FIFTY SHADES OF MODESTY...

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.”

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?