The challenge for western Christians who
are genuinely outward-focused and wanting to function missionally in their
communities is how to navigate the shifting mores of culture without alienating the ability to reach into that same culture while retaining core
Biblical values. But at the risk of sounding pendantic, what are those “core
Biblical values”?
Let’s try something simple: modesty.
Yeah, right. Simple?
When the New Testament was written, Peter’s admonition of modesty would look very different than
today. The Church has shifted with traditional mores often without a lot of
thought…for better or worse.
One hundred years ago, society in general would have been
horrified at what is now considered a tame bathing suit. On the
other hand, archeologists in Sicily have unearthed mosaics of fourth century
Roman women competing in sports with ancient versions of bikinis. Beach volleyball, anyone?
A friend of mine surrendered his life to Christ at age
fifteen in the context of a legalistic fundamentalist church culture.
Passionate and excited, he became a young traveling evangelist of sorts. But at a youth retreat, a middle school girl asked with tearful sincerity
if her friends in gym class were condemned to hell for wearing shorts. His button-downed theology was undone that day and caused him to
question the congregational standard. Today most of us would go, “Huh?”
Most of the Biblical verses attempting to define modesty are
aimed at women (that alone presents an exegetical challenge) and are more
about materialism and ornamentation than cleavage. As a writer, I have to admit
my favorite is: Like
a gold ring in a pig's snout is a beautiful woman without discretion (Proverbs
11:22). What a, uh, picturesque metaphor.
In the famous Supreme Court case Jacobellis v. Ohio, Louis Malle’s film, The Lovers, was on trial to determine whether it was obscene or
not, since the county judge in Cleveland Heights deemed it so and fined a local
theater owner for showing it. Ohio’s Supreme Court upheld the decision as well,
but eventually it landed with the big guys. The Supreme Court reversed the
decision, but there was no real consensus as to why. Two of the justices
believed that the first amendment covers everything and nothing should be censored.
Two of the dissenting judges felt there was precedent and that states had the right to determine what is obscene. The word prurient was tossed around a lot.
But in the end, it was Justice Potter Stewart’s opinion that made the news. He agreed with the majority opinion that the The Lovers was not obscene, but had a difficult time trying to define why and in particular what hardcore pornography was, since he believed the Constitution protected obscenity but not hardcore pornography. He said nebulously, “But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that.”
But in the end, it was Justice Potter Stewart’s opinion that made the news. He agreed with the majority opinion that the The Lovers was not obscene, but had a difficult time trying to define why and in particular what hardcore pornography was, since he believed the Constitution protected obscenity but not hardcore pornography. He said nebulously, “But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that.”
So how do we define morality Biblically? Not as easy as it
sounds.
Under Pope Benedict XVI (the conservative former-Cardinal
Joseph Ratzinger), an impressive Pontifical Biblical Commission tried tackling
the unenviable job of how the Bible defines our ethics and morality, with
current global issues as complex as “violence, terrorism, war, immigration,
distribution of wealth, respect for natural resources, life, work, sexuality,
genetic research, the family and community life.”
They
completed their nearly sixty-thousand word missive with these wise challenges:
“Rather
than to give clear and precise directives, which are in many cases beyond our
competence as exegetes, the purpose of our reflections is to commend an
approach to morality in a different spirit, a breath of fresh air,
derived from Scripture itself. Christian morality will thus be seen in all the
richness of its various features:
· it is concerned first of all with the
fundamental dignity of the human being (in line with the biblical vision of
humanity);
· it seeks its ideal model in God and in Christ
(following the example of Jesus);
· it respects the wisdom of various
civilizations and cultures, and is therefore capable of listening and
establishing a dialogue (convergence);
· it has the courage to denounce and curb moral
options incompatible with the faith (contrast);
· it is stimulated by the evolution of moral
positions within the Bible itself, and in subsequent history, to educate
consciences to an ever greater refinement, inspired by the new ‘righteousness’
of the kingdom (advance);
· it is capable of reconciling the rights and
longings of the human person, so strongly asserted in our days, with the
demands and imperatives of collective living, expressed in Scripture as ‘love’
(community dimension);
· it has a capacity to present a moral horizon
which, stimulated by the hope of an absolute future, transcends a
short-sightedness limited to earthly realities (finality);
· it concerns itself with a prudent approach to
difficult problems, making use of the triple recourse to exegesis, to the
insights of ecclesial authorities and to the formation of a right conscience in
the Holy Spirit to avoid creating ‘short circuits’ in the delicate process of
moral judgment (discernment).”
That's pretty good, I'd say.
On the Q Ideas website, Rachel Held
Evans adds: “…biblical modesty isn’t
about managing the sexual impulses of other people; it’s about cultivating
humility, propriety and deference within ourselves.” I agree. Men have to
own up to their response to stimuli and be responsible for objectification. Otherwise, fundamentalist tendencies will rule and demand burkas for all. Jesus called men
to own their lust and deal with it, even in the most secret, private recesses
of the heart. And at the center of this is simple respect.
She then lists an extremist danger: “We turn modesty into objectification when we hold women responsible
for the thoughts and actions of men.” I agree…but with this caveat: in the
Kingdom we are learning/processing how to prefer others above ourselves and
practice the incarnational Christianity Paul describes in Philippians 2. Women
must have some consideration for their
brothers in regarding their freedom to express themselves attire-wise.
The degree is debatable. A thong at an
Amish barnraising is not smart. The boardwalk at Venice Beach is an entirely different animal. Good luck
with that one. But a desire to honor God within the context of community and culture has to be
considered.
In the end, motivation is critical. And not superficially. Jesus always went for the jugular and
forced his listeners to look at the deepest personal heart issues. And so in a
complex world, perhaps the simplest way to think about this is to ask, What am I wanting to achieve by wearing
what I put on today?
File under: Whaaaat?
