Defining Modesty

Modesty has been a hot topic in some of my social circles of late, ever since this video began making the rounds. Many people, perhaps the majority among my friends, soundly affirmed the speaker and her commitment to modesty. They decried its demise in American and Western culture. I can understand that. After all, modesty seems like a very good and desirable quality. Who wouldn't want to affirm it?

However, after watching the video I felt disturbed. When I read this article I found that I agreed with the author's critiques. Among other things, in the rush to affirm modesty we miss that the speaker, Jessica Ray, is in fact marketing to us. She is promoting her line of swimwear and with it an understanding of what modesty looks like. And that's a significant problem, because who defines modesty?

Dictionary.com offers three definitions of modesty:

1. the quality of being modest; freedom from vanity, boastfulness, etc.
2. regard for decency of behavior, speech, dress, etc.
3. simplicity, moderation

Most discussion of modesty these days focuses on the second definition, narrowing it even further to standards of dress. More specifically, the discussions focus almost exclusively on standards of dress for women. Those who advocate for a return to modesty generally have in mind some more conservative standard of attire, such as a rejection of bikinis, which is Ms. Rey's particular issue.

Yet the fundamental problem remains: Who defines what is modest? Standards of modesty change from one culture to another and within any given culture over a period of time. What one person considers quite modest might to another person be extremely immodest. As the author of the blog To Every One That Believeth points out, Ms. Rey's dress in her video would not meet modesty standards at BYU, although by other standards it is perfectly modest. Simply covering or exposing skin does not make a woman (or man) modest or immodest. No matter how one defines modesty, it will be too much for some and too little for others. Modesty is ultimately a subjective position. I am free to argue that I like or do not like a person's attire, but by what right do I proclaim that it is immodest and project my standard onto the other person? Even more so, by what right do I judge another person based on what she or he is wearing? (Let's admit that the conversation really comes down to what women wear and our judgment of women for that, because few people seem too concerned about what men are wearing. Guys can go around topless in many social contexts without fear of being labeled immodest and immoral, although I and probably many others would much prefer to not see their bare bellies.)

This leads to a second issue with the modesty debate. All too often advocates of modesty connect what a woman wears with what kind of person she is. A woman who wears a bikini, or bares her shoulders, or arms, or whatever is unacceptable according to the particular definition of modesty, is “obviously” a loose, immoral person. This may not always be stated explicitly, but it underlies much of modesty culture. Let's call this for the falsehood that it is. What you wear does not define what kind of person you are, and if others choose to define you based solely on your attire, then they are the ones in error.

Women are also encouraged to dress modestly for the sake of protecting their dignity and to avoid provoking the men around them to lustful thoughts and actions. In this way women become responsible for the actions of men, rather than men being responsible for their own actions. In Ms. Rey's video, she cites a study at Princeton which she uses to argue that men who see bare female flesh respond mentally in the same way they do to images of tools. In other words, they objectify women. Putting aside the significant flaws of the study, one very limited data sample does not conclusively demonstrate that men naturally respond as animals when seeing women's skin. When we put the burden on women to not provoke men by their attire, we say that men cannot be held responsible for their behavior and that they are incapable of acting differently. That's a low view of men and an unfair burden to place on women. When modesty becomes the means by which a woman must protect herself from inappropriate male behavior, then we have identified the wrong problem and the wrong solution. The problem is the behavior of men and the solution is for men to learn to view women as human beings and treat them accordingly. Instead, modesty allows men to continue to behave like cretins towards women and blames the women for this behavior. Something is seriously wrong with this picture.

I find it interesting as well that the modesty discussion seems to ignore the other two definitions provided above. A modest person – male or female – should behave without vanity and boastfulness. A modest person should express simplicity and moderation. These go far beyond issues of how one dresses to one's very character. This may express itself in one's attire, but more significantly it will express itself in one's attitude and actions. As people of God we should all strive to live without vanity. We should all avoid boastfulness. Scripture says far more about these issues than it does about what one wears. And these standards apply equally to both men and women. I affirm modesty as a principle, but I cannot accept the way in which it has been hijacked lately to define a certain type of attire for women. I am working to see each person as a God-created unique individual and not judge them by what they are wearing, even if I do not personally find it tasteful or appealing. Ultimately people should be able to dress according to a standard that they feel comfortable with, not according to what someone else says is modest and decent. If you want to wear a one-piece bathing suit, I wholeheartedly affirm that. But if you prefer a bikini, than that is your choice as well and it is not my place to tell you otherwise.

On a final note, as a parent of two teenage children – one boy, one girl – I do believe that parents have a right and a responsibility to guide their children in their choice of clothing. But with that comes a responsibility to educate them, to help them develop their own identity and the ability to choose attire that accords with that identity. As parents we play such a formulative role in helping our children define their identity. I think a mistaken emphasis on a false standard of modesty may do more to skew that identity in unhealthy ways than to help them develop true, healthy modesty. I hope, and based on what I see I believe, that my wife and I have managed to achieve a decent balance in this regard.

Danielle, who blogs at From Two to One, did an excellent series on modesty. You'll find the first article in the series here.

Not the Paramount Issue

A couple of weeks ago in a men's Bible study I attend, the leader of the group that week shared about a line he was not willing to cross. He said that a “line-in-the-sand” political issue for him was whether a politician opposed abortion or not and stated that he could not vote for one who did. I can respect that, even though in the context of the passage we were discussing that week (Esther 3), I felt it was rather a stretch to tie this topic into the conversation. At one point in my life I would have adamantly said the same thing. A politician's views on abortion became the single issue on which I would cast my ballot for or against him or her.

I no longer think that way. I no longer believe that one can make a single issue THE deciding factor in supporting or opposing a politician. The world is much too complex for that and the political arena has too many factors involved to make one issue the ultimate criteria. Am I being more godly or ethical to support a politician who opposes abortion but pursues wars which kill thousands of non-combatants? Is a politician more moral if she or he opposes abortion but supports policies that deprive the poor of support? Morality involves a wide range of issues and concerns and cannot be reduced to a single topic. Judging a politician simply by his or her views on abortion is simplistic and naïve.

Interestingly, someone pointed out to me that the Republican party, which has made a big point of their opposition to abortion, has in fact done very little to act on that plank in their platform. As evidence, this person pointed to the period in the Bush era when the Republicans had clear control of Congress and the White House and could have pushed through just about any anti-abortion bill they wanted. In the end they did little, despite their claims to be against abortion. The person who called this to my attention suggested that the Republicans recognize that having this plank in their platform works to their political advantage by attracting the single-issue anti-abortion voters, but if they were to actually achieve their goal, they would no longer have the uncritical support of that group of voters. It is to their political advantage to say there are opposed to abortion but to do little to work against it.

Unfortunately I think that lately this has been less the case, at least in many state legislatures. We see an increasing number of bills that seek to limit access to abortion as a means to eliminate it. We see waiting periods and forced “counseling” sessions and even had the possibility of a woman being forced to have a vaginal ultrasound. I think most of these measures are ridiculous and coercive. They do not respect a woman's individual rights, but treat her like an imbecile who is incapable of making an informed, personal decision. For this reason I oppose such measures.

Despite what the reader may think at this point, I do not favor abortion. I think it should be eliminated, but not by legal restriction. I think it should be eliminated by providing an environment in which women have better choices. This may include better adoption support, better support during pregnancy and after delivery for all women but particularly for those who find themselves in difficult circumstances, unable to adequately care for this new baby. I support the use of contraceptives so that women (and men with them) have more control over the timing of pregnancies. I want to see a culture in which women are not threatened, coerced or forced in any manner – psychologically, physically or otherwise – into sexual activity. Let's do all we can to eliminate “unwanted” pregnancies so that abortion becomes essentially a procedure used only in rare cases. We need to affirm the value of life holistically, including the lives of women.

I want to vote based on a broader ethical platform, one that recognizes that the Kingdom of God encompasses a wide range of issues and choices. For example, I'm not going to automatically support a politician who opposes abortion but promotes the exploitation of our environment. I'm not going to support a pair of candidates who oppose abortion but push for a budgetary policy that guts support to society's weakest and most vulnerable while cutting taxes for the wealthiest. These are also moral issues and I can no longer say that abortion trumps them all. The issues are too complex for that.

Abortion is certainly a political topic and if it is significant to you, then you should factor that into your voting decisions. However, I encourage you to think about other important issues as well and recognize that by supporting an anti-abortion politician (call them pro-life if you prefer), you may at the same time be lending your support to other issues that are also of significance to a voter who wants to see the values of the Kingdom furthered in our society.

Some Thoughts on Laying Down the Sword

While in the local public library recently I noticed a book on display entitled Laying Down the Sword: Why We Can't Ignore the Bible's Violent Verses by Philip Jenkins. I didn't immediately check out the book. In fact I put it back on the shelf, left the library and only returned to check it out the next day after a night of thinking about what the book might have to say. I will not argue that the book is profound, but it is thought-provoking and worth consideration by anyone who ascribes some type of authority to the Bible.

Jenkins starts with the fact that the Bible contains verses that describe actions which to our modern sensibilities are reprehensible and unacceptable. In fact, were we to encounter a description of such actions today we would likely refer to them as genocide. He has in mind particularly the stories of the Israelite conquest of Canaan under the leadership of Joshua, though he does make reference and consider other troublesome passages as well. He acknowledges that much of our modern sensibilities, the very ones that should trouble us when we read passages such as those in the book of Joshua, have in fact grown out of a Judeo-Christian tradition and asks how it is possible that we are able to tolerate the existence of such stories in the Bible.

He points to a few primary means of dealing with this disturbing texts. Historically they have often been allegorized, meaning that they have been read not essentially as factual historical documents but as stories that depict in human activities the spiritual realities that humans confront. For example, the battle to drive out the Canaanites might be read as the story of each believer needing to drive out sinful characteristics in his or her own life. These types of readings occurred more frequently early in church history and often seem quaint and unrealistic to modern readers.

Another response has been to project contemporary believers into the place of the Israelites and assigning whatever enemy they faced to the role of the Canaanites. In this way people could justify the fight against and even the annihilation of other ethnic groups. This response should rightfully trouble us, but continues to hold merit in certain circles even today. Jenkins shows how this type of reading has led to very “unchristian” behaviors, including massacres and genocides, perpetuated because of a particular biblical hermeneutic. Corollary to this, the violent acts are justified by arguing that the victims were particularly evil, unholy and a threat to the survival of righteous people and even of humanity in general. Such a viewpoint may also emphasize the sovereignty of God, arguing that anything God commands cannot be wrong, therefore the annihilation of a nation or city cannot be considered morally reprehensible when God himself has commanded it. God must have his reasons and even when we don't fully understand them, we must accept them.

Yet another response has been to effectively expunge these texts, not removing them from the canon by deletion but by neglect. This, Jenkins argues, has occurred in most Christian churches today. He gives the example of the Revised Common Lectionary and shows how a reader following the readings of this lectionary would never have to deal with the most violent passages of the Bible. A corollary to this approach has been to pass lightly over such passages. In this way one might continue to present the story of Joshua taking Jericho but not really consider the full implications of the story in terms of the eradication of an entire city or race.

Many Christians will have difficulty accepting Jenkin's arguments because he makes clear at the beginning of his book that he does not accept as factually historical the stories in which the most violent texts are found. He presents evidence for his position, evidence that will carry weight with some and which others will reject out of hand. However, regardless of how one views the authority and factual historicity of the Bible, Jenkin's book raises questions that Christians should address. Whether one accepts the story of Joshua's conquests as factual history or not, the Christian church has included them in its canon from the earliest years of church history and they have formed a part of Christian theology and worldview. If one rejects them as historical, one must still take into account their presence within the canon and the effect they have had through the centuries. If one accepts them as historical, then one must wrestle with the implications for our understanding of God and his interaction with humanity. The issues are not easily resolved and therefore are generally avoided.

Jenkins raises these questions at this time in part, I believe, because of the number of voices, Christian and non-Christian, that argue that Islam is an inherently violent religion, as demonstrated by its holy book the Quran. Jenkins counters that the Bible in fact contains more passages that clearly advocate and condone violence than anything found in the Quran. Whether one accepts or rejects this, Jenkins presents evidence and arguments that must be taken into consideration. Jenkins also claims that, just as Christianity and Judaism have outgrown their more violent tendencies by and large (allowing for certain fringe groups that would continue to use such passages as grounds for ethnic or religious violence), so there is hope that the voices in Islam that advocate a broader, more tolerant approach to those of different faiths, will gain the ascendancy in Islamic interpretation. Ultimately, Jenkins says, we must remember the context in which any holy text is written and in which it is currently being interpreted and applied.

Jenkins presents some suggestions for how one might read these violent passages. He advocates, like Martin Luther, that the reader “read cleanly,” meaning that he or she must consider whether a given passage applies to the reader today or not. If it does, then the reader must seek to understand how. This approach recognizes what most believers actually practice even if they affirm the inspiration of every word of the Bible: that some verses are applicable to the modern reader and others are not. Jenkins quotes the medieval scholastics, who had a rule: “Quidquid reciptur ad modum recipientis recipitur,” which he translates into English as roughly: “What people hear depends on who is doing the hearing.” Jenkins also advocates reading any text within the larger context both of the particular book and the Bible as a whole. This requires an awareness of the context in which a particular book or story was originally written as well as the overall purposes of the Bible. Finally, Jenkins recommends that readers “read from below,” that is, that we consider each story not only from the perspective of the protagonists, the victors and the heroes, but also from the perspective of the vanquished, the oppressed and the powerless. This requires listening to interpretations coming from voices of those who have been or are marginalized and not simply to those who continue to write from positions of power, privilege and influence.

This book troubled me. It also challenged me to think about and read the Bible differently. I recommend it to others who want to engage with the biblical text that is, not the one we like to think of existing: the one that contains passages that are disturbing, even reprehensible. If we cannot do this honestly then we cannot deal truthfully with those who question the meaning and authority of the Bible.

My Eyes Have Been Opened

I was browsing the internet the other day when this article caught my eye. The editor certainly chose a title that would capture my interest. I read the article and was rather appalled by the assertion of the author. I do not think that making money is inherently sinful, but this author essentially concludes that personal success and happiness is the ultimate moral value. The runs counter to the entire teaching of Scripture, as the author duly notes.

I linked this article to my Facebook page which prompted a colleague of mine to direct me to a second article. He noted that the author of the original article is president of the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights, which reveals an enormous amount about his philosophy--if you are familiar with Ayn Rand. I was not, but this second article greatly enlightened me and at the same time frightened me.

I won't attempt to summarize the second article. My readers would do well to read it for themselves. I say it frightened me because I was completely unaware of the extent to which Rand's individualistic philosophy had infiltrated not only American culture but American church culture. The author's citation of Ravi Zacharias cuts right to the heart of the issue:

"Wealth and enterprise have so woven themselves around the message of Jesus that popular models of Christianity appear as nothing more than self and greed at the center, with strands of Christian thought at the periphery."

Prior to reading this article I would have described myself as inclining toward libertarianism. After reading it I would hesitate to associate myself with the underlying philosophy he describes. I still am sceptical of the role of government, but I see the point in his critique of unbridled libertarianism. It certainly isn't reflective of the message of Jesus. So I stand confronted by the harsh reality that much of my thinking has been strongly influenced by values that are contrary to the values of Christ, without my having even realized this. That's a painful recognition, but at the same time I'm glad I've had my eyes opened and my thinking challenged. I would never have thought of myself as being influenced by Ayn Rand, but now that I see how I have been, I want to correct my course. Otherwise I might as well sign my name on the new moral code espoused by Yaron Brook and the Ayn Randians of the world.

The Paramount Moral Challenge

This week I finished reading an excellent, thought-provoking book. Entitled Half the Sky by Nicholas Kristof and Sheryl Wudunn (who are husband and wife), the book examines the injustices and inequality women around the world face simply because they are women. The authors present a lot of data but illustrate their arguments particularly effectively through the personal stories they tell of women they have met in their global work. They do not concern themselves with issues like equality in sports in America or the "glass ceiling" in the western corporate world. They concern themselves with the life and death issues that women and girls in the majority of the world face, issues like being sold into sexual slavery, dying in childbirth, being killed to protect so-called family honor and having the opportunity to gain a basic education. In the introductory chapter they summarize their conviction:

We believe that in this century the paramount moral challenge will be the struggle for gender equality in the developing world.

After reading their book I would wholeheartedly agree with this statement. These are not simply "women's issues," as they are often regarded. They are human rights issues that should concern us all because God created women and endowed them with value just as great as men. The authors are not inherently anti-male. In fact they readily acknowledge that much of the injustice and mistreatment of women comes at the hands of other women. At the same time they point out that most of the power structures in the world have been dominated by men and therefore issues that affect women have tended to receive minor attention. Issues affecting poor women in developing countries suffer this neglect in particular. As the authors write:

Maternal health generally gets minimal attention because those who die or suffer injuries overwhelmingly start with three strikes against them: They are female, they are poor, and they are rural.

As I read this book I felt at times deeply saddened and at other times very angry that we allow these moral failures to persist. I believe that God's people should be at the forefront of this struggle for women's equality, not lagging behind. I do acknowledge, as do the authors, that believers are actively engaged in promoting women's welfare on many fronts. But I wonder if for some believers theology subtly affects their view of women, blaming them for the fall and therefore ascribing to them lesser value. Or maybe people are just not aware of the situation that women and girls in the developing world face and therefore do not realize the great need for changing that situation. Reading this book will certainly change that. Sometimes our strong support for one area, such as standing against abortion, inadvertently causes us to oppose activities that actually provide great assistance to women and in the end actually reduce the likelihood of them seeking abortions. The issues are complex, far more so than they often appear to us in our western cocoons.

Even prior to reading this book I felt a strong desire to do what we as a family can to promote the equality and empowerment of women. But I didn't have a clear idea what we could do, other than the ways we are already engaged in supporting some of the women we know here and our support of two girls through Compassion International. The authors helped me by presenting a list in the appendix of organizations that work to protect and promote women and girls. Even if I can't travel to Africa, Asia or other area, I can direct some of my giving specifically to support these organizations. Some sites even allow you to make direct contributions to specific women or projects. Two of these are kiva.org and globalgiving.org. Kiva allows you to loan money to specific women who are seeking to develop their businesses. The loans are distributed through various local organizations. In most cases the money is repaid to you after a period of time, allowing you to reinvest it in another woman or project. (Currently you receive no interest on your loan, but because it is a loan you cannot claim it as a charitable contribution.) Globalgiving allows you to donate to a wide range of projects including small business development, education and healthcare. Contributions through Globalgiving are tax-deductible in the United States.

These days we hear a lot about the need to fight against terrorism. Some have made this the most pressing issue of the century. I would agree with the authors of Half the Sky that fighting for the education, health and equality of women is actually more pressing and will in the long run prove more effective against terrorism than dropping bombs and waging military campaigns, even if at times those too may be necessary. I hope that this book will stimulate the growth of the currently small movement to change the situation of women and girls around the world. I for one am fully behind it.

Why are we not appalled?

I was appalled to read this article in our local paper this morning. I'd like to say that I can't believe that Christians would be so willing to support torture, but the reality is that I've heard comments to that effect among various people I know. One blog I read went so far as to say that the methods the US government has used aren't really torture anyway. They are just "uncomfortable things." Would we call them that if they were being used to convince believers in other countries to renounce their faith? Or would it be torture in those cases? I don't think we can have it both ways.

We can apply the ever-popular WWJD to this issue. I don't think it's hard to reach an answer. I cannot imagine that Jesus would ever condone the abuse of another human being. I understand the desire to protect ourselves and our loved ones. But that does not justify tormenting other humans to extract potentially useful information. Our safety and security is not the highest priority. Living Christlike lives before the nations is. I think many in the American church have misplaced their priorities. We value our lives and our way of life more than our God. Could God say of us what is said to John of the brothers and sisters who have gone before us, that "they did not love their lives so much as to shrink from death"? (Rev. 12:11) I would rather go to the death than to stain the name of Christ by condoning immoral, unjust behavior including torture.

Some might say, "But if we do not oppose evil it will overcome us and there will be no opportunity to be God's witnesses." I'm not saying we should not oppose evil. I am saying that we cannot use evil to oppose evil because then we can no longer offer a better example. We lose the moral high ground the minute we adopt immoral methods. Notice what precedes the words I just cited from Revelation 12:11. It says: "They overcame him [Satan] by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony." They didn't do it through force of arms. They didn't do it by resorting to the evil methods of their enemies. They did it through their testimony to the saving grace of Jesus Christ. It's pretty hard to communicate the message of Christ's love when you're torturing someone, isn't it?

I think that the Christians in the United States should be the first ones calling on our government to renounce torture. We should be setting the example and leading the charge, and not the charge to put suspects to the rack in order that we might feel safe and secure. As the article I mentioned earlier reminds us, we've dropped the ball too many times in the past. Let's not drop it again this time.