Currently Reading Jesus and the Victory of God (Christian Origins and the Question of God, Volume 2) By N. T. Wright see related

(Modesty and Christianity, part 1)

Modesty is not defined by the Bible, but by culture.

Sounds unspiritual, but it aint.

  A mistake that many Christians make is thinking that the Bible describes something that can be called “Christian culture,” which can be then differentiated from other cultures, like “American culture” or “Islamic culture.” But there is nothing in the Bible showing what cultural forms are “valid for all time.“ Instead, the Bible gives principles for how to live as a Christian IN the culture that you live in. This is why Christianity can enter any culture and spread. In contrast, Islam definitely prescribes a specific culture, and demands that other cultures be completely replaced by it. 

  First, a very important definition.

  “Cultural Forms” is a technical term anthropologists use to denote the actual physical form a culture uses to express its cultural idea. A nike shoe is a cultural form. It aids the foot when walking long distances. The sandals that Jesus wore are also a cultural form of the same thing- an object that aids walking. If I say that “Jesus is the Son of God,” I am expressing what I believe the Bible says is a universal idea or principle, one that is true for all cultures in all times. But I am expressing it in a specific cultural form- English words. My English words are not culturally valid for all, and would be expressed in a different language in another culture, though the idea would remain the same. The Bible is full of universal principles that were expressed in a specific cultural form two thousand years ago. The forms may be left behind as Christianity enters other cultures. What God was saying through those forms may not be left behind, and must be “translated” into the other cultures.

  We have adopted different practices than what the Bible discusses in many areas because we realize that the application of what God desired changes with the circumstances. Many Christians understand this when it comes to head coverings, slavery, make-up, having the church financially support widows (instead of the state through Social Security), and other things like owning a cloak. (I mean, Jesus said that you should give away your cloak. Doesn’t that mean that all Christians should buy one so that they could give it away?). But I frequently hear people refer to “Biblical modesy,” as if it is something definitely defined, or even just “modesty,” as if it should be obvious to everyone what is being meant. But where does the real definition of what is modest come from?

  The worldview of a culture describes what is modest, immodest, or weird. Our particular culture defines "immodesty" in terms of nakedness, "modesty" in terms of clothedness, and "weird" in terms that range from over-clothedness to outlandish. For example:

Immodest-  going to a summer birthday party in nothing but your underwear

Modest- going to a summer birthday party in normal clothing

Weird- going to a summer birthday party wearing a winter coat and earmuffs.

   The problem that Christians have is that our culture also defines "pushing the envelope" as cool, especially if you are young. That is why immodesty can be seen as "not weird" or even as desirable for a young man or woman, even though the wider culture still DOES think of it as immodest. (A culture that did not value “pushing the envelope” would see BOTH extremes as weird, and we probably wouldn’t be having this conversation.) But there is still a definite middle ground that is neither immodest or weird, though of course the exact cultural form depends on the situation.

  If the occasion is an elementary school open house, our cultural worldview tells us that it would be good to dress casual, immodest to wear a swimsuit, and weird to wear a tuxedo for men or a fancy dress for a women. If the occasion is a funeral, our worldview tells us that it would be good to dress nice (suit and tie or dress), weird or rude to dress casual, and immodest, weird and rude to dress in a swimsuit. If the occasion is a day at the beach, our worldview says that it is good to wear a swimsuit, immodest to be completely naked, and weird to wear a suit and tie or a dress. All of these cultural prescriptions arise before we have even begun to ask what the Bible says. To buck these cultural guidelines is not modesty, but weirdness (or even rudeness).

  The problem comes at the point of application. The Bible enjoins modesty but not weirdness, unless a Christian has been given a specific call in a specific situation. The culture enjoins wearing a swimsuit at the beach. How do I stay true to the first while not deviating too far from the other?

  The answer is not to look in the Bible for what specific cultural form was used two thousand years ago. As they say, “the styles have changed.” The Bible was not meant to give us cultural forms valid for all time. Besides, we already went to the Bible when we found that we should aim for modesty.

  The answer is not to look at a past culture that we idolize and try to hold onto that, as the Amish do. Many conservative Christians do the same by pointing to some idealized 1950’s style of life they think we should all seek to bring back. (It IS an idealized picture- The 1950’s weren’t any more Christian than today. The sixties counter-cultural push didn’t come about because all the parents of the 50’s were really strong Christians. Most weren’t, but they held to the outer forms, and their kids could see it was a sham and decided to scrap what they felt wasn’t real anyway.) This is the path to weirdness and irrelevancy. Many stupid things may be done in the name of being “relevant,” but that doesn’t change the fact that Christians are called to be witnesses from WITHIN their culture, not from outside of it.

  The answer is to find a way to creatively engage culture on its own terms. Stay within the cultural guidelines, but creatively find ways to not only “stay true to the Bible,” but to actively push Biblical principles in a way that speaks the message of Christ in a new way. This is what the apostle Paul was doing in 1 Corinthians 11, in the passage regarding head coverings. The Corinthian women had let their relationship with Christ cause them to do things that the culture found weird. They thought they were demonstrating to all their newfound freedom in Christ. Paul points to the accepted cultural use of head coverings and tells the Corinthian women that they are instead just being needlessly weird. His frequent reference to “shame” refers to the revulsion the wider culture would feel at seeing their weirdness. Nobody would accept the gospel from such weirdos.  Instead, his letter if full of other ideas for them to demonstrate the gospel to the unbelievers in Corinth; ones that would still serve as a stark challenge to the worldy values of the city, but that wouldn't have them just wrote off as weird.

  I attempted something like this over a year ago on Xanga regarding gay marriage (here) , though I wasn't completely happy with where I ended up at when I was done.  I was starting from the idea that Christians are to be the ones who inconvenience themselves for others.  God may have an ideal of a union of a man and a women that is a picture of Christ and the church, but the Bible doesn’t give us all that much more about it. I suggested that perhaps Christians should drop the fight over legalizing gay marriage, and instead come up with another ceremony that achieves the same spiritual outcomes (man/women union as picture of Christ), and call it something else.  We'll inconvenience ourselves by just dropping our interest in the whole issue of "marriage," because we would be pouring all our energy into this new thing (yet to be named) which would have all the features of Biblical marriage, but without the name.  Much of what we hold dear regarding marriage is merely our cultural forms. The idea of an an engagement, a ring, a public ceremony solemnized by clergy after a government licence has been obtained, as well as the English word “marriage” are all cultural forms that are merely relative. We could change the name to Buta-Buta tomorrow, and it would still fulfill God’s desire for a union between a man and a women. My suggestion came about because I was concerned over how closed many are to the gospel, because they see the Christian position as hateful, and I saw that in the Bible many times the apostle Paul enjoined us to not needlessly enrage culture in a way that kept the gospel from getting a hearing.

  I’m not saying that I believe my suggestion was the right thing to do, but I think we need to go in these directions on a lot of issues. Anything else is to make an idol out of our cultural forms, and tell Jesus that we’re sorry that we were not effective witnesses of His grace, but that we really couldn’t let the “sinners” corupt our devotion to our comfy cultural forms, which were more important to us than Him.