Matthew Paul Turner published a piece, "Is Modest Really...

Matthew Paul Turner published a piece, "Is Modest Really Hottest?" today in Relevant. He writes:

Once a month for 12 school years, I watched my female classmates forced to line up in the hallway, one straight line of girls kneeling. As they waited, a teacher would walk by and measure the distance between the floor and the hem of their skirts, then the distance between the lowest point on their blouse and their clavicles. If the distances were too great, they were sent home or forced to wear the school's official "ugly sweater," my school's version of the scarlet letter A.

I had three sisters. I watched all of them kneel in that line. And I have witnessed firsthand how my church's modesty laws have affected various aspects of their lives, from insecurity, to parenting, to how they interact with other women with different modesty ideals.

Our ideas about modesty are mostly Puritanically American. No, there's nothing fundamentally wrong with that, but we must remember that our "modesty" is far more a cultural standard than it is a spiritual one. In a society with a history of making sure that women's parts were things not to be talked about but rather covered up (for the sake of the male's eyes/integrity!), is it any wonder our culture has grown into one that worships breasts and bodies as only sexual objects?

His article doesn't set out to give a corrective formula on the Church's approach to modesty, but is apparently an invitation to talk about it. Reading the article, one dominant point came to mind that I hope surfaces often as this discussion filters through the Christian social media world.

First, to backtrack and deal with some foundational thoughts:

Dress codes. The church has dealt with modesty in diverse ways. Although I'm not a fan of a dress code way of thinking, as it reduces modesty to a list in our minds rather than the thoughtful pursuit of a heart attitude, I understand the role of dress codes in Christian schools. Rules are tricky things, but there's no way to set a standard of dress in an institution other than a dress code. Lining girls up in the hallway for public humiliation is guilt-inducing and, I believe, entirely wrong, but I don't think dress-codes in Christian schools are themselves the problem.

Along the same lines, I suspect there's nothing inherently wrong with saying that being modest is a service to others. Why? Because it's true. It is. It's not an objectification of women to remind each other that actions have consequences; that cleavage is distracting; that Oscar de la Renta and Jason Wu don't design their spring lines with purity or modesty as a goal, so the ball is in our court to evaluate what styles we put in our wardrobes. Reminding each other of the responsibility to love isn't legalism. Shooting for wisdom in clothing choices isn't legalistic either.

Annnd, the problem isn't modesty. I've seen critiques of Christian modesty quickly turn into criticisms of modesty itself, when like it or not, it is a Biblical concept. (If you agree, you might want to skip this part. If you don't, here are some things to consider:)

1 Timothy 2:9-10 could be paraphrased as saying that Christian women aren't supposed to be most remembered for their fabulous in-season ensembles of sailor-striped maxi dresses and espadrilles. (Muuch as I love espadrilles.) Instead, they should be marked by "good works." It's actions aglow with love for Christ that should be what gets us noticed by the rest of the world. It doesn't say there's anything wrong with fashion. It says that fashion isn't what should define our lives—that clothing is ultimately a stupid thing to be obsessed about in light of eternity.
And then there's that verse that is kind of awkward to read aloud in a woman's Bible study: "Like a gold ring in a pig's snout is a beautiful woman without discretion." (Prov. 11:22) The last thing woman wants to be compared is a pig. My guess is that was also the case when it was originally written. It's a frank verse from Proverbs with a pretty clear meaning: Lack of discretion (the pig) can make a beautiful woman (a ring) lose her beauty. I also draw from this verse that modesty is something that Bible speaks about in strong terms.
1 Peter 3:3-4 and 1 Peter 5:5-6 all have insight that could lend itself to the modesty discussion. But my point here is simply to say that modesty is indeed a Biblical concept, and even the concept of protecting our brothers from lust has Biblical roots (Philippians 2; Romans 13:14.) Our ability to have a constructive conversation on modesty will be hampered if we attack the idea itself.

Some concluding thoughts:

In short, it's super easy to criticize the Church. It's easy to criticize what previous generations have emphasized. While there is room for corrective criticism, I think people (myself included) have a tendency to tear down what bothers us without recognizing what was/is indeed valuable (i.e. modesty itself).

Furthermore—and this is the dominant point that personally hits me close to home—ultimately we can't blame the Puritans or the Church for our own legalism. Sure, pastors and teachers bear extra responsibility for teaching and preaching against legalism. But legalism is first a matter of our own hearts. It's looking at anything—whether modesty or purity or social justice or whatever—from a behavior-focused mindset rather than an intention that is purely to seek after Jesus.

To be honest, I really fought with this issue when writing my book. Modesty was a topic I knew I had to talk about, but approaching it from the right perspective was really hard. That's what I ended up writing a whole chapter on legalism before saying anything about modesty. Because before we can get a healthy view of modesty, we have to have a healthy view of why, as Christians, we do anything.

Tim Keller simplified the difference between legalistic religion and the gospel:

RELIGION: I obey-therefore I'm accepted.
THE GOSPEL: I'm accepted-therefore I obey.

It's not the reasonable response of a Christ-follower to say that modesty is all legalistic, and disregard it completely. Neither is it Biblical to pursue modesty just to bolster our pride or sense of piety. Obedience is a response to knowing Jesus, and our hearts being changed by Him. As we have been given grace, so we must give grace to others—both to Christians who run around in loincloths and to those who we perceive as legalistic.

There's a lot more to be said on the intersection of modesty and the gospel. I've written more about it (drumroll *ba boom clash*) in my book  (shameless pitch, I know). But I don't claim to have in any way covered the issue in its entirety. I do hope that Turner's article leads to a discussion that veers towards the gospel, and doesn't morph into a different brand of the same legalism it hopes to avoid.