Ah, what a blessing it is to have "tag team" partners like NightWriter to make a point. Yes, immodesty is all about the immodest person; look at me, it says. And yet, some would suggest that "it's a nation without mirrors"; as if a more mature self-awareness would help young people cover up a bit better. I doubt it; a quick visit to the entertainment section of any newspaper will show you that ignoring "good form" is a great way to get headlines. True modesty is an uphill in any culture, especially ours.
And so, let's take a look at Paul's comments of 1 Timothy 2:9; interestingly, he does not tell ladies to cover up, but rather warns of gold, pearls, braided hair, and expensive clothes being the primary signs of a woman's beauty. In other words, show your worth by your works, not your wealth. The usual interpretation of "cover up with your clothes" is really tangential--it assumes that ladies are trying to draw attention to their bodies by their attire.
A good assumption, but probably misses the greater point; in thinking that one's burqa makes one modest because "nothing shows," one may miss the fact that one of the best ways to draw attention in Cleveland is by wearing one.
On a side note, kudos to KingDavid for an excellent exhibit on "how to love your wife."
Podcast #1047: The Roman Caesars’ Guide to Ruling
-
The Roman caesars were the rulers of the Roman Empire, beginning in 27 BC
with Julius Caesar’s heir Augustus, from whom subsequent caesars took their
nam...
12 hours ago
7 comments:
Or, as Proverbs 11:22 says:
"As a ring of gold in a swine's snout,
So is a lovely woman who lacks discretion."
It is attitude, not ornamentation, that reveals beauty and a sense of what is pleasing to the eye - as opposed to pleasing to the "I" - will always be in good taste, whatever the fashion of the day might be.
Thank you, BB (and thank you, Pentamom), for your kind comments.
"The usual interpretation of "cover up with your clothes" is really tangential--it assumes that ladies are trying to draw attention to their bodies by their attire."
Bingo. The real problem is ladies (or men) trying to draw attention to themselves by their attire (or behavior.) Apparently in the culture instant to Paul's writing, it was particularly manifested in fancy clothes, and that's hardly unique, so we tend to universalize the application, rather than the principle. Yes, revealing one's body is certainly a way of flaunting oneself and so that must be kept in check. But it's only an application, or an example, of what immodesty is and modesty is not, not totality of the thing itself.
I also think it's interesting that in many contemporary discussions of modesty in the Christian community, the focus is always on "being modest so as to not attract unwanted sexual attention and tempt your brothers." Now those things are of course good, but it always struck me as incongruous that the I Timothy verse and that argument were treated as being about the same thing, when there's nothing in the context of I Timothy to indicate that sexuality is anywhere near the top of Paul's mind as the motive for his counsel.
The unfortunate effect of this is what we've been discussing -- thinking that "modesty" is all about neutralizing sexuality, and non-sexual aspects of behavior and appearance tend to get lost in the shuffle. (It also leads to thinking that neutralizing sexuality is what we want to do, which isn't exactly right either, but that's another whole topic.) This leads either to completely ignoring immodesty that is not markedly sexual in its manifestation, or else straining to find some sexual connotation to everything we want to call immodest. One example of the latter would be convoluted explanations from certain quarters of how certain hairstyles (or colors, or what have you) create certain sexual responses in men. Not being a man, I'm not absolutely qualified to judge, but this kind of reasoning always struck me as highly dubious. If we simply realized that modesty is not always about sex, we could just call those hairstyles "flashy" or "showy" and find sufficient grounds in that to avoid them.
Or, to draw a different picture, Hummers with fine leather interiors. Not much sexual about them (I hope, don't tell me if I'm wrong!), but definitely a showy vehicle.
Or McMansions with granite countertops....or....
Right. I was thinking of the tendency to try to sexualize where possible with a great deal of creativity, which I think only ever relates to personal modesty. I suppose someone could go all Freudian on the Hummers or the kitchens, though I'm not going to take the thought one step further, but I was thinking mostly in terms of modesty of the person. I think modesty of cars or fancy homes falls under "neglected areas of modesty because it doesn't fit the sexual paradigm" rather than "how can we sexualize this areas of modesty," per my comment above.
Thank you for the hat tip; but I can't take credit for being such a loving husband. I was told it was ordered and adv that the shed is a cold place to be trying to sleep in this time of year. :)
Sorry, KD, but even under duress, it counts. You're stuck. :^)
Post a Comment