Ken wrote: ↑Sun Feb 04, 2024 1:24 pm
Josh wrote: ↑Sun Feb 04, 2024 5:07 am
As my youngest daughter told me recently: "It seems like Christianity tells us that men are in control of everything except their own sexual desires"
The Bible explicitly teaches that women should dress modestly and discreetly, but not because of anything about men’s desires.
Yes, in English there are many words that are ambiguous because they have two different meanings. An example is the word "hot" in reference to food. If you say a dish is "hot" do you mean it is hot off the stove or it has a lot of spice? There is no confusion in Spanish because they have separate adjectives to describe those two different meanings: caliente for temperature and picante for spice. Which actually means "sting" as in a bee sting. So in Spanish you describe spicy food as "stinging" the mouth which is much more accurate than using an adjective for temperature.
Similarly the word "modest" has different meanings in English. Various scholars have done deep dives into the Greek terms αἰδοῦς and σωφροσύνης which get translated to "modest" and which are very rare words used only in those verses. And it seems from the context that Paul and Peter are giving instruction to women on what NOT to wear (adornment and fancy dress, gold braids, etc.) rather than a prescription on what they should wear (conform to a specific religious uniform).
So a more correct interpretation seems to be that they are instructing women to be modest in the sense of dressing humbly. Rather than modest in the provocative sense of not showing an ankle or open toes or any glimpse of skin that might sexually provoke men. Or of revealing a woman's shape which was on Ernie's list above.
I understand this text a bit differently. I don't see this as a list of what not to wear or how to be humble looking but rather as a list of examples of what women might wear to attract attention to themselves through outward adornments. The text does not go on to give a list of what women should wear in detail (it just says modest dress) but rather says the proper thing for a woman who is godly is to be known for her good works. To me, this text is more about what a Christian woman should be best known for. And because the 'but' and what follows is often ignored, I think, people get hung up on the examples given of what women should not wear. And then it gets carried away into wedding bands being wrong to wear or how expensive their clothes are, etc and the main point being made is missed. Be known for your good deeds not in the way you dress.
That does not mean girls and women shouldn't in most circumstances also dress modestly in the sense of not dressing provocatively. That is the point of school dress codes as well as written or unwritten codes for business dress. Each culture has its own norms and mores as to what is appropriate dress. Just like they have norms and customs all other human interactions such as how you greet people, touch each other (handshakes, hugs, kisses on the cheeks, etc.) and so forth. But those are issues of culture more than Christianity.
So while my wife will instruct my girls on occasion about what is appropriate dress in a given circumstance, she does so from the context of social expectations. She doesn't tell them "that outfit is sinful" or that they need to dress in a specific way to be closer to God. With our two younger girls it is almost always (or entirely) an issue of them dressing too casually for an occasion rather than too provocatively.
Dress codes change too. A decade ago torn jeans were forbidden at the school where I taught. Now they have given up on that since it is such the fashion and they only prohibit jeans that have holes above the fingertips (same standard for skirt and shorts length). Basically stand still with your arms at your side and don't show skin between your collar bone and fingertips.
From my point of view, young women already get enough pressure and judgement from society about their appearance and how they dress. They also don't need to be told they are SINNING if they do anything to provoke men. Which yes, very much happens. Not necessarily in the circle of Anabaptist folks posting here, but in many branches of conservative Christianity. The Duggars, for example, taught their girls that "immodest" clothing was sinful because it stirred up desires in boys and and men that could not be properly fulfilled. And they blamed their daughters in part for the fact that one of their sons was a sex offender and pedophile. And their girls were also taught that to dress in violation of the narrow dress code prescribed by their church and Bill Gothard (long plain dresses) would place them outside of God's protection. Seriously:
https://www.amazon.com/Becoming-Free-In ... 400335817/
Times change on that topic too. My grandfather was outraged when his granddaughters and daughters would wear pants. Citing the one single verse in the Bible that addresses this topic: Deuteronomy 22:5. “A woman shall not wear a man's garment, nor shall a man put on a woman's cloak, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord your God." However in the 20th and 21st century pants are not a man's garment. They are also a women's garment, cut to women's sizes and proportions, using designs and fabrics that are flattering to women, and sold in the women's section of clothing stores to women. So even if one wants to arbitrarily pick and chose specific Old Testament clothing dictates such as Deuteronomy 22:5 and ignore others such as Deuteronomy 22:11 (prohibiting blended fabrics). It still doesn't apply if my daughter goes to the mall and buys a pair of jeans from the women's section of the Gap. Because she is buying a woman's garment not a man's. Pants didn't even exist for men or women when Deuteronomy 22:5 was written. They came many many centuries later, brought into the Roman Empire from 'barbarian" northern tribes (Celts and Germans) who lived in climates where it was not conducive to wearing open robes like in the middle east.
And the odd thing about that whole previous generation's obsession with pants is that dresses are actually more sexually provocative than pants. Much easier to molest and assault a woman wearing a dress or skirt than one wearing pants.
