a woman, whatever that means to Hill.

As Elisabeth Elliot wrote in Let Me Be a Woman, “The fact that I am a woman does not make me a different kind of Christian, but the fact that I am a Christian makes me a different kind of woman.” God made you a woman. Dress accordingly.

What will the others think if you wear that?!

And this means we don’t get dressed with an eye only to ourselves. We get dressed as people who belong to other people.

…We don’t want our clothing to be an occasion for jealousy or for lust. It may not be our responsibility if someone sins, but it is our privilege to help prevent it.

In fact, we are privileged to help them not *lust.*  So let me ask a question. I have ladies who have been cleaning my house for years. Many of them are new to our country and do not have what I have, be it my house, clothes, etc. How do I help them not to lust?  Perhaps Megan lives in a community in which all the people who attend her church are in the exact same socioeconomic class as she is. If so, I would not enjoy being in her church since I like diversity. In the meantime, I cannot prevent people from lusting after what I have, and neither can she.

It is not the dress I wear or the number of clothes that I have that shows care for others. It is how I speak, act, and treat them. It is how I reach out to them, asking them how they are doing and really listening. In fact, Megan makes my argument here. We should be kind and gentle to those who are around us. We should reach out and care for those who are not like us.

When the apostles instructed women to adorn themselves with gentleness rather than jewelry (1 Pet. 3:3–5) and good works rather than costly clothes (1 Tim. 2:9–10), they were writing to the gathered church. These words publicly called the congregations to create a culture in which godliness was more important than clothing.

When we wear clothes, they should help us serve.

Now, how do those clothes help us serve, you ask?

Most days are work days. And so most of our clothes should enable us to serve: to lean over to pick up a baby, to reach down and clean up a spill in the lunch room, to walk up a staircase to visit a friend, to stand on a platform and teach, to help carry someone’s belongings or put supplies away on a shelf.

What exactly does she mean when she says to dress accordingly such as  * a woman walks up the stairs.* I am going to assume she means we should dress so that someone looking up from below won’t see your private parts when you are wearing that lovely sundress. I have news for Megan. Any man who deliberately places himself in order to look up a woman’s skirt is a pervert. Maybe she might remember Rick Trotter, brother-in-law of Bryan Loriits, doing just that? He got arrested for attempting to see up women’s skirts.

If I didn’t want to have any trouble with my clothes for anything that I might attempt to do, I would need to dress in baggy pants, baggy sweaters, etc.

You are under authority which makes the rules and if you discard all rules, including those made by men, you do so at the peril of your very soul.

Well that ratchets up the matter. My soul is now in peril. Doesn’t it always boil down to authority when it comes to Calvinists? This section made little sense except to say that parents make the rules for what their kids wear. Are you shocked? It appears she lives in a world of private schools (uniforms for her children.) She believes that we must abide by any rules set for dress codes. I had to laugh when she appears shocked that some girls shortened their skirts against the rules. But she takes it further than that. Instead of simply telling her girls *not to do that* she claims that:

It’s not always easy to make decisions about what our daughters should wear, and it’s also often tempting to dismiss the legitimate authority of those who set dress codes.

…Years ago, working at the uniform swap at my kids’ school, I regularly encountered skirts that had been shortened or tightened against dress code, not for reasons of fit but simply because the girls preferred that style and the parents acquiesced.

…A parent’s rule about particular outfits, the dress code at school or camp, and the guidelines at the pool or workplace—no matter how arbitrary they may seem—were given by authority. We throw off such rules at the peril of our souls; 

Years ago, I went to a baby shower for a woman who was having her first child. She said something that I internally disagreed with. It went something like this.

My babyy is so blessed to have a father who always does what’s right. He never goes one mile over the speed limit. He will be an example of *doing the right thing.*

I remember thinking that it would be nice to have a dad who actually admitted to doing the wrong thing as we all do as pretending that dad was perfect. Such a dad would model what Luther called “simul justus et peccator.” We are, at the same time, both righteous and a sinner.

Megan appears to be like the woman who praised her husband for obeying the rule of not driving one mile over the speed limit. I can see her standing in the uniform resale, silently judging the parents who allowed the shortened and tightened skirts without recognizing that this is completely normal pushback from all teens. I’d like to hear a little bit more about love and tolerance. Instead, she claims that our very souls are in peril if we don’t make sure that our girls wear long skirts and always obey the rules. I have news for you. In my kids’ school, the girls would go to the restroom and roll the top of the skirt over to shorten it. They’ll do it whether or not the mom shortens the hem. And guess what? There is a thing called forgiveness which God gives all of us. A simple breaking of a rule does NOT put our souls in peril. Good night! What are they teaching at her husband’s church?

Let me close by saying that this was the typical discussion of the role of women in preventing men from lusting. Instead of saying it’s a women’s job to prevent men from lusting, she claims it is our privilege to help prevent them from lusting. It’s the same old, same old, dressed up in different words.

I want to say this loud and clear that I am tired of women and men telling women to dress modestly to keep the menfolk from stumbling. In Megan’s description, she thinks it is a privilege to help keep others from lusting, both materially and sexually. She thinks she can do it. I think she will fail miserably.

In the end, modesty has little to do with dress and everything to do with attitude. It has little to do with gender and everything to do with values, regardless of gender. It’s not about how short your daughter’s skirt is but more to do with loving, tolerant, and respectful relationships within a family. I believe it’s something that the males of The Gospel Coalition and Acts 29 should adopt as one of their values.

 

Comments

What in the World Is Modest Dressing for Women? The Gospel Coalition Claims It Involves Obedience to Authority and Reflects the Glory of God in the World — 142 Comments

  1. Interesting post. Great discussion with quotes and comments.

    Another culture, POV:

    “In Iran, they have this respect for women, on their [culture’s] terms…
    A properly dressed woman can only show her face and her hands, and their faces and their hands are ravishing.” – Rick Steves, about Iran, and his appreciation of their cultural norms.

    https://youtu.be/lsCerXFHZks?t=4851 Begin at about 1.21.00 for how women dress in Iran; the interpretation of modesty and beauty in their culture.

    Our family saw this in Jordan. It’s a liberal Muslim country but we did see women covered all in black with gold trim, except for their eyes (not even their faces) and hands – which were stunningly beautiful.

    These Muslim women don’t seem flirtatious. However, they are able to exude beauty even with just their eyes and hands. They are lovely and enjoy being beautiful, even with very little to work with. So that’s being a temptress?

    LOL – silly Christian theological guru authoritarian “teaching”. Some of the heavy hitters in this arena turn out to be perverts and predators; thinking of something that may rhyme with paw-third.

  2. I laid out my clothes for tomorrow. In honor of Megan Hill, I will wear my black “Potential Trouble Source” T-shirt and my “appropriate for middle-aged women” ripped booty shorts, along with socks and sneakers. I am on call this weekend, it’s going to be 104 tomorrow, and I will be comfortable!

    Do you think Megan would be unhappy if she knew I was stuffing my hair up in a baseball cap on top of everything else?

  3. So many disjointed thoughts…

    They say “modest,” but what they really mean is “sexy.” A woman can be wearing clothes that are modest by most people’s standards, but pair that outfit with a pair of high-heeled, knee-high leather boots, and whoah man, the modesty police come knocking.

    Did you know all those layers from back in the day actually had a purpose (like protection from sun in the days before sunscreen) and weren’t purely for “modesty’s” sake? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DyWnm0Blmh4

    The entire discussion of women’s modesty is so biased. Where are the posts about men’s modesty? Women are JUST as visual as men, yet we don’t go around telling men to avoid muscle shirts and tight white tank tops. Not to mention, please leave a shirt on even when it’s hot out for the sake of your sisters in Christ.

    To those who think that skirts are a more modest, womanly option than pants… had a boyfriend tell me once that skirts are sexier because of easier access. So, there’s that.

    I have two very young daughters who have not yet learned the “modesty” message. Their innocence brings me joy, and I wish I could preserve it forever. It makes me think of how Jesus said that we should become like little children, when I see how unashamed and trusting they are.

    I grew up on the fringes of purity culture. When I first started to experience signs of puberty, I was so deeply ashamed. Even though I had DONE nothing and was literally the same person I’d been the day before. Shame shame shame on me for going through a biological process that God created in a body that God designed.

    My sister, who grew up more at the height of purity culture, was date-raped as an adult. We were close. I could see that something had changed, and actually figured it out before she told me. It took her THREE YEARS to tell me, because she was so (completely and wholly undeservedly) ashamed. That is what your [bleeped-out] message of “your clothes cause other people to lust” does, Evangelical America.

    If modest dress really prevented lust, there would be no rape in countries where the burka is standard.

    Speaking of burkas, back in my days at the community college, a Muslim student regularly came by the office. She wore leggings and very form fitting long-sleeve t-shirts, together with her head scarf. I wore trousers and a button-up blouse with both my collarbone and elbows showing, and no head covering. Each of us thought we were being modest. Yet by the cultural standards of the other, neither of us were.

    Modesty is in the eye of the beholder. Which is where the burden of the sin of lust properly belongs, as well, with the BEHOLDER, not the beheld. (Behelded? Beholden? English fails me at the moment.)

    I suspect if men had to breastfeed infants, modesty would suddenly be seen in a whole new light.

    I suspect if women trusted their husbands more, modesty would be seen in a whole new light.

  4. Muslin, fka Dee Holmes: Do you think Megan would be unhappy if she knew I was stuffing my hair up in a baseball cap on top of everything else?

    Is that a boy baseball cap or a girl baseball cap you wear?
    Are theological nitpickers ever happy?

    Here are some happy campers having a good time even after a hilarious gaffe with the dress code for men and women of the village they were in; no harm done.

    https://youtu.be/IVftcdR53Y0?t=4697 Begin at about 1.18.17.

    (Interesting that here at TWW, we often don’t know the gender of the people in our discourse as we banter back and forth with comments. “Neither male nor female, Jew nor Greek,” etc. Guess we can still have a discussion.)

  5. Ava Aaronson: Is that a boy baseball cap or a girl baseball cap you wear?
    Are theological nitpickers ever happy?

    It’s a boy baseball cap, it belonged to my dad. He got it in Hawai’i and it has a hula dancer embroidered on it. I started wearing baseball caps when I was moved into a room with 288 monitors on a wall and all that flickering was disturbing me. I kept wearing a baseball cap when I had to work at home and needed to keep my hair out of my face.

  6. Modest dress is attire that would not embarrass you if Jesus showed up in person to talk with you.

  7. In the meantime, TGC is not saying anything about New Calvinist church planters in my area who wear skinny jeans, expensive tennis shoes, tattoos, and spiky hairdos … backed up by hoochie coochie “praise and worship” teams swaying to the beat of the drum.

  8. New Calvinism is a strange beast … half of its adherents are drifting into antinomianism, believing they are released by “grace” from the obligation of observing the moral law … the other half has flipped into Pharisaic legalism mode, stressing obedience to every jot and tittle of religious rule and regulation. Would the ‘real’ New Calvinist stand up!

  9. Ava Aaronson: (Interesting that here at TWW, we often don’t know the gender of the people in our discourse as we banter back and forth with comments. “Neither male nor female, Jew nor Greek,” etc. Guess we can still have a discussion.)

    That’s the troof.
    Aunt Polly could very well be Muff in drag.

  10. drstevej: Modest dress is attire that would not embarrass you if Jesus showed up in person to talk with you.

    That. And since Jesus knows our heart, He would know if we were misrepresenting ourselves – which might depend on where we are in our life mentally, emotionally, physically, culturally, where we physically live, etc., (and those variables are rarely constant, and frequently occur in permutations and combinations).

    (For example, I no longer wear shorts in public, no matter how stinkin’ hot it gets….but my choice to wear shorts has nothing to do with the kind of modesty thing TGC writes about. If Jesus were to appear in my life today, He would likely say something like “Who did this to you?….but like The Woman at the Well, He would already know the answer. And I have no clue how I would respond to Him….)

  11. Wild Honey: Modesty is in the eye of the beholder. Which is where the burden of the sin of lust properly belongs, as well, with the BEHOLDER, not the beheld. (Behelded? Beholden? English fails me at the moment.)

    BINGO, Royal flush, or any other win you can think of.
    As usual, the boyz at TGC have manufactured another widget that has little (if anything) to do with the good news of Jesus.
    And yeah, beheld is the proper word choice.

  12. researcher: but my choice to wear shorts has nothing to do with the kind of modesty thing TGC writes about.

    Type….should read “but my choice to no longer wear shorts in public has nothing to do with the kind of modesty thing TGC writes about.”

  13. drstevej: Modest dress is attire that would not embarrass you if Jesus showed up in person to talk with you.

    If Jesus is not embarrassed, why should you (generic you) be?

  14. Wild Honey,

    Thank you for taking the time to write such a lovely (and loved-filled) comment. 🙂

    (And I didn’t find your thoughts disjointed.)

  15. Max: church planters in my area who wear skinny jeans, expensive tennis shoes, tattoos, and spiky hairdos

    Max: believing they are released by “grace” from the obligation of observing the moral law

    Max,
    These things you pointed out stresses the differences between “real”men and “godly” women. (Side note: you forgot to mention the tight t-shirts those men wear to show off their manly gym bods.)

    If a woman goes to church in skinny jeans, etc, etc, etc ……. well, they’re gonna call her a name……. Spiky hairdo and tattoos? – yep, there’s another name.
    And that grace/moral law thingy only applies to men. If a man sins, it’s always a woman’s fault. But, women must be held accountable….. they way we dress, talk, walk, cook, drive, shoot, throw …… Can’t cause any man to stumble, or to question his manhood (oxymoron?). Gotta walk that tightrope……

    But, its okay for men to dress any way they please, and strut around on stage, or wherever ….. even if they’re married. Cuz, well, you see, we women just aren’t visual, and we don’t have the same (or even similar) reactions that men have when we get an eyeful. …..or so they say….

  16. Max: hoochie coochie “praise and worship” teams swaying to the beat of the drum

    experiencing the aura of a Vegas casino or an uptown nightclub … wondering who or what we are worshipping …

    Along comes DONE & NONE trending, to the rescue.

    Matthew 10:14 “And if anyone will not welcome you or heed …
    And if anyone will not receive you or listen to your words, shake off the dust … If someone won’t welcome you or listen to your message, leave their home or town. … Even the dust of your town that clings to our feet, we wipe off as a testimony …”

  17. Muff Potter: As usual, the boyz at TGC have manufactured another widget that has little (if anything) to do with the good news of Jesus.

    Well, Muff Potter….if the people at TGC use WordPress, and create and add a Modesty Widget to their site, are you planning on taking credit for giving them the idea? 🙂 🙂 🙂

  18. On the other hand–when a woman is a size 42DD and chooses to wear no underwear and a crop top too small for the average 11 year old, she is projecting that she has a low opinion of herself, not that she is owning her body and enjoying it. Especially when she pairs it with daisy dukes of cut off yoga pants so tight everyone in the fast food restaurant knew what she groomed and what she did not. And equally disgusting was the man who entered the bank wearing loose short shorts and nothing else, grabbed a magazine and sat to wait for the loan officer, manspreading to the point everything he had was hanging loose.

    Adults do not need modesty culture to tell them what to wear, no, but then again they do not need to rebel against modesty culture to the point they are just plain….ick.

    I have a teenage granddaughter with common sense who dresses very comfortably, very in style, very up to date, and very modestly. Without anyone telling her to do so. If I dressed my older body as she does I would definitely not be nearly as attractive as she is. I prefer to accent my assets and disguise my less than gorgeous traits. And do so in style, comfortably, and yes about some things in my grooming you just don’t need to know!

    There was a time we understood prudery was sick, yes, but also that good taste was, well, GOOD taste.

    Heavens to betsy, a stroll through walmart or a trip to McD’s could turn anyone into the fashion gestapo. In the name of freedom and equality and comfort both sexes have thrown off all decency and restraint. And it ain’t pretty!

    I would guess it isn’t likely to be all the comfortable either when those shorts ride up your thigh and disappear into the grand canyon either lol.

  19. “This is one of those Calvinist constructs similar to the one which states that complementarian marriage helps people in the world to see the glory of God. No, it doesn’t. I have yet to hear one person claim that Fred and Ethel’s marriage reflects the glory of God, no matter how much they wish it was so.”

    It’s amazing what people convince themselves is “Christian witness for God” all the while it’s just something they want. Like a missionary colleague who said in all seriousness that her neighbors would see the glory of God if He healed her varicose veins. No, they wouldn’t. What makes a difference is God’s direct intervention in our lives – it is his kindness that leads us to repentance. Not the length of someone else’s skirt or the authority of some husband over his wife. When a person experiences the love and kindness of God directly from Him to them they begin to know that God is real.

  20. Ava Aaronson: if anyone will not receive you or listen to your words, shake off the dust

    Oh, and don’t forget to tear up the signed membership contract on your way out!

  21. Fisher: colleague who said in all seriousness that her neighbors would see the glory of God if He healed her varicose veins. No, they wouldn’t.

    I don’t understand why people say, and buy into that stuff.
    Jesus didn’t suffer and die to save our earthly bodies.

  22. Muff Potter: As usual, the boyz at TGC have manufactured another widget that has little (if anything) to do with the good news of Jesus.

    These preacher boys would do good to stick to Paul’s strategy:

    “I made the decision to know nothing [that is, to forego philosophical or theological discussions regarding inconsequential things and opinions while] among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified [and the meaning of His redemptive, substitutionary death and His resurrection].” (1 Corinthians 2:2 AMP)

  23. Max: preachers with slick dyed hair and gold choker chains.

    They’re more conservative than Ronnie Floyd nowadays.

  24. “This is one of those Calvinist constructs similar to the one which states that complementarian marriage helps people in the world to see the glory of God.”

    No it isn’t. Such matters were discussed and adjudicated on as far back as 314AD. Also, in exposition of the Ten Commandments there are numerous writers who relate dress to the seventh commandment – adultery. Here is one such from James Durham-“It is observed that the Hebrew word, beged, signifies both perfidiousness and clothing and comes from that word which signifies to break covenant, the. Lord thereby intending by the very consideration of our clothes, to humble us and keep us in mind of our first breach of covenant with Him. And yet such is our wickedness, that we will glory in that which is indeed our shame, as if it were a special ornament. And whereas at first clothing was appointed for covering nakedness, for preventing of incitements to lust and for decency, now, Jezebel-like, it is made use of to be a provocation thereunto.”
    (And he goes on to apply that to both men and women).

    The TGC article expresses these things poorly.

  25. Ava Aaronson: They are lovely and enjoy being beautiful, even with very little to work with. So that’s being a temptress?

    So say the Religious Police with the Whips.
    “IT IS WRITTEN! IT IS WRITTEN! IT IS WRITTEN!”

  26. Nancy2(aka Kevlar): Quite modest …… A truly modest lady must be on guard for men who have foot fetishes!

    Like Bill Got Hard?
    “With LOOOONG Denim Jumpers…. And LOOOOOOONG… WAAAAAAAAVY… HAAAAAIR…”

  27. Ava Aaronson: Is there any limit to the fetishes out there?

    NO.

    Sometimes I think that Christianese Purity Culture contributes to the development of such paraphiliae. When any healthy expression (even thinking about it) is slammed down by “THOU SHALT NOT!”, the urges in the areas are going to surface somehow. Attached to something that gets past the taboos (like Josh Duggar’s “Hawt hand holding” and the Author Self-Insert’s “syncrhonized cookie snarfing” in Left Behind.

  28. drstevej: Modest dress is attire that would not embarrass you if Jesus showed up in person to talk with you.

    Since I presume Jesus has seen me nekkid, I am not worried about clothes. It’s what I’m DOING when he shows up I’m worried about.

    *tap on shoulder* “Haven’t you watched enough cat/volcano/Japanese/calligraphy etc. videos today?”

  29. In other words, 1950s clothing would seem scandalous in 1750.

    I sense an opening for a Decline Narrative from pulpits.

  30. Lowlandseer: Lord thereby intending by the very consideration of our clothes, to humble us and keep us in mind of our first breach of covenant with Him. And yet such is our wickedness, that we will glory in that which is indeed our shame, as if it were a special ornament. And whereas at first clothing was appointed for covering nakedness, for preventing of incitements to lust and for decency, now, Jezebel-like, it is made use of to be a provocation thereunto

    I’m so confused. This would be my twisted half-breed hillybilly question for Durham: (I really am half hillbilly, no no insult intended to anyone.)

    1.) So God made Adam and Eve buck-naked, and they ran around the garden buck-naked, and didn’t even know they were buck-naked.
    2.) Then they sinned.
    3.) Then, after they sinned, God made clothes for them to wear.

    Mebee if God hadda put clothes on Adam and Eve when he made’em, they wouldn’t have committed the original sin, and we’d all be running around the garden buck-naked, livin’ high on the hog.

  31. Max: oochie coochie “praise and worship” teams swaying to the beat of the drum.

    Max, I hope you were channeling Pat Robertson on that choice of words.
    “Hooche coochie” is a 1900-1920s expression, and has gone out of use for everyone except Pat Robertson. Christians are infamous for being Late Adopters, but 100+ years out-of-date?

  32. Headless Unicorn Guy: Nancy2(aka Kevlar): Quite modest …… A truly modest lady must be on guard for men who have foot fetishes!
    Like Bill Got Hard?
    “With LOOOONG Denim Jumpers…. And LOOOOOOONG… WAAAAAAAAVY… HAAAAAIR…”

    We can always count on you, HUG!!!

  33. Max: “I made the decision to know nothing [that is, to forego philosophical or theological discussions regarding inconsequential things and opinions while] among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified [and the meaning of His redemptive, substitutionary death and His resurrection].” (1 Corinthians 2:2 AMP)

    The Rabbi from Tarsus is saying not to get bogged down in theological trivia (AKA angels on the head of a pin) to the point you lose sight of what’s important.

    But too many Christians stop at “I made the decision to know nothing.” Period.

  34. Max: New Calvinism is a strange beast … half of its adherents are drifting into antinomianism, believing they are released by “grace” from the obligation of observing the moral law … the other half has flipped into Pharisaic legalism mode, stressing obedience to every jot and tittle of religious rule and regulation.

    The latter is explainable by Calvin’s concept of “evansecent grace”, where God sends False Assurance of Election/Salvation to “The Reprobate”, indistinguishable from the Real Thing until The Great White Throne.

    They have “flipped into Pharisaic legalism mode, stressing obedience to every jot and tittle”t PROVE to themselves that they are Really The Elect and God isn’t just giving them that False Assurance of Evanesecent Grace. Once this PROOF(TM) was Material Blessings (getting rich), now its More Perfectly-Parsed Truly Reformed Theology Than Thou.

    And it becomes a Zero-Sum game of One-Upmanship.

  35. Lowlandseer: No it isn’t. Such matters were discussed and adjudicated on as far back as 314AD.

    Not going to quote it all, but I am going to point this out. Back in 314 CE, those who were making the pronouncements were educated men, who made up a small fraction of society at the time. But because they were men and literate, they had an overwhelming, SMOTHERING voice in comparison to not-literate men and all women. So we get to hear from the guys who had a bee in their bonnet about clothing, and not from the people they inflicted this nonsense on.

    And that was the way it was until rather recently. We, the non-elite, have had to listen to elite preachers, teachers, professors and The Gospel Coalition’s writers tell us that this is how God wants to live our lives. At no time have they really bothered to ask any of the people they intend to inflict their teachings on what we think of those teachings. It was and continues to be, “just do it, God speaks through me.”

    As for their education, I just say “pfffth,” because what has their education given to women? They promote a dogma that women and girls are the guardians of the sexual activities of men and boys. As such, we’re supposed to be demure and subordinate, but dress enough to be attractive *to men* but not provocatively. The whole purpose of this is to put the responsibility for the purity and chastity of men and boys on all women and girls. I could go further and remind everyone that these people study in institutions where women are either not allowed because women, or where women are described as different and lesser than men, even if allowed.

    That’s a big NOPE from me. I am…women and girls are NOT responsible nor are we guardians for male sexuality. I have enough to deal with myself without considering that the local Baptist might be offended by my middle-aged booty shorts worn on a 104F/40C day (and gee, that’s 12F/7C lower than last week at this time).

    tl;dr I don’t take the age of the rhetoric as a key to its authority. It was still elite men telling everyone else what to do. That’s not quite the case today and TGC and their ilk need to sit down and listen for once.

  36. Headless Unicorn Guy: The latter is explainable by Calvin’s concept of “evansecent grace”, where God sends False Assurance of Election/Salvation to “The Reprobate”, indistinguishable from the Real Thing until The Great White Throne.

    A lot of people who call themselves Baptists (actually neo-Calvinists) accept the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith as their statement of faith. Just store this in the back of your head–Chapter 10, paragraph 4 is where they teach about “evanescent grace.”

    Others not elected, although they may be called by the ministry of the Word, and may have some common operations of the Spirit,12 yet not being effectually drawn by the Father, they neither will nor can truly come to Christ, and therefore cannot be saved:13 much less can men that do not receive the Christian religion be saved; be they never so diligent to frame their lives according to the light of nature and the law of that religion they do profess.14

    I can’t even begin to say how evil I find this teaching, so I’ll just shut up. But on the occasion when I might have to deal with a neo-Cal whose church subscribtes to the 1689 LBCF and we get into the weeds about predestination, this is my go-to for “evanescent grace.”

    They don’t like it when I say I’d rather go to hell than worship a god like that, because, as I say, that god can change his mind at any time and there’s not a thing you could say about it.* That god is *not trustworthy*. No thanks!

  37. Muslin, fka Dee Holmes: No thanks!

    However, thx for the info.

    In any case, personally, can’t imagine following anything that has to do with God, which in addition, has some [happens to be dead, white] guy’s name on it. Be it Luther, Calvin, who else? Or, ethno-geo-political moniker, Anglican, African Methodist, etc.

    Neither male nor female, Jew nor Greek, Calvin nor Hobbes …

    Their god is too small.

  38. Headless Unicorn Guy: “Hooche coochie” is a 1900-1920s expression

    Well, I don’t go back quite that far! But my Dad passed that language along to us … telling us to stay away from hoochie coochie shows (something I’m sure his father warned him about).

  39. Max: (something I’m sure his father warned him about)

    Noel Casler Comedy @CaslerNoel explains DTF warnings down through the generations:

    Millennials: Down To Fool-Around
    Previous Gens: Dating Takes Forever
    Dad’s Day: Don’t Try anything Funny
    Grandfather’s Day: Don’t even Think about it, Franklin (unless you marry first or liberate France)

  40. Muslin, fka Dee Holmes: *tap on shoulder* “Haven’t you watched enough cat/volcano/Japanese/calligraphy etc. videos today?”

    🙂

    On any given day, I’m sure there’d be any number of reasons why I might receive that *tap on the shoulder* from Jesus…. 🙂 (Intentionally omitting my own list, as it would take me way too long to write…. 🙂 )

  41. drstevej:
    Modest dress is attire that would not embarrass you if Jesus showed up in person to talk with you.

    I would feel embarrassed in appearing before Jesus in swimsuit. I would also be embarrassed if my hair wasn’t brushed and my teeth had bits of popcorn stuck in them.

  42. Max,

    They are tripping over each other in my area as well. Many of the students want to stay in on SEBTS territory. I can spot them in my grocery stores. They try so hard to be massively hip they come out looking like everybody else in the planting pulpit.

  43. researcher: have no clue how I would respond to Him….

    I told my husband that , if jesus appeared or I appeared before Him in heaven, I would hit the ground, face down, until He told me it’s quite OK to stand up.

  44. linda: On the other hand–when a woman is a size 42DD and chooses to wear no underwear and a crop top too small for the average 11 year old, she is projecting that she has a low opinion of herself, not that she is owning her body and enjoying it.

    I don’t see many women like this around my way.Is it a cultural thing?

  45. Muff Potter: If Jesus is not embarrassed, why should you (generic you) be?

    The shrill emphasis on clothing distracts people from remembering that God loves our bodies.

    In the Before Times, I swam most days. I saw many people in swimsuits, including skimpy racing suits. Women, girls, and small boys with Mama were naked in the women’s locker room. Nobody stared as we shared the space. There is wonderful humble beauty and dignity in the form God created, whether a wiggly newborn or a muscular young diver or a disabled person or an old person covered with scars.

  46. Muff Potter: This called seeing through the eyes of God.

    Love God, love one another as self.

    Are the evangeo dress code police, quoting theology, operating with love? Love for God, for their neighbor?

    The missing component of love was where Jesus took issue with the religious elite of His day.

    This dress code church dickering appears as just another indication of the authoritarianism of our times. Rules for the reg folk while predators circulate in church polite society.

  47. Friend: I saw many people in swimsuits, including skimpy racing suits.

    I was a competitive swimmer for many years….skimpy and / or almost see through swimsuits were considered normal by most competitive swimmers, although a regulation
    was finally passed that limited how small the sides of the men’s swimsuit could be. (Many people speak of Speedo swimsuits, meaning something shockingly revealing….for competitive swimmers, Speedo was just a brand of swimsuit.)

    At swim meets, I was used to (sometimes) wearing an almost see through swimsuit, and I was used to seeing other swimmers in skimpy and / or almost see through swimsuits….I remember a non-swim meet instance when the lifeguard at the swimming pool let me know my non-competitive-swimming swimsuit had become VERY see through. Needless to say, I went and bought myself a new swimsuit as soon as I could…. 🙂

  48. dee: They try so hard to be massively hip

    The New Calvinist preacher boys are always preaching grace-this and grace-that. In their quest to be “massively hip” while attempting to access as much grace as they can, I guess they missed this verse:

    “God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.” (James 4:6)

  49. drstevej: if Jesus showed up in person to talk with you.

    Jesus shows up in person I’d probably say “Barry! Loved the Saturday Night Fever soundtrack. By the way, really rockin’ the dress and sandals!
    And this little thin I’m wearing? Why, Barry, I never wear a skirt without heels.”

  50. Ava Aaronson: Are the evangeo dress code police, quoting theology, operating with love? Love for God, for their neighbor?

    No they ain’t.
    They’re just another version of Harper Valley P.T.A.

  51. Ava Aaronson,

    For those who are unfamiliar, “Harper Valley P.T.A.” was a hit song performed by Jeannie C. Riley. It’s on YouTube, but I’ll refrain from posting the link because I don’t want Dee’s pugs to have to listen to it and make sure it’s OK. 😉

  52. Friend:
    Ava Aaronson,

    For those who are unfamiliar, “Harper Valley P.T.A.” was a hit song performed by Jeannie C. Riley. It’s on YouTube, but I’ll refrain from posting the link because I don’t want Dee’s pugs to have to listen to it and make sure it’s OK.

    Post the link. I know every word to the song.

  53. dee,

    https://youtu.be/DoMPrjmjeUY

    Sing-along…

    I wanna tell you all a story ’bout
    A Harper Valley widowed wife
    Who had a teenage daughter
    Who attended Harper Valley Junior High
    Well, her daughter came home one afternoon
    And didn’t even stop to play
    And she said, “mom, I got a note here from the Harper Valley PTA”

    Well, the note said, “Mrs. Johnson
    You’re wearin’ your dresses way too high
    It’s reported you’ve been drinking
    And a-running ’round with men and goin’ wild
    And we don’t believe you oughta be a-bringin’ up
    Your little girl this way”
    And it was signed by the Secretary
    Harper Valley PTA

    Well, it happened that the PTA was gonna meet
    That very afternoon
    And they were sure surprised
    When Mrs. Johnson wore her miniskirt into the room
    And as she walked up to the blackboard
    I can still recall the words she had to say
    She said, “I’d like to address this meeting of the Harper Valley PTA

    Well, there’s Bobby Taylor sittin’ there
    And seven times he’s asked me for a date
    And Mrs. Taylor sure seems to use a lotta ice
    Whenever he’s away
    And Mr. Baker can you tell us why
    Your secretary had to leave this town?
    And shouldn’t widow Jones be told to keep
    Her window shades all pulled completely down

    Well, Mr. Harper couldn’t be here
    ‘Cause he stayed too long at Kelly’s Bar again
    And if you smell Shirley Thompson’s breath
    You’ll find she’s had a little nip of gin
    And then you have the nerve to tell me
    You think that as the mother I’m not fit
    Well, this is just a little Peyton Place
    And you’re all Harper Valley hypocrites”

    No, I wouldn’t put you on because it really did
    It happened just this way
    The day my mama socked it to the Harper Valley PTA
    The day my mama socked it to the Harper Valley PTA

  54. If I had to guess, I think men probably came up with the idea of “modesty”. I think men feel vulnerable (and thus weak) when they find themselves attracted to a woman – not lust, just the very normal human experience of looking at a another human and finding the experience to be a pleasant one. This experiences creates all kinds of anxieties – if the man is single, he wonders if this attraction will be reciprocated or rejected; if he’s married or in a relationship he compares this new attraction to the familiar one; single or married, he worries it will lead to lust, cutting off the head and wanting what’s left, as CS Lewis defined it.

    I think more than “modesty”, men and women need to learn what it actually means (and what it doesn’t mean) to find another person attractive. Men and women need to learn how to navigate those emotions and responses in such a way that respects others and doesn’t cause unhealthy and unnecessary anxiety for themselves.

    I fear that a lot of “modesty” teaching doesn’t take into account God-given attraction to other humans and turns all hints of it into “lust”, thus causing a lot of anxiety. I also think “modesty” is a way for men to try to protect themselves from these feelings, especially when they experience their own sinfulness wanting to corrupt these emotions into lust.

    Look at Col 2:23. “Modesty” rules are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh, but walking in the Spirit has great value.

  55. Paul K: I also think “modesty” is a way for men to try to protect themselves from these feelings

    “modesty” with regard to women only, right? Men only calling the shots, yes?

    Disparity.

    It’s also a way for men to blame women. Instead of dealing with their own stuff (feelings, anxieties, insecurities, development, maturation or lack thereof, relationship EQ, etc.).

    Blaming women for a guy’s stuff is a common theme, especially common in church society with “theology” to back it up.

    What’s a woman to do? Move on. Solo surpasses getting caught up in the black hole of little-boy-men stuff.

    And the men who can’t handle a woman who moves on? Careful, ladies. Just watched a Forensics episode where when she broke up with her boyfriend (one of the controlling types), she ended up dead. He had proposed to her the night before. He couldn’t “have her” so, poof, she’s gone.

    This happens. Call it insecurity or anxiety, “feelings”, whatever. It’s actually deadly. Watching Dateline, a woman will snuff her guy partner for his money. However, far more frequently, a guy will end the life of his woman partner because – “feelings”, ego, he didn’t get what he wanted, and because he can.

    Just reading the title of this post, “What in the World Is Modest Dressing for Women? … It Involves Obedience to Authority and Reflects the Glory of God in the World” is an indicator of something profoundly wrong with this situation on so many levels.

    (… name removed because it’s way beyond that org. Most orgs named at TWW, aren’t familiar everywhere, but the behavior is universal.)

  56. I think everyone’s wearing tidy clothes in public, relative to the circumstances, is a considerate, even counter-entropic, gesture.

  57. Ava Aaronson: Blaming women for a guy’s stuff is a common theme, especially common in church society with “theology” to back it up.

    Ask any Saudi/Talibani Mullah.

  58. Good example of the kind of thing that makes some micro-cultures within the evangelical world seem so ridiculous. Hair splitting over what to wear is just nuts. Did none of these people ever read Matthew 6:25-34????

  59. Paul K: I fear that a lot of “modesty” teaching doesn’t take into account God-given attraction to other humans and turns all hints of it into “lust”, thus causing a lot of anxiety.

    Anxiety you can only Purge by eliminating the tempting Jezebel.
    If necessary, Purifying the Earth by Wiping Her From the Face of It in all Righteousness.

    I normally don’t link to Disney Musicals, but “Hellfire” from the live-stage version of Hunchback of Notre Dame expresses it well:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NG7kfW4gWKc

  60. Ava Aaronson: Not sure what this is. Is it like Peyton Place? Desperate Suburbanites?

    “Every email goes through me. And with a little creative editing, I turn the office into ‘Melrose Place’.”
    — Dogbert

  61. dee: They try so hard to be massively hip they come out looking like everybody else in the planting pulpit.

    Yet another Tribal Recognition Mark/Uniform.
    Total conformists in their Non-Conformity.

  62. Ava Aaronson: Those building dynasty cults of personality, need to have personality in spades, as well as the image, drip + do, to accompany.

    Not sure “personality in spades” is necessary.
    Look at that Dynasty Cult of Personality, the Kims of North Korea.

  63. dee–I am guessing not exactly a cultural thing. We saw that particular one in Arkansas on the delta, but have seen it in Colorado and Missouri and Virginia and New Jersey. The guy with the shorts was in Wyoming. As to competitive swim suits, what you wear to swim and what you wear when you stop off for food in Colorado should be different. Once wasn’t, and the young woman was very offended when the manager tossed her out.

    I hang around with too many “don’t dress funny” as they put it Mennonites. Their theory is God is everywhere, so of course dress all the time in a way that would not embarrass Him to call you friend. And modesty, Biblical modesty at least, is for both men and women and while it includes dressing in a way so as not to incite lust (and no, it isn’t just the lusters problem if we knowingly are inciting it) but also in a way that is not ostentatious or excessively expensive. If a pair of pricey jeans will last longer, or is made for decent wages and of material that is better for the environment, they may be more modest than a cheap pair even if both look the same. They don’t “dress up” fancy for special events. (I do a bit, lol.) But I do find their take on modesty refreshing.

    But I have watched non Mennonite teen boys simply salivate over the “do dress funny” Mennonite teen girls. Those long skirts and sneakers DID attract the guys more than the skimpy clothes our high school girls were wearing. And the boys preferred the no makeup look to heavy makeup.

    So I was just saying there is room somewhere between a burka and a string bikini when it comes to modesty. For both sexes. And that “somewhere” is likely to be far more attractive than either extreme is.

  64. All people of all genders are equal. In every single way.

    This “modesty” garbage is one more strand of theological barbed wire to keep people in the authoritarian gulag.

    More people are leaving churches than ever before. And this is one of the reasons why.

    This is not good for any of the Christianities. Another Anglican Church is up for sale in our city.

    And evangelical mega churches shouldn’t be smug. Their growth came from these dying mainline churches. It’s just transferred water and the bucket continues to leak.

    Here in Canada, it’s estimated there will be no Anglican Church by 2040. From a membership of over a million in the 1960’s.

    This is the canary in coal mine.

    And don’t tell me, all that’s needed is Jesus, because without any church at all, there won’t be a “great commission”.

    Jesus alone is not magically making new Christians.

  65. Ava Aaronson,

    Ava Aaronson: “What in the World Is Modest Dressing for Women? … It Involves Obedience to Authority and Reflects the Glory of God in the World”

    This definitely not about clothing.

    Is it about power?
    +++++++++++++++++

    narcissism? either as copied behavior or certifiably?

    like pinching certain person(s) under the table for sheer pleasure, and/or the pleasure of getting back at ‘them’,

    [‘them’ = a stand-in for the real culprit(s)],

    as an expression of cumulative frustration,

    under the cover of plausible deniability

    in a context where the person cannot speak out (ie- the Thanksgiving table; or, “it’s biblical, and if you make a fuss we have grounds to censure you & make thing difficult for you, and require you to wear a scarlet “L” for liberal.)

  66. Jack: don’t tell me, all that’s needed is Jesus, because without any church at all, there won’t be a “great commission”.

    Jesus alone is not magically making new Christians.

    This is my big concern, as a parent who will not force young adult offspring to go to church against their wishes. I especially want some of the more loving and sane denominations to survive this era of scandal and high-demand groups.

  67. Jack: All people of all genders are equal. In every single way.

    This “modesty” garbage is one more strand of theological barbed wire to keep people in the authoritarian gulag.

    That about describes it. You also mention Dones & Nones leaving, numbers down. Here’s another mention:

    “MindShift Podcast @MindShift2018
    “Did I read that right, the Southern Baptist Convention has lost 2.3 MILLION members since 2006?

    “They just elected Ed Litton as their new president, who so far has maintained the party line; he’s in trouble for preaching a plagiarized sermon in 2020. As you do… #exvangelical”

  68. Muslin, fka Dee Holmes: can’t even begin to say how evil I find this teaching, so I’ll just shut up. But on the occasion when I might have to deal with a neo-Cal whose church subscribtes to the 1689 LBCF and we get into the weeds about predestination, this is my go-to for “evanescent grace.”

    They don’t even really believe it, though they might claim to. I have not known a New Calvinist who wasn’t absolutely convinced of their own salvation unless they were in the process of converting. I’ve also known a number of New Calvinists who were not only convinced of their own salvation, they were convinced they could determine who else was elect and who was not.

    As academic as many New Cals like to pretend themselves to be, I think many of them are a lot more interested in being in some sort of special elite that excludes others. Though I question a lot of things in the Bible, I don’t see that as being the kind of faith intended in the New Testament at all, in fact, it seems quite contrary to that.

  69. ishy: some sort of special elite that excludes others

    This rings true about the Calvinists in our community. Watch what they do over and above what they say. Talk is cheap, especially among Evangelicals whose chief aim seems to be, by their own admission, “proclaiming the ‘Good News'”.

  70. My teen daughter volunteered for our church’s VBS 2 summers ago. When VBS came around this summer, she said ‘no’, because what she remembers about the last time was – getting criticized for the length of her shorts! Rather than appreciating a helping heart.
    And we don’t even attend a complementarian church.

  71. readingalong,

    I’m sorry that happened to your daughter. It’s good, although sad, that she rejects this criticism instead of thinking it was appropriate or helpful.

    Also, I rather hope that she voiced her dismay to the VBS recruiter… if she wanted to. Her choice.

  72. Friend: although sad,

    Aaugh! Poorly phrased. I meant that it’s sad she experienced the criticism, and that she had to think about what it meant.

  73. Friend: I meant that it’s sad she experienced the criticism, and that she had to think about what it meant.

    I’m not sure that she thought too long about it – as a teen, she wears what her friends wear, and what she feels is comfortable. She’s a pretty stubborn and opinionated creature! Which hopefully will be to some advantage some day…

  74. readingalong: getting criticized for the length of her shorts! Rather than appreciating a helping heart.

    And the saddest and most galling thing, is that it doesn’t have to be this way.
    Why do they (VBS folks) insist on such small minds?

  75. readingalong: She’s a pretty stubborn and opinionated creature!

    I used to teach a Sunday school class, a Wed. night class with teens and pre-teens, mostly boys. I also worked VBS every summer at a conservative SBC church. My daughter would help out with other classes in VBS.
    Once a 3-year old climbed a big oak tree. When my daughter started to go up and fetch him down, the teacher noticed that she was wearing skorts and not a skirt. The teacher started railing on her about how inappropriate it was for her to wear such a thing to church ……. daughter says, “Fine. You climb that tree and get that kid down.” Pastors wife heard it all and started laughing – said my daughter made her point! My daughter was 13 at the time.

    Me??? I also supervised recess time for the older two classes on Wed. nights. The boys always played football and basketball, so I had to referee. I wore khakis and sneakers to church on Wed. nights. Some “proper” ladies complained about how I dressed. I told them I’d be more than happy to wear dresses and pumps……. if they would take my place supervising/refereeing the boys at recess……. outdoors….in the dark. No more was said about the way I dressed….. ever. I have worn blue jeans and capris- no problems.

  76. Fisher:
    What makes a difference is God’s direct intervention in our lives – it is his kindness that leads us to repentance. . . When a person experiences the love and kindness of God directly from Him to them they begin to know that God is real.

    Amen! This is so important.

  77. Nancy2(aka Kevlar): Some “proper” ladies complained about how I dressed. I told them I’d be more than happy to wear dresses and pumps……. if they would take my place supervising/refereeing the boys at recess……. outdoors….in the dark. No more was said about the way I dressed….. ever. I have worn blue jeans and capris- no problems.

    In Western Civ, in France, for example, WW1 introduced “les pantalons” or women wearing pants as they worked in the munitions factories while their men were on the front lines.

    “World War I (1914–18), when civilian women who took over jobs traditionally held by men sometimes wore pants.” -Britannica

    Out went the grand gowns & bustles. In came women’s pants in the 1920’s styled by Coco Chanel: “Nothing is more beautiful than freedom of the body” so she designed fashions with freedom of movement for women (which men already had).

    “Chanel didn’t invent women’s pants — they had already entered wardrobes during World War I, when women started taking jobs traditionally carried out by men. But she undeniably popularized them as a fashion garment.

    “The designer liked wearing pants herself (she often borrowed them from her male lovers), and, as early as 1918, began sporting flowy ‘beach pajamas’ while vacationing on the French Riviera. Drawing inspiration from the straight, wide cuts of sailor’s pants, giving them a loose, comfortable shape, she matched them with oversized shirts or sleeveless tops.” https://www.cnn.com/style/article/coco-chanel-fashion-50-years/index.html

    No need for women to go back to being chained by 19th Century fashion, bustles & bows, corsets & crinolines. Not for god, church, or men.

  78. Dee wrote, “I cannot prevent people from lusting after what I have, and neither can she.”

    What do y’all wanna bet, Megan Hill drives an old beater car, cuz she’s afraid if she flaunted an almost-new BMW (or some such), others would lust after her car???!!!

  79. “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.”
    — Deuteronomy 22:5 —
    God said it, I believe it, and that settles it!

  80. Aunt Polly:
    “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.”— Deuteronomy 22:5 —
    God said it, I believe it, and that settles it!

    But what is a man’s garment and what is a woman’s garment exactly? I’ve done some research into historical dress and changing fashion (it’s fascinating). You’ll find the answer isn’t so clear.

  81. Aunt Polly,

    Aunt Polly,
    I’m doomed. Way back when I was stripping tobacco and cutting the ice on the ponds for the livestock in temperatures well below freezing, I committed that sin many a time before the ladies’ version of thermal underwear hit the markets around here.
    I reckon it would have been only proper and holy for me to just die of hypothermia in one of the pig pens.

    ‘Scuse me while I go drink a little wine for my stomach’s sake. God said it. I believe it.

  82. Muslin, fka Dee Holmes,

    I appreciate that point but it actually predates 314 as it is written in Bible, whose author is God.

    Nancy2(aka Kevlar),

    I must have missed the TWW Welcome Pack when I arrived here ten years ago – notepad and pencil with instructions to write down what you don’t like in the Bible and replace it with your own ideas. The last articles have shown that clearly. 🙂
    and pencilwhen I first appeared here ten years ago with inst

  83. “And the book is delivered to him that is not learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I am not learned.

    13 Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men:

    14 Therefore, behold, I will proceed to do a marvellous work among this people, even a marvellous work and a wonder: for the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent men shall be hid.

    15 Woe unto them that seek deep to hide their counsel from the Lord, and their works are in the dark, and they say, Who seeth us? and who knoweth us?

    16 Surely your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the potter’s clay: for shall the work say of him that made it, He made me not? or shall the thing framed say of him that framed it, He had no understanding?

    17 Is it not yet a very little while, and Lebanon shall be turned into a fruitful field, and the fruitful field shall be esteemed as a forest?

    18 And in that day shall the deaf hear the words of the book, and the eyes of the blind shall see out of obscurity, and out of darkness.

    19 The meek also shall increase their joy in the Lord, and the poor among men shall rejoice in the Holy One of Israel.”

    May it happen soon!

  84. Ava Aaronson: “modesty” with regard to women only, right? Men only calling the shots, yes?

    Disparity.

    It’s also a way for men to blame women. Instead of dealing with their own stuff (feelings, anxieties, insecurities, development, maturation or lack thereof, relationship EQ, etc.).

    Blaming women for a guy’s stuff is a common theme, especially common in church society with “theology” to back it up.

    Nailed it right there.

    I remember vividly, at the age of just 14, going to my church youth group Christmas banquet. It was a tradition to get really dressed up. I found an absolutely beautiful dress that covered my chest and went to my knee in a flared skirt. I felt beautiful and grown-up, and I was so excited to wear that dress and go to the banquet with my very first boyfriend.

    When the speaker for the night came on the stage I had to turn my back to the rest of our table (my boyfriend and his friends) to be able to see the stage. It wasn’t until a couple of days later that I was aware there had been a problem.

    You see, my dress shoulder straps attached behind my neck so that they were covered by my hair. The back of the dress zipped up to just below my shoulder blades, so my shoulders (gasp!) were exposed. My very upset, embarrassed, and a little bit angry boyfriend informed me that when my back was turned, the dinner table covered up the bottom of my dress so that it looked like I was naked. One of his friends had taken great pains to point this out and make inappropriate comments while I was looking at the stage.

    Did my boyfriend tell his friend to stop being a pervert and shut-up? Nope. Apparently all of this was MY fault for choosing a dress that was “not modest enough”.

    I look back on all of this now and realise just how ridiculous and horrible these boys were, but back then all I felt was deep shame and sadness. This happened forty years ago, but the memory is still painful.

  85. linda: I hang around with too many “don’t dress funny” as they put it Mennonites. Their theory is God is everywhere, so of course dress all the time in a way that would not embarrass Him to call you friend. And modesty, Biblical modesty at least, is for both men and women and while it includes dressing in a way so as not to incite lust (and no, it isn’t just the lusters problem if we knowingly are inciting it) but also in a way that is not ostentatious or excessively expensive.

    So who is going to decide what “Biblical” modesty is? I mean, seriously. I wore a pair of what I jokingly call middle aged booty shorts and a t-shirt that read “Potential Trouble Source” on Saturday. (Photo available on Twitter for those who follow. Photo was taken by my non-headship younger brother.) Some of my Mormon neighbors might have been offended because I was showing a bit more leg than their religion allows. And don’t get me started on “porn shoulders”!

    Seriously, I think we ALL need to back off on pronouncing what is Biblical and what isn’t. Again, I am NOT NOT NOT the guardian of male chastity and purity. It is NOT MY JOB. It is the job of men to keep watch on their thoughts. I KNOW it doesn’t matter how women dress, you can be covered from head to foot in a headscarf and abaya and yet women still get raped. It is NOT the clothes and we (INCLUDING ME, I got upset about a young woman wearing Daisy Dukes to the data center a couple of years ago and I had to check myself) need to recognize that.

  86. Lowlandseer: I must have missed the TWW Welcome Pack when I arrived here ten years ago – notepad and pencil with instructions to write down what you don’t like in the Bible and replace it with your own ideas. The last articles have shown that clearly.

    Yeah I know. Replacing ideas like slavery and polygamy. I mean, don’t we miss all those patriarchs getting their wives slave girls preggers? Boy are we wayyy behind in executions for moral crimes! Hey, how about marching into our enemies territory and taking more slaves (of course gotta burn and pillage first!) Can you believe it? And head shavings! There should be plenty of bald women around by now!

    And where’s my talking donkey?!? All I’ve got is a tankful of very uncommunicative guppies!

    Yep, gotta stop thinking of equality for all, constitutional democracy that protects the rights of the minority and non-talking livestock! Gotta get biblical!

  87. Lowlandseer: I appreciate that point but it actually predates 314 as it is written in Bible, whose author is God.

    Actually, the Bible is a very human document. While the writers may have been inspired by God at some points, at others, it’s a VERY human document. And, to be blunt about it, during the entire period of the Bible, women were considered male property, owned, as it were, by their fathers, husbands, brothers or some other male relative. The reason it’s not mentioned in the Biblical texts is because it was absolutely baked into society that women were male property.

    I’m going to be blunt here–I do not accept the societal view of the Biblical texts that women are male property, just as I don’t accept the casual acceptance of chattel slavery in the biblical texts. I don’t believe those statements were inspired by God but were definitely from the minds of men.

    In fact, if there was ever an argument that the biblical texts are definitely from the minds of men, all you have to do is look at Philemon, where Paul hints broadly that Philemon should free Onesimus. But he doesn’t tell Philemon right out to free Onesimus. Nor does Paul state that chattel slavery is wrong. And that’s because chattel slavery was baked into Roman society, particularly when something like a quarter of the people living were enslaved. It would have never *occurred* to Paul to suggest that slaves be freed. And so we live even down to today with the consequences.

    It may have not occurred to you, as a man, what it might be like to be owned by an enslaver. Yesterday, I read an essay by an American woman who, through genetics, is more slightly than half white, even though all of her ancestors going back 160 years are Black. And why is that the case? Because when her ancestors were enslaved in the South prior to the end of the US Civil War in 1865, those very pious enslavers saw Black women as chattel slaves, knew they owned them body and soul, and proceeded use them sexually. Oh, and then they didn’t claim the resulting children as their own, because they just *weren’t*, because they had been born of Black women. And these very pious enslavers had absolutely *zero* problem with selling or mortgaging off their own flesh and blood.

    So you will absolutely pardon me if I get a bit tetchy about the idea that God wrote the Bible. No he didn’t. Men did, and we’re still dealing with the consequences of same all the way down to today. Maybe you should step out of your very privileged position and see how your interpretation of the Biblical texts can lead to very negative results for people who aren’t elite males.

  88. Muslin, fka Dee Holmes: Because when her ancestors were enslaved in the South prior to the end of the US Civil War in 1865, those very pious enslavers saw Black women as chattel slaves, knew they owned them body and soul, and proceeded use them sexually.

    I have heard secondhand about “Millenial Furries” at Furry Fandom conventions who not only think slavery is OK (if the animate property is a genetic-construct furry), they initiate the conversation and specifically focus in on an owner’s Sexual Rights to his Animate Property.

    Oh, and then they didn’t claim the resulting children as their own, because they just *weren’t*, because they had been born of Black women.

    The One-Drop Rule: If only one of your ancestors (retroactive unto Eternity) was Not White, YOU Were Not White.

    In New Orleans, things were a bit different. Before the Louisiana Purchase brought in “Kaintuck” domination (and race attitudes), French Colonial culture recognized “Free People of Color” who had most of the rights (including forming militias and owning slaves) of the white Creoles.

    It was customery for Creole young men from the best families to not marry until they were well into their Thirties and established. Until then, they would take a colored mistress. This arrangement would be public (including social functions) but not mentioned in polite Creole society. These were usually Free Women of Color who were mixed race, and the arrangement inclued that if he got her pregnant, he had to acknowledge any offspring as his bastards. (Bastardy in that context simply meant they were out of any line of succession or inheritance, but the father would still be known and responsible.)

    And these very pious enslavers had absolutely *zero* problem with selling or mortgaging off their own flesh and blood.

    How do you think Thomas Jefferson (who had NO money sense) kept the collection agencies off his ass? Breed some Brown Sugar and sell off the results. That’s why there are so many Black Jeffersons at the reunions of descendants. (Took a little time, but they are now accepted by the more established White Jeffersons.)

  89. Muslin, fka Dee Holmes: So you will absolutely pardon me if I get a bit tetchy about the idea that God wrote the Bible.

    Only if you take the Islamic definition of “Inspired”, except dictated word-for-word by God in Kynge Jaymes Egnlyshe instead of classical Meccan Arabic. ANd that ides IS widespread.

  90. one of the dones: Jeffrey Chalmers:
    one of the dones,
    For example, high heels were worn by rich men..
    Exactly, and to show off their shapely calves! One of many examples…

    High heels with hose, no less! (To hide their hairy legs, maybe? Who would want to shave their legs with a straight razor???)
    They also wore their hair relatively long, and pulled back into a ponytail and tied with a narrow ribbon.

  91. Lowlandseer: TWW Welcome Pack when I arrived here ten years ago – notepad and pencil with instructions to write down what you don’t like in the Bible and replace it with your own ideas.

    TWW encourages many things. Lockstep thinking is not one of them.

  92. Nancy2(aka Kevlar): High heels with hose, no less! (To hide their hairy legs, maybe? Who would want to shave their legs with a straight razor???)
    They also wore their hair relatively long, and pulled back into a ponytail and tied with a narrow ribbon.

    You forgot the powdered wigs. Some men, including some US Founding Fathers, wore powdered wigs. Initially worn by kings because they had premature balding, powdered wigs became de rigeur among the cultured classes because it was easier to shave one’s head and put on a wig that had been deloused than it was to delouse one’s head of hair.

    The age of the powdered wig ended in France with the Revolution, and shortly thereafter in the UK when wig powder was taxed in 1795.

    “I’m sure you all wanted to know that,” she said as she stuffed her hair in a baseball cap.

  93. one of the dones: just how ridiculous and horrible these boys were

    Nice. Put the ridiculousness and the horror on the ignorant where it belongs. LOL – ridiculous little bully boys taking their cues from the big little bully boys who misinterpret the Bible as they weaponize God’s Word against women.

    Your dress sounds lovely.

    This is why I have a great appreciation for @MargMowczko who unpacks Scripture with scholarship while correcting false teaching.

    BTW, I read your moniker as “one of the drones” which I thought was kinda cool – having drones hovering over us here at TWW.

  94. Muslin, fka Dee Holmes: “I’m sure you all wanted to know that,” she said as she stuffed her hair in a baseball cap.

    Yep! I knew about the wigs, but it slipped my mind, she said as she sat here with hair so short ….. she has it cut up to the hairline in the back and on the sides…. and layered short all over!
    (If the apostle Paul ever saw me with long hair, glory would be the last word he would think of!)

  95. Ava Aaronson: ridiculous little bully boys taking their cues from the big little bully boys

    A lot of times, I’m glad was raised on a farm and expected to hold my own with a bunch of rough and tumble boys.

  96. one of the dones,

    “I look back on all of this now and realise just how ridiculous and horrible these boys were, but back then all I felt was deep shame and sadness. This happened forty years ago, but the memory is still painful.”
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    sorry bout that, one of the dones. i totally understand. nothing like a lame dodohead remark from an unaware poopoohead. hopefully he’s grown up since then (the passage of time is no guarantee, of course)

  97. I could be wrong, but I’ve always thought that modest as used in Scripture is the opposite of extravagant – not about how much skin shoes.

  98. The more concerning part to me in that article is here: “And so we dress as people under authority. A parent’s rule about particular outfits, the dress code at school or camp, and the guidelines at the pool or workplace—no matter how arbitrary they may seem—were given by authority. We throw off such rules at the peril of our souls; we joyfully submit to them under the Lord.”

    The issue of what we wear has been turned into a litmus test of salvation. The author asserts (usurps?) the authority of God, saying that to disobey a rule about clothing will place my soul in eternal peril!

    Appears that under this theological system the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ covers most sins, except for women who wear the wrong clothes. (maybe that is what they mean by “limited atonement”?)

  99. Isn’t it funny how the ancient Greco-Roman world extolled the male form as the ideal of perfection and how it carried over into the Renaissance with Michelangelo’s David.
    Full frontal nudity with sculpted genitalia, and nary an eyelash batted.
    So what happened all of a sudden when the female form became a source of controversy, prurient interest, and hand-wringing about ‘the public decency’?

  100. Muff Potter: So what happened all of a sudden when the female form became a source of controversy, prurient interest, and hand-wringing about ‘the public decency’?

    Countless old icons, paintings, and sculptures show baby Jesus nursing. Many show Mary’s breast very specifically. This imagery was accepted in plenty of traditions and countries.

  101. Rapid Roy (The Stock Car Boy): The issue of what we wear has been turned into a litmus test of salvation.

    Which can take a number and stand in line with all the other Litmus Tests of Salvation.

    P.S.
    “Rapid Roy (that Stock Car Boy)
    He the best driver in the land;
    They say he learned to race Stock Car
    Runnin’ ‘shine outa Alabam’;
    Demolition Derby and the Figure Eight
    Are easy money in the bank
    When you’ve been runnin’ from The Man in Oklahoma City
    With a five hundred gallon tank!”

  102. Rapid Roy (The Stock Car Boy): Appears that under this theological system the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ covers most sins, except for women who wear the wrong clothes. (maybe that is what they mean by “limited atonement”?)

    “A male god in a male church creates a male faith that takes the concept of woman & molds her into an ornament to better reflect male supremacy.”
    – @tufftaffy
    #Misogyny #ReligiousTrauma #FleeSBC

    Women who want to be an ornament to better reflect male supremacy, sign up.

    All (men & women) who desire to be a tool of an authoritarian dynasty, join.

    This is what I’ve long had against these so-called women’s Bible studies that have been pop culture in churches, almost universally. The woman leader seems to be spreading her ornament-ism, cutesy-cutesy personality lady in her girly outfits with supposedly entertaining self-deprecating charm and little girl voice. Nope, not everywoman by far. Yuck. Cash cow lady for a male dynasty, in any case. Any of us can read the Bible ourselves with our girlfriends and avoid kowtowing & paying the ornament lady.

  103. Headless Unicorn Guy,

    I remember when I was a teenager my dad telling me how when he was closer to my age everybody wanted to be different. They would wear X, Y and Z because that meant they’d be different. Of course, everybody was then wearing the same things, which defeated the purpose entirely.

  104. CigarDawg: What if I’m in the shower when he pops in for this chat?

    Wasn’t there a scene like that in the George Burns movie Oh God?

    “But I’m NAKED!”
    “You think I don’t know what you’ve got?”

  105. Muslin, fka Dee Holmes: It would have never *occurred* to Paul to suggest that slaves be freed.

    I don’t quite know what you meant by “*occurred*” or “suggest”.

    The text I’ve got is actually heavy with the issue (but then I only read heretics’ Bibles). All letters in those times were read en route by non-addressees.

    Paul (not TM) wants us to figure out our actions and to trust Holy Spirit (not TM) in us.

    The SBC told you follow Jesus (TM) and gain political influence.

    Paul (not TM) threw away his political influence when he trusted Jesus (not TM) (“I count but nought”).

    And, if Paul (not TM) had NOT followed Jesus neither the Jewish nor the Roman establishment would have allowed him to advocate that anyway.

    Divinely inspired doesn’t mean what the designer outlet fundagelical televangelist megapastor superapostles tell you it means.

    It was evidently intended by our Father (not TM) that certain writings have permanent status and benefit, for one thing due to their closeness to eyewitnessing as well as internal witnessing, when given their Holy Spirit meanings. It’s likely that some such were lost early. Moreover, early and subsequent church and human history have had their darknesses and the reason we haven’t got more Scriptures is probably nothing to do with the sort of micro-dispensations some talk about.

    The SBC “justify” their bossiness by inventing a bossy fake Paul.

  106. Michael in UK,

    The US (the offshoot of Britain) didn’t pay the Russian king enough for Alaska, to compensate serfs as well as serf owners. Alaska would have been a wonderful living for ex-serfs (and would have boosted Siberia) who would have been humane towards Alaskan native peoples as well.

    We don’t know about Philemon, but some estates probably only ticked over so as to provide personnel with a living as it was (and we do know there was cruelty to some) but not enough to settle a large enough sum on each. Maybe he would have had it confiscated so he couldn’t anyway. I expect it was a big affair in his mind to not be as cruel as other masters.

    Freeing branded runaways (as well as not branding them) was evidence of huge skulduggery of some kind, and not only to non-runaways.

    Thus, on balance, my hunch is, an awful lot of things “*occur*” to an awful lot of people . . .

    Pharisees and SBC paint society as only two kinds of people but in the real real world, God wants 8 billion individuals.

    The lot of Paul (not TM) was, and I quote, nakedness, betrayal, flogging of his life several times. Even Carson wrote about this – why has he changed his tune? Paul saw the need for a basis that the SBC don’t see, and that isn’t micromanaging, string pulling, button pushing or glove puppeteering.

  107. Wouldn’t the androgynous clothing be the best option for women if they really want to protect men from lust?

  108. Bottom line is as a woman I wear what I please. I’m of course appropriate in my dress but most important I’m comfortable. If the church has issues with it to bad! Women should be appropriate not dressing to put it all out there but if her clothes accents and compliments her and she is happy then that’s all that matters. If men have a problem with wondering eyes then they can do what the Bible says if your eyes cause you to sin then cut them out! Or else don’t look!

  109. Shauna: Bottom line is as a woman I wear what I please.

    Good for you Shauna! Good for you!
    If they (the fundagelical fashion police) worried half as much about how they treat each other as they do about what a woman wears, we’d finally be getting someplace.