Three points on Modesty
By way of
introduction, I should point out that “modesty culture” is something I have
mainly learned about online, I have never been personally subjected to its full
force. I’m sure there are good reasons for this, my age, for one (it seems to
have become more virulent in recent years) but chiefly the differences between
Australian and American culture. Our dress codes are a lot more casual all
across the board, and fundamentalism has a much weaker voice. But, as I have
followed the conversations on this subject with interest and not a little
amazement, it seems to me that there are some things I haven’t seen expressed
which ought to be included in the conversation. Below, in no particular order
are three points I think should be mentioned ..
1. Lust is
something more than physiology
I am not sure how
to phrase this, because I don’t know who my readers will be, and I don’t want
to cause unnecessary offence, but nor do I want to beat around the bush and be
coyly obscure. Every adult knows that men have an automatic, involuntary physical
reaction to female attractiveness, but I want to suggest that a purely physical
response is not what the Bible means by lust, any more than salivating at the
smell of delicious food is the sin of gluttony. Lust is an attitude of mind,
not just a physical response. So you notice the distracting beauty of a woman,
so what? Have you sinned? Well, it depends on what you do about it. Do you live
with the inconveniences of the body (there’s a reason St Francis called it “Brother
Ass”) thank God that He made women beautiful and get on with what you’re doing,
or do you think that her desirability somehow gives you the right to objectify
her inside your head and reduce her to a lust object in your imagination? That,
after all, is what pornography does. And pornography as the interior drama of
lust, which reduces women made in their Creator’s image to nothing more than
the means of personal gratification, was not invented in the 20th
century. It is as old as the human heart and has at its root the same contempt
for others which lies at the heart of murder. Remember, Jesus was in every way
tempted as we are, yet was without sin[1]. So yes,
He must have been aware of the desirability of women, yet because He loved them
He never objectified them and did not sin against them. Women were safe with
Jesus not because He was a eunuch, but because He was Love.
2. What did
Jesus say?
Matt 5 makes it
very plain who Jesus held responsible for the lustful heart, 27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit
adultery.’[e] 28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has
already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is
better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be
thrown into hell. 30 And if your right
hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and
throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your
whole body to go into hell.
Yet very rarely do
we hear those side by side verses expounded together. It is not the woman’s
responsibility to preserve a man from lust, it is his own; and if he has to
curtail some part of his freedom and power, analogous to chopping off part of
his own body, in order to stop treating women as lust objects, then that is the
price he must pay. It is always the ones with more power and strength who have
the responsibility to lay down part of their privilege so that others may be
free. A man needs to examine his own heart before he starts blaming women for
his desires. He needs to grow up and take responsibility for himself.
3. Our clothing
talks, but do we know what it’s saying?
Does this mean
then that women can wear whatever they like without regard for “modesty”?
Yes. And no.
I say this because we are asking the wrong
question.
In 1Corinthians 10
Paul says, 23 “I
have the right to do anything,” you say—but not everything is beneficial. “I
have the right to do anything”—but not everything is constructive. 24 No one should seek their own good, but the
good of others.”
You have the
freedom to wear whatever you like, and you are not responsible for men’s
responses, but there is also a place for being wise, not in terms of being
enslaved by someone else’s weakness, but in terms of being certain that your
clothes are saying what you want them to say.
Our clothing sends
social messages. If we didn’t believe that, we wouldn’t care what we wear, but
every time we choose what to wear beyond the minimal requirements of climate
and utility, we are saying something, telegraphing a message about ourselves to
the world. “I mean business.” “I’m classy.” “I’m very feminine.” “I don’t want
to be noticed.” “I take care of myself.” “I’m arty and non-conformist.” “I’ve
still got what it takes.” And so on, for the messages we send with our clothes
are as varied as the all the different personalities which women have, and the
many different roles we play. But these messages are also socially encoded, so
they are read differently in different times and places. And this is where we
can get messed up – we think our clothes are saying a particular thing, whilst
the people around us are reading them differently.
And this is the
point where we need to take responsibility in order, not because we have to to
be asexual or unattractive, but to make sure that the social messages we send
by the way we dress are saying the things we want them to say, and not
misrepresenting us.
No comments:
Post a Comment