Appropriate Apparel

[Ploutos]

Having lived much in tropical climates, and with my work in summers involving 14 hours in the pitiless sun, I contend that those people lived in misery and died young. While I hide skin from the sun (big hat and long sleeves), there is nothing more miserable than too much coverage indoors on a muggy day--say in a southern church with no AC. God made skin to cool mankind by means of sweat--holding that all in neck to ankle is just defeating a lovely, natural, God-given function.
As for swimming--you simply cannot expect a woman to swim in a neck-to-toe dress--though I know some who will only allow their wives to go to the beach that way. It is not possible (or safe, in any amount of surf) to move through the water dragging all that fabric. And to segregate bathing areas would mean I couldn't go swimming with my daughters, which is one of our favorite hot summer afternoon things to do.

What do you consider to be acceptable for women and girls at the beach, in terms of apparel?

 

[Pomopu]

It's been some time since I glanced over it, but doesn't it effectively put the kibbosh on mixed bathing--like males and females should never be near water at the same time? Maybe I got the wrong impression of it, but it struck me as an over-reachingly fundamentalist. It's that sort of thing that starts measuring sleeves and hems and misses the point that modest apparel need not be excessive apparel.
There are outfits fit for climates that would be oppressive, uncomfortable, and horrible in others; there are clothes suited to some activities that are not to others. A universal rule of coverage (which again If I recall correctly, is the logical conclusion of the booklet) I think goes beyond what the Bible means when it enjoins modesty. I guess others disagree.

It is interesting, that pamphlet. He claims, "God’s people should be covered. And the Biblical model suggests a standard of at least neck-to-below the knee." Wild! Surely there is more nuance, surely more liberty. I felt like I was getting beat over the head by someone telling me not to eat food sacrificed to idols in that pamphlet. With the hermeneutic he pries into scripture with, he could prove almost anything about how God's people "should be." He says this right after quoting Calvin, who says clothing is an "indifferent matter. . .it is difficult to assign a fixed limit, how far we ought to go."

I don't want to waste the energy typing up an essay on that pamphlet. Just call me a "Calvinist" on this issue, because I'm with Mr. Calvin, not with the passionate pamphleteering chap.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

I felt like I was getting beat over the head by someone telling me not to eat food sacrificed to idols in that pamphlet.

Just to mention, Paul does overall discourage the eating of meat sacrificed to idols, and sums up with a denouncement of it (1 Corinthians 10:19-20).

 

[Pomopu]

Just to mention, Paul does overall discourage the eating of meat sacrificed to idols, and sums up with a denouncement of it (1 Corinthians 10:19-20).

For sure! Of course, Paul makes it very plain there is nothing intrinsically wrong with doing so. But imagine someone writing a pamphlet denouncing this technically permissible thing in ultimate terms! This is what I just read. Someone seizing a wisdom issue, how much or little clothing, and making it a moral imperative for all time and place and person, which is entirely unfounded.

EDIT: Frankly maybe I'm so opposed because selfishly I want to wear a T-Shirt, I want it to be O.K that I"m wearing a T-Shirt, but per the pamphleteer I would be in sin. And maybe because I'd hate to tell my mother she has to get rid of her T-Shirts, etc.

 

[Grant Van Leuven]

Thank you for all this. I was so thankful when this summer at our family conference during an “ask the pastor” meeting, our pastors gave clear counsel to a question a young person asked about guidelines on clothing. I agree that at this time, it seems such congregations’ sizes will stay relatively small because of these clear and loving stances. (But… thankful that God sends times of reformation!)

Thanks for your encouragement.

 

[Logan]

Some of the articles I've looked at that were linked in this thread seem to me to go too far in trying to come to a good position. It assumes a position on "Christian modesty" and "the Christian perspective" without ever proving or defining them from Scripture. It paints a narrative that sounds convincing but without anything other than the narrative to substantiate it.

A lot of positioning is being extrapolated from assuming a specific definition of the translated word "modest" in 1 Tim 2:9. It is assumed it means "covers a lot and isn't sexually appealing" while it may instead have a "not wasteful" connotation, as the rest of the verse indicates (not gold, or pearls, or costly array). I.e., someone who wears modest clothing is someone who isn't trying spending a lot of money and time on it. Of course the principle is there in Scripture, but wisdom is required to know how to apply it.

One would be hard-pressed to find more than general guidelines in Scripture. Clothing isn't described in detail, and when it is mentioned, Christians have never followed it to the letter, e.g., a common "biblical" piece of clothing is a woman's veil, and an extremely "modest" one at that! Yet one which no Christian I know of has advocated. Wisdom is definitely needed and while one should absolutely be cautious about the world's values, I would also be very cautious of making commandments of men into doctrine that isn't found in Scripture.

As I was reading this thread I was thinking about David dancing before the ark of the Lord. Michal upbraids him for "uncovering" himself. I don't know what that entails but I always assumed it meant discarding the royal robes and dancing in less clothes than normal for ease of movement. Regardless, she judges him but it is she herself who is judged by being made barren the rest of her life. Interestingly, Trapp indicates that if it was acceptable for Saul to be "naked" before the prophets, then it's acceptable for David. I don't want to read too much into that historical incident but it does give me pause.

It's good to question your heart and consider "why do I want to wear this? Is it wise to wear this?" But it's also important to not go beyond Scripture and present guidelines that Scripture does not bind all peoples in all places and times to.

 

[Grant Van Leuven]

It's possible to be mechanistic in our conception of cause and effect: if I raise my kids well, they will become Christians; if I pastor my church well, it will grow; if I do this, that, and the other thing, I will become a good Christian. That is definitely wrong because it creates a god in our image who behaves according to human rules.

But it's also possible to go to the other extreme and envision a capricious God for whom our actions are not in any way connected to the outcomes. You said it, though you didn't mean it that way: that was Job's mistake. It is also yours. In the wake of his calamity, Job envisioned a God who whimsically doles out misfortune and prosperity on all with no regard for whether they are righteous or not.

Somewhere in between, we have the witness of Scripture, which states that in this lifetime, we can expect to see God protect and reward the righteous while punishing the wicked. Certainly there are substantial nuances to this, the biggest of which is that we serve a sovereign God who normally works according to certain patterns but is not bound by them, indeed who is not bound by anything within our capacity to comprehend. Some things are part of a larger pattern and point to spiritual applications of this truth that will not be realized in this life. Some circumstances have multiple concurrent threads around which only God has fully wrapped his head.

In light of the Scriptural witness, it is perfectly reasonable to state that a society full of people that dress like harlots is a society that is 1) probably abandoning God's will in multiplicitous other ways 2) inviting God's judgment and 3) likely to experience God's judgment. All 3 are perfectly evident in today's society.

If you were to point out the absurdity of telling people to dress modestly so that God will bless them, so that they can experience the blessings due to them for their great feats of righteousness, I would join you in deriding such a view as the view of Job's 3 "friends". But it's not at all wrong to say that we should call people to do better and pray for our country to do better, out of a desire for holiness and a genuine fear of what we are inviting upon ourselves. It's not wrong to note that views that go against the grain of the times are often unpopular, or to make a connection between the smallness of a church and the faithfulness of its teaching. Of course there may be other reasons as well - issues of pastoral gifting or excessive stridency. But to characterize others in this thread as saying that God is waiting for us to get modest is a straw man, at best.

Thank you for this. Scriptures that come to mind for consideration in regard to these side comments are John 6:25-66; Acts 2:23; Acts 14:22; 2 Tim. 3:12; John 15:18 and 17:14 (as well as the beatitudes).

 

[Grant Van Leuven]

It's been some time since I glanced over it, but doesn't it effectively put the kibbosh on mixed bathing--like males and females should never be near water at the same time? Maybe I got the wrong impression of it, but it struck me as an over-reachingly fundamentalist. It's that sort of thing that starts measuring sleeves and hems and misses the point that modest apparel need not be excessive apparel.
There are outfits fit for climates that would be oppressive, uncomfortable, and horrible in others; there are clothes suited to some activities that are not to others. A universal rule of coverage (which again If I recall correctly, is the logical conclusion of the booklet) I think goes beyond what the Bible means when it enjoins modesty. I guess others disagree.

Per one of the links I provided above, it may not have been obvious that this particular one is a review of the booklet for which several in this thread have indicated an interest in its synopsis: Ryan McGraw, Review of Christian Modesty [the Public Undressing of America booklet], Published Previously in Puritan Reformed Journal). It seems relevant to note that Rev. Dr. McGraw, an OPC pastor, GPTS systematics professor, and Ligonier contributor, is writing from a context of ministering in SoCal (as our church is). https://puritanchurch.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/McGraw-Review-of-Christian-Modesty-2013.pdf

Here are some excerpts from his review of the booklet (which was given to him by a Christian sister in his congregation who picked it up at a national Women in the Church Conference for the PCA):

"This book, however, is one of those rare volumes that may threaten to turn your thinking upside-down on the subject that it addresses. It is my hope and prayer that it does, since Pollard challenges practices that have become ordinary, not only in the world, but in the Church."

"What makes this little book so powerful is that it takes most of the subjective element away from defining standards of dress that are pleasing to God. This does not mean that the author argues for one style of clothing for every time and every place. It also does not mean that he provides a list of modern attire that is acceptable, and another list of attire that is not. He has not idealized any age in the history of the world as a standard. The true strength of this book is that rather than taking the practical effects, or temptations presented by various styles of clothing as his point of departure, he begins by demonstrating from Scripture that from the day that clothing was invented by God, he designed it to conceal human bodies rather than reveal them."

"I must warn you that although the position presented in this book has always been associated with biblical Christianity, it is about as common in the modern Church as the great doctrine of justification by faith alone was when Martin Luther was born. My challenge to you is to read this book, to pray over its contents, and to digest it. It is easy to dismiss arguments simply because they are used to criticize practices that no one questions. It is easy to dismiss a position with terms such as, "strict," "legalistic," "old fashioned," or "impractical." It is one thing to vilify someone or something with labels (which our society loves to do). It is another thing entirely to demonstrate that the Scriptures that have been misunderstood in the attempt to establish a position. Pollard's biblical evidence is a force to be reckoned with. The subject matter in this book is too important to dismiss, ignore, or left to collect dust upon a shelf. We should neither be afraid nor surprised by the fact that the Scriptures often require us to adopt radically different beliefs and practices than those that have been integrated into every level of our society. After all, we are Christians. Christians have no right to submit themselves to any other Master than the Lord Jesus Christ. Like the apostle Paul, we must remind ourselves that if we still seek to please men, we cannot be bondservants of Christ (Gal. 1:10)."

 

[Ploutos]

Some of the articles I've looked at that were linked in this thread seem to me to go too far in trying to come to a good position. It assumes a position on "Christian modesty" and "the Christian perspective" without ever proving or defining them from Scripture. It paints a narrative that sounds convincing but without anything other than the narrative to substantiate it.

A lot of positioning is being extrapolated from assuming a specific definition of the translated word "modest" in 1 Tim 2:9. It is assumed it means "covers a lot and isn't sexually appealing" while it may instead have a "not wasteful" connotation, as the rest of the verse indicates (not gold, or pearls, or costly array). I.e., someone who wears modest clothing is someone who isn't trying spending a lot of money and time on it. Of course the principle is there in Scripture, but wisdom is required to know how to apply it.

One would be hard-pressed to find more than general guidelines in Scripture. Clothing isn't described in detail, and when it is mentioned, Christians have never followed it to the letter, e.g., a common "biblical" piece of clothing is a woman's veil, and an extremely "modest" one at that! Yet one which no Christian I know of has advocated. Wisdom is definitely needed and while one should absolutely be cautious about the world's values, I would also be very cautious of making commandments of men into doctrine that isn't found in Scripture.

As I was reading this thread I was thinking about David dancing before the ark of the Lord. Michal upbraids him for "uncovering" himself. I don't know what that entails but I always assumed it meant discarding the royal robes and dancing in less clothes than normal for ease of movement. Regardless, she judges him but it is she herself who is judged by being made barren the rest of her life. Interestingly, Trapp indicates that if it was acceptable for Saul to be "naked" before the prophets, then it's acceptable for David. I don't want to read too much into that historical incident but it does give me pause.

It's good to question your heart and consider "why do I want to wear this? Is it wise to wear this?" But it's also important to not go beyond Scripture and present guidelines that Scripture does not bind all peoples in all places and times to.

Although most of my posts here have been focused on our society's need to be more modest, I do want to say that I very much agree with this post, and as mentioned above, I would personally stop short of saying we should dress like the Victorians, or like Floridian or Texan beachgoers in the 1910s. I believe there is value in studying such examples because they provide counterpoints to many of the shallow objections that our age throws up to calls for greater modesty. But they are not and should not be turned into prescriptive solutions that we all have to follow. Likewise, I think it's going too far to say that Scripture commands either explicitly or implicitly that we all be covered from the neck to the ankle... Or the knee... Or what have you.

In my context, legalism on modesty is not an issue and not likely to be one in the near future. I'm not interested in provoking my children to anger, for one thing, and that's not a direction where my wife is inclined or tempted to lean either. We don't go to a church, or live in a community, where women are looked down on for wearing anything less than a floor length dress at all times. At our church, and even sometimes in extended family contexts, we are more likely to run into situations where I think the attire is not appropriately modest. It's not as bad as what one would find out in the secular culture, at stores and movie theaters and college campuses and the like, but I find myself dismayed or having to avert my eyes more often than I would like to among fellow believers. So most of my thoughts on the topic trend toward the direction of encouraging people to be more modest, where it comes up. I'm not about to volunteer my opinion to someone else's wife, daughter, or sister, of course; so in real life this essentially translates to my desires for how my wife and daughters dress. But I agree that there's an opposite extreme to be avoided.

 

[Ben Zartman]

What do you consider to be acceptable for women and girls at the beach, in terms of apparel?

Whatever they want: it is not my place to be clothing police to anyone. It is only my duty to keep my heart with all diligence. If I'm too immature to handle what people are wearing, then I should avoid the beach. "If thine eye offend thee, pluck it out" not, "If thine eye offend thee, get all judgmental and tell people they need bigger swimsuits."
Someone who does not guard his heart against lust will not be stopped from it by even the habit of a nun. Better then, to learn to control your thought life in every circumstance than try and make others accommodate you, or have to deny yourself legitimate or necessary activities.
Do I regret vulgar, blatantly immodest, excessively attention-getting clothing? Of course, if for no other reason than I don't want my daughters dressing immoderately at either end of the spectrum. At the same time, we have to live and shine in this world, where seeing the way people dress and behave is inescapable. So I hope I'm an example to them of regarding the lost with pity and compassion rather than censure.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

Ben, it's a jump to equate the desire that Christians would dress modestly with the assumption that we would not regard the lost with pity and compassion. We can do both. Just like we can refrain from cursing and taking the Lord's name in vain, yet have compassion on lost people who do.

 

[Ploutos]

Whatever they want: it is not my place to be clothing police to anyone.

I don't want to transgress the bounds of propriety on this board; at the same time I am legitimately curious how far you take your approach. So I have edited my original reply, which I think is somewhat sensitive in content, by putting it behind the spoiler tag. Moderators, if this is still out of line, I accept reproof gladly.

Spoiler: Original reply here

Would you be ok with your daughters wearing a revealing 2-piece bathing suit that covers less skin than some undergarments? This is not a sarcastic question; I'm asking out of earnest curiosity.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

I don't want to transgress the bounds of propriety on this board; at the same time I am legitimately curious how far you take your approach. So I have edited my original reply, which I think is somewhat sensitive in content, by putting it behind the spoiler tag. Moderators, if this is still out of line, I accept reproof gladly.

Spoiler: Original reply here

Would you be ok with your daughters wearing a revealing 2-piece bathing suit that covers less skin than some undergarments? This is not a sarcastic question; I'm asking out of earnest curiosity.

I'm not moderating here per se JP, but I am keeping up with the thread, and would say that it may be best to stick with argumentation rather than go further in asking things that are more sensitive and personal in nature. That's just my take.

 

[Ben Zartman]

I don't want to transgress the bounds of propriety on this board; at the same time I am legitimately curious how far you take your approach. So I have edited my original reply, which I think is somewhat sensitive in content, by putting it behind the spoiler tag. Moderators, if this is still out of line, I accept reproof gladly.

Spoiler: Original reply here

Would you be ok with your daughters wearing a revealing 2-piece bathing suit that covers less skin than some undergarments? This is not a sarcastic question; I'm asking out of earnest curiosity.

There are 2-piece bathing suits that appear more modest than many other garment options. Much of it boils down to the fashion of it: there are sturdy 2-pieces that are meant to allow comfortable swimming and are better than many other options; there are 2-pieces that have a different purpose altogether. I'd have to to judge based on the intent of the design and of the wearer, as far as I could.
I'm grateful, though, that my daughters have never bent toward the immoderate in their dress, so I've never had to wrestle with what I should or shouldn't allow. They are always more covered at the beach than most, though they shop for their own suits. They just prefer more coverage, I guess. Not having dealt with issues of dress in my family, nor had to think about it much, I may not be much help to others in sorting this issue out.
I don't think you needed to hide your comment behind a spoiler though: we're adults here, discussing how God's law plays out in our lives. I trust it's all to the edification and help of everyone reading, if only to see that brethren can hold different views and still agree on much. "Behold how pleasant and how good that we one Lord confessing...."

 

[Ben Zartman]

Ben, it's a jump to equate the desire that Christians would dress modestly with the assumption that we would not regard the lost with pity and compassion. We can do both. Just like we can refrain from cursing and taking the Lord's name in vain, yet have compassion on lost people who do.

You're right Jeri--I forgot we were talking about how Christians ought to dress. It's easy to drift into related topics, and I seem to be a sucker for rabbit trails.

 

[Ploutos]

Jeri and Ben - helpful answers on both parts. Thank you, truly. I'll bow out for now.

 

[Recipient of Grace]

There are 2-piece bathing suits that appear more modest than many other garment options. Much of it boils down to the fashion of it: there are sturdy 2-pieces that are meant to allow comfortable swimming and are better than many other options; there are 2-pieces that have a different purpose altogether. I'd have to to judge based on the intent of the design and of the wearer, as far as I could.

Perhaps I am misreading this, but are we seriously asking whether or not it is appropriate for a Christian woman to wear a two piece bathing suit? I surely hope not. Under the seventh commandment, all such immodest and revealing clothing is utterly forbidden. Some of the commenters in this thread seem to have focused on the intent of the heart of the woman wearing the clothing, instead of where the focus ought to be: namely, on loving your neighbor as yourself, and diligently guarding against becoming a stumblingblock unto them.

As per the Westminster Larger Catechism:

Q. 99. What rules are to be observed for the right understanding of the ten commandments?

A. For the right understanding of the ten commandments, these rules are to be observed:
6. That under one sin or duty, all of the same kind are forbidden or commanded; together with all the causes, means, occasions, and appearances thereof, and provocations thereunto.
7. That what is forbidden or commanded to ourselves, we are bound, according to our places, to endeavor that it may be avoided or performed by others, according to the duty of their places.
8. That in what is commanded to others, we are bound, according to our places and callings, to be helpful to them; and to take heed of partaking with others in what is forbidden them.

Q. 138. What are the duties required in the seventh commandment?
A. The duties required in the seventh commandment are, chastity in body, mind, affections, words, and behavior; and the preservation of it in ourselves and others; watchfulness over the eyes and all the senses; temperance, keeping of chaste company, modesty in apparel; marriage by those that have not the gift of continency, conjugal love, and cohabitation; diligent labor in all our callings; shunning all occasions of uncleanness, and resisting temptations thereunto.

 

[Theoretical]

Perhaps I am misreading this, but are we seriously asking whether or not it is appropriate for a Christian woman to wear a two piece bathing suit?

Don't think usual underwear in swim fabric by 2 piece. Think coverage more like adding a pair of shorts to a one piece or the equivalent of wearing a shirt and shorts. That's what I suspect he means.

 

[Ben Zartman]

Perhaps I am misreading this, but are we seriously asking whether or not it is appropriate for a Christian woman to wear a two piece bathing suit? I surely hope not. Under the seventh commandment, all such immodest and revealing clothing is utterly forbidden. Some of the commenters in this thread seem to have focused on the intent of the heart of the woman wearing the clothing, instead of where the focus ought to be: namely, on loving your neighbor as yourself, and diligently guarding against becoming a stumblingblock unto them.

As per the Westminster Larger Catechism:

We are not asking: it can be completely appropriate.
The OP asked whether modesty requires full arm and leg coverage. Some seem to be persuaded of that: to their own master they stand or fall. All have varying degrees and ideas of what "modesty" really means. For some of us, it boils down to attitude and intent more than to covered acreage, with coverage only being one moving part in the whole equation.
Those of us who will not set blanket prohibitions on types of clothing for different purposes are also unwilling to accuse women of violating the seventh commandment because they allowed.....what? an inch of leg too much? a shoulder, a (gasp!) navel to be seen? Who decided that two inches above the knee was fine but three was adultery? You?
The WSC you cited is not wrong, but it's quite the onus to put on women that their duty to the preservation of the chastity of others requires they essentially wear a refrigerator box with armholes, and then cover those arms. There's a huge difference to wearing comfortable, context-appropriate clothing, and being wantonly immodest to the destruction of others.

 

[Recipient of Grace]

We are not asking: it can be completely appropriate.

To clarify, when I say “two piece bathing suit,” I am referring to a bikini. Are we on the same page here, as far as it regards definitions?

If we are on the same page, then I shall take the liberty to make the same kind of blanket assertion that you have: It is completely inappropriate, and there should be no debate with regard to this.

1. You know very well that we are called to be a holy and peculiar people, separate from the world; to be chaste, pure, and modest in the sight of God and man.
2. You know very well that the Reformers and Puritans would practically disown you for saying such a thing is acceptable in any public circumstance.
3. You know very well that if I were to post an image of a woman wearing that type of clothing on this forum, the moderators would severely reprimand me for doing so. And what, may I ask, would be their reasoning for doing so? More than likely, “That was an absolutely inappropriate thing to post here.”

I, for one, would not even consider a young lady to be an eligible person to pursue marriage with were I to see her wearing so little clothing.

The OP asked whether modesty requires full arm and leg coverage.

I do not believe that it does, nor have I advocated for that position.

All have varying degrees and ideas of what "modesty" really means.

This sounds like pure, unfiltered liberalism. “Modesty really means what it means to you.”

For some of us, it boils down to attitude and intent more than to covered acreage, with coverage only being one moving part in the whole equation.

This is a fair position, so long as “covered acreage” exceeds 10% of one’s skin.

Those of us who will not set blanket prohibitions on types of clothing for different purposes are also unwilling to accuse women of violating the seventh commandment because they allowed.....what? an inch of leg too much? a shoulder, a (gasp!) navel to be seen? Who decided that two inches above the knee was fine but three was adultery? You?
The WSC you cited is not wrong, but it's quite the onus to put on women that their duty to the preservation of the chastity of others requires they essentially wear a refrigerator box with armholes, and then cover those arms. There's a huge difference to wearing comfortable, context-appropriate clothing, and being wantonly immodest to the destruction of others.

1. You have skillfully dismantled the strawman that you set up in the first paragraph, and frankly, I agree with you on that point.
2. I never said that it was solely on the women to preserve the chastity of others. Far from it. I merely suggested that it was the duty of Christian women to wear clothing that would not be a stumblingblock to their brothers in Christ. I is equally the duty of men to diligently keep their heart from violating the seventh commandment, however, this does not negate the responsibility of the women to wear modest and chaste apparel, rather than sensual and wicked apparel.
3. Your last sentence leads me to believe that you are not, in fact, advocating that bikinis are appropriate for Christian women to wear. If you are advocating for that position, I fear to lay eyes on what you consider to be “wantonly immodest.”

 

[Pomopu]

All have varying degrees and ideas of what "modesty" really means.

This sounds like pure, unfiltered liberalism. “Modesty really means what it means to you.”

No. Ben said, "people understand modesty differently." That is an unobjectionable fact. It is an unassailable fact. This argument proves that it is a fact. That is not unfiltered liberalism. The gloss which is "Modesty really means what it means to you," is an entirely different statement from the observation that you, and I, and Jeff Philophalogus, understand what it is to be modest in different ways--and the gloss is entirely unfair to Ben Zartman's original statement, which isn't making an ultimate metaphysical claim: that what modesty is depends on what we believe it to be. No, not at all!

 

[Ben Zartman]

To clarify, when I say “two piece bathing suit,” I am referring to a bikini. Are we on the same page here, as far as it regards definitions?

If we are on the same page, then I shall take the liberty to make the same kind of blanket assertion that you have: It is completely inappropriate, and there should be no debate with regard to this.

1. You know very well that we are called to be a holy and peculiar people, separate from the world; to be chaste, pure, and modest in the sight of God and man.
2. You know very well that the Reformers and Puritans would practically disown you for saying such a thing is acceptable in any public circumstance.
3. You know very well that if I were to post an image of a woman wearing that type of clothing on this forum, the moderators would severely reprimand me for doing so. And what, may I ask, would be their reasoning for doing so? More than likely, “That was an absolutely inappropriate thing to post here.”

I, for one, would not even consider a young lady to be an eligible person to pursue marriage with were I to see her wearing so little clothing.


I do not believe that it does, nor have I advocated for that position.


This sounds like pure, unfiltered liberalism. “Modesty really means what it means to you.”


This is a fair position, so long as “covered acreage” exceeds 10% of one’s skin.


1. You have skillfully dismantled the strawman that you set up in the first paragraph, and frankly, I agree with you on that point.
2. I never said that it was solely on the women to preserve the chastity of others. Far from it. I merely suggested that it was the duty of Christian women to wear clothing that would not be a stumblingblock to their brothers in Christ. I is equally the duty of men to diligently keep their heart from violating the seventh commandment, however, this does not negate the responsibility of the women to wear modest and chaste apparel, rather than sensual and wicked apparel.
3. Your last sentence leads me to believe that you are not, in fact, advocating that bikinis are appropriate for Christian women to wear. If you are advocating for that position, I fear to lay eyes on what you consider to be “wantonly immodest.”

It is good to know your thoughts. This interaction illustrates perfectly what has been hashed out in this thread: that we all, using the same resources, arrive at various conclusions.
You stated that 10% coverage is minimal. Why that? What if it was the wrong 10%? You see, you're trying to establish a standard that is not in Scripture, one that every generation and person has to work out within the context of their time, place, and circumstance.
You seem to be persuaded at any bikini, however generous, constitutes "sensual and wicked" apparel. I'm saying that like any sort of garment, there's more to the equation than simply two parts. We must each be persuaded in our own mind, and I hope that you find someone to marry who has never worn one.

 

[Ben Zartman]

So far, though, we've fleshed out (heh!) at length the dress of women, but the OP's question certainly regards men as well.
I'm curious if anyone thinks that neck-to-foot coverage is mandated for men as well.
Sleeves--how long?
Pant legs, same question.
Bare feet: ever, sometimes, never?
Swimming: no shirt? No swimming?

 

[Redeemed Ronin]

I get the sense the some of the core concepts have been muddled by jesting and sarcasm. I've also spent too much time on the internet in my younger days, so I'm rather sensitive to this topic. On top of what I said about what your clothing expresses about the state of your heart, the practical general principle seems clear: "Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled, for God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterous" (Heb. 13:4). Combined with other teachings in the Bible, including the 7th commandment, you could interpret this as: "Keep sexual intimacy pure and within the context of marriage." (I'm not a minister or scholar, so this is a layman interpretation.)

So in terms of clothing, in a general public context where not required to complete a specific task:

1. Keep the sexual organs covered.
2. Keep the rear covered.
3. Keep the chest covered – especially women, because children eat from there.
4. Wear clothes that do not emphasize the first three points.
5. Wear clothes such that they don't seem like they are falling off your body and exposing the first three points. Or, in another sense, simulates the image of undressing yourself.

I think in most cases, you can imagine what kind of clothing is appropriate. Short sleeves in the summer is appropriate, or even sleeveless provided that they are a good fit and fulfilling points 4 and 5. Swimsuits as a category can be appropriate, but bikinis are not because they were designed (if I'm recalling correctly), to be sensual and transgressive, so that violates point 4. Certain patterns, like stripes, can cause the eye to reflexively look up, down, or across the body. Watch for that.

Clothes should fit reasonably well, fullfilling priniples 4 and 5. If you gained weight and your clothes are noticably tighter, then get bigger clothes or lose weight. If you lost weight and your clothes are noticably looser, then get smaller clothes or gain weight. I rememember when I lost a lot of weight, I was kindly commended for my discipline and told to get a new wardrobe because my clothes were "swallowing me up", so the speak. A partial irony was that an impetus to me losing weight was the fact I kept ripping my pants because they were getting small on me.

With respect to swimwear, do you ordinarily need to expose your chest or torso? When I was younger and went to the beach more often, I used to wear a sleeveless athletic shirt out of jersey material with my shorts. The material was such that I could go into the water, and the water would wick off like swim trucks.

Regardless, I don't think these principles are that hard to keep in mind, and is easily applicable for both men and women. If you (not speaking to anyone specifically) need a tape measure to be exacting, you have a bigger issue that needs addressing than modesty — probably scrupulousity and pride.

 

[Recipient of Grace]

You stated that 10% coverage is minimal. Why that? What if it was the wrong 10%? You see, you're trying to establish a standard that is not in Scripture, one that every generation and person has to work out within the context of their time, place, and circumstance.

Sorry my friend, but I was being sarcastic/satirical there. I certainly didn’t intend for you to take that number literally.

You seem to be persuaded at any bikini, however generous, constitutes "sensual and wicked" apparel. I'm saying that like any sort of garment, there's more to the equation than simply two parts. We must each be persuaded in our own mind, and I hope that you find someone to marry who has never worn one.

1. How does one wear a bikini to the glory of God?

2. You seem to want to apply Romans 14 to this issue, and quite frankly you are twisting Scripture when you do so; but, if you must insist on applying Romans 14 here, then here’s a nice verse for you: Rom. 14:19-21. While we’re at it, why don’t we look at 1 Cor. 8:9, 13? The application here is quite simple: If a Christian woman, by wearing a bikini, causes her brother in Christ to stumble thereby, she has sinned against him and against God by doing so, as well as by breaking the seventh commandment.

So far, though, we've fleshed out (heh!) at length the dress of women, but the OP's question certainly regards men as well.
I'm curious if anyone thinks that neck-to-foot coverage is mandated for men as well.
Sleeves--how long?
Pant legs, same question.
Bare feet: ever, sometimes, never?
Swimming: no shirt? No swimming?

I never said that neck-to-foot coverage is mandated for anyone, nor do I believe that; notwithstanding, here are my answers to your questions:

Sleeves: Optional, depending on the weather.
Pant legs: Optional, depending on the weather. However, I personally would prefer to wear pants all year round.
Bare feet: I see no issue with this, but I’d question where you would realistically have bare feet around people.
Swimming: Shirt and shorts. Nothing less.

 

[Ben Zartman]

Sorry my friend, but I was being sarcastic/satirical there. I certainly didn’t intend for you to take that number literally.


1. How does one wear a bikini to the glory of God?

2. You seem to want to apply Romans 14 to this issue, and quite frankly you are twisting Scripture when you do so; but, if you must insist on applying Romans 14 here, then here’s a nice verse for you: Rom. 14:19-21. While we’re at it, why don’t we look at 1 Cor. 8:9, 13? The application here is quite simple: If a Christian woman, by wearing a bikini, causes her brother in Christ to stumble thereby, she has sinned against him and against God by doing so, as well as by breaking the seventh commandment.


I never said that neck-to-foot coverage is mandated for anyone, nor do I believe that; notwithstanding, here are my answers to your questions:

Sleeves: Optional, depending on the weather.
Pant legs: Optional, depending on the weather. However, I personally would prefer to wear pants all year round.
Bare feet: I see no issue with this, but I’d question where you would realistically have bare feet around people.
Swimming: Shirt and shorts. Nothing less.

You must not turn Romans 14 on its head so as to say: "I can't handle your liberty, so you should stop." That's simply being abusive of a principle of charity.
A bikini may be worn to the glory of God by choosing it carefully, wearing it in the proper context, behaving chastely and with discretion, and being grateful that God has given such things to His children as sunshine and sand and seawater to enjoy.
It would be a proper application of Romans 14 to not even mention this to people like yourself, but you did ask.
You're right, you never did say that neck-to-foot coverage was mandated, but that was part of the question of the thread, which leads me to ask: did you read the entire thread before you jumped in? It would explain a good deal about your manner of entry if, as I suspect now, you did not.

 

[LightBringer]

It's been a while since I've read on the subject, and some of what I've found has been at local museums and county history exhibits, where you can see pictures of women working outside in long flowing dresses and men working in long sleeves and pants. If I can dig up some online resources, I'll send them your way. Again, my intent is not to quash your desire to stay within the realm of Scripture, but to encourage you to consider whether you're not also subconsciously staying withing the realm of a modern culture which throws up cheap cardboard arguments about comfort - arguments which fall faster than a cardboard house once one realizes that these are questions which were readily answered, once upon a time, without the compromises for which we now advocate.

For me in the heat of the summer a long flowing dress and hat is what keeps me the coolest. I can sit outdoors in 90 degrees dressed in that fashion. Exposing more skin makes me overheat. Much can be said for the benefits of modest clothing even in the heat.