On Modesty and Individual Freedom

My Twitter feed follows a wide variety of Christians from many different denominations.  My focus tends to be more on Evangelical Christians, with further emphasis on the Reformed branches.  All that to say, the folks that I'm following on Twitter tend to be reasonably conservative in their Biblical viewpoints and interpretations, and tend to have high moral and ethical standards for their lives.

Among even these Twitter persons (Tweeps, I guess?), there seems to be an interesting trend of posts that I've seen regarding personal modesty.  The posts vary, but have a general flavor like so:

I'm so tired of hearing people tell me that I cannot wear XYZ clothing.  Men's lust because of what I wear is their problem, not mine.

In one case recently this was also followed up with a Biblical reference to Jesus's teaching:

Notice that Jesus didn't say, "If your eye causes you to sin, blame the woman wearing the yoga pants."

Unfortunately, I think the points-of-view that drive these kinds of posts have more to do with upholding cultural values than they do actual Biblical exegesis, but I want to offer a caveat before we dig in there.

First, I believe that the responsibility for sin is an individual responsibility.  I cannot blame any of my sins - whether they are wandering thoughts of lust for someone exposing or accentuating certain parts of their body, or glutinous consumption of food, or alcoholism, or murder - on anyone but myself.  It is my responsibility to abstain from sin.  Furthermore, in at least some of these cases mentioned above these posts are a reaction to the claims of abusers saying things like, "Well, his/her clothing invited me, so it was his/her fault."  Weakness and temptation on one person's part does not shift the blame for sin onto someone else.  Abusers, those addicted to pornography, etc., cannot absolve themselves of the guilt or blame for their sins by throwing it onto the object of their abuse or temptation.  That is wrong, and none of what I am about to say below is, in any way, an attempt to shift guilt or blame.

I'll also say that, on the subject of modesty, I'm not arguing for some exceedingly strict standard - covering everything from the clavicle to the ankle in some flowing dress.  There is some level of reason and compromise that ought to be taken into account when discussing this subject, and heading to extremes is almost always the wrong response to Biblical teaching.  The opposite extreme [to shifting blame] is equally ridiculous - if there are no requirements for modesty, and men and women are completely responsible for their own thoughts, however lustful they are, then it shouldn't be a problem for women to walk around topless, right?  Or how about completely nude?

All that said, I believe that the attitude expressed by many that I've come across on Twitter lacks something incredibly Biblical, despite the claims to the contrary.  My case for this stems from two different places in the scripture.

The first, and most commonly cited is in 1st Timothy 2.  The passage says:

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. (1 Tim 2:8-10 ESV)

A literal reading of this passage would bar women from wearing braided hear, gold, pearls, or expensive clothing.  I know of very few, if any, American Christians that subscribe to this reading of the passage, and I think there's something deeper at work, here, than the specifics of what Paul instructs Timothy - that is, there is a principle in this teaching.  My reading of this passage is that Paul desires that women (and men, for that matter) should dress in a way that does not attract undue attention to themselves simply by what they're wearing, but, rather, that the attention should be based on righteousness ("lifting holy hands") and good works.  The application of this argument, then, would be that, if your clothes - a fancy suite, an expensive dress, jewelry, a tight shirt, a short skirt, or a bikini - are what draw attention to you, then you probably shouldn't be wearing it.  I know that isn't a particularly popular opinion, but it is the conclusion that I draw from reading this.

Putting that argument aside, there's actually a much more important principle that is worth consideration when discussing the topic of modesty.  This one Paul addresses in multiple letters, but most notably in the book of Romans:

Therefore let us not pass judgment on one another any longer, but rather decide never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother. I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself, but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean. For if your brother is grieved by what you eat, you are no longer walking in love. By what you eat, do not destroy the one for whom Christ died. So do not let what you regard as good be spoken of as evil. For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking but of righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. Whoever thus serves Christ is acceptable to God and approved by men. So then let us pursue what makes for peace and for mutual upbuilding.

Do not, for the sake of food, destroy the work of God. Everything is indeed clean, but it is wrong for anyone to make another stumble by what he eats. It is good not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything that causes your brother to stumble. The faith that you have, keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the one who has no reason to pass judgment on himself for what he approves. But whoever has doubts is condemned if he eats, because the eating is not from faith. For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin. (Romans 14:13-23 ESV)

There's also some relevant text on this in First Corinthians:

However, not all possess this knowledge. But some, through former association with idols, eat food as really offered to an idol, and their conscience, being weak, is defiled. Food will not commend us to God. We are no worse off if we do not eat, and no better off if we do. But take care that this right of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak. For if anyone sees you who have knowledge eating in an idol's temple, will he not be encouraged, if his conscience is weak, to eat food offered to idols? And so by your knowledge this weak person is destroyed, the brother for whom Christ died. Thus, sinning against your brothers and wounding their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ. Therefore, if food makes my brother stumble, I will never eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble. (1 Corinthians 8:7-13)

In both of these passages, Paul is discussing how to approach eating certain foods (or drinking certain drinks).  In both of these cases, the answer is pretty clear, that what God created is clean, and eating food, whether sacrificed to idols or not, is perfectly acceptable.  However, there were those who had issues with this, who felt that they were sinning by doing it - and, to these people, Paul advises them not to eat - that conscience matters.  What's more interesting than this, though, is Paul's instructions to those who are at liberty to do these things.

First, let's note the things that Paul does not say regarding this:

• It is your right to eat whatever you want, therefore do it.
• Your brother's issue with food is his issue, not yours.  He should take responsibility for it.
• If your tongue causes you to sin, chop it off.  It is better for your brother to be able to exercise his rights.

Sound familiar?  Probably so, because it's what we tell ourselves all the time.  What Paul does say is:

• ...never...put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of your brother.
• By what you eat do not destroy the one for whom Christ died.
• The kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.
• The faith that you have, keep between yourself and God.
• Food will not commend us to God.
• Therefore, if food makes my brother stumble, I will never eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble.
• But take care that this right of yours does not become a stumbling block to the weak.

That's nice, but what does that have to do with modesty, you ask?  Everything.  Let's play a little substitution game:

• By your yoga pants do not destroy the one for whom Christ died.
• With your bikini [swimwear] do not destroy the one for whom Christ died.
• The kingdom of God is not a matter of clothing, but of righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.
• Your clothing will not commend you to God.
• Therefore if my short skirt causes my brother stumble, I will never wear short skirts, lest I make my brother stumble.
• But take care that this right to wear whatever you want does not become a stumbling block to the weak.

Ah, now we're a little closer to home, aren't we?  There's more than just "my right" to take into account when I pick out what I'm going to wear.

But, wait, there's more.  It turns out that modesty is actually just a symptom of a much larger issue - that our western, individualistic culture has taught us that personal freedom and rights are of paramount importance.  Don't believe me?  Check out the beginning of the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

While there is part of that sentiment that I wholeheartedly agree with - that all are created equal - the assertion that Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness are unalienable Rights is actually exactly the opposite of Paul's assertion above, and, really, of Christianity as a whole.  Self-sacrifice - the willing relinquishment of our "rights" for the good of others - is the essence of Christianity, because it is the essence of who God is (see Philippians 2)!

Now, some will argue that the principles laid out in the Declaration of Independence (and the Bill of Rights) aren't about whether or not you choose to relinquish those rights, but about the government forcibly removing or violating those rights.  I would agree with this; however, the problem becomes that, when these rights are guaranteed in relation to one group (the government), we seem to be fond of applying that across the board (family, friends, church, etc.).  You won't let the government take away your right to speak freely - good - but will you restrain your own tongue for the sake of your brother?  You believe it is your constitutional right to carry a weapon, but will you freely sacrifice that right for your brother?  What you wear is protected by the freedom of expression, but will you consider your brother's conscience when exercising that liberty?

Let's take it a step further and insert some more practical things, on top of modesty, into Paul's logic:

• By carrying a gun do not destroy the brother for whom Christ died.
• By your clothing do not destroy the brother for whom Christ died.
• By your Facebook post do not destroy the brother for whom Christ died.
• By your alcohol do not destroy the brother for whom Christ died.

Well, that wasn't so bad, was it?  Okay, how about one step further:

• If carrying a gun causes my brother to stumble, I will never carry a gun, lest I cause my brother to stumble.
• If my yoga pants cause my brother to stumble, I will never wear yoga pants, lest I cause my brother to stumble.
• If my Facebook posts cause my brother to stumble, I will never post to Facebook, lest I cause my brother to stumble.
• If my alcohol causes my brother to stumble, I will never consume alcohol, lest I cause my brother to stumble.

Ouch.  That's a little more difficult, and will undoubtedly cause some to protest for a wide variety of reasons.  Yes, this is my extrapolation of the scriptures, but I believe it is faithful to the core of what Paul was trying to convey to multiple groups (Ephesus, Corinth, and Rome) of Christians in the first century - that in God's kingdom, individual rights (liberties) are not absolute.

This is already an incredibly long post, but I feel the need to balance the other side a little bit before calling it quits.  I've dealt mostly with the problem on the side of those who choose to exercise their liberties, but scripture also speaks to those whose consciences restrict them from the exercise of those liberties.  Paul encourages those who are exercising liberties not to judge those who do, and that's equally important.  The fact is, those who tend to be stricter in the allowances for those freedoms also tend to attempt to attempt to restrict others or judge them as being un-Christ-like in their actions.  Paul asserts that God is the only one who can judge His servants, and that He will make them stand.  The temptation to say that someone is not a Christian because they dress a certain way, eat certain food, drink certain drinks, etc., is the other extreme of this problem, and is condemned in equally strong terms throughout the scripture.  Self-sacrifice also involves accepting those with whom we disagree.  But we'll save that for another time.