by Harry Osborne
A few years ago, you could stay away from the beach and avoid the exhibitionism. Now it seems like you cannot go around the block without being confronted by someone in an outfit which used to be associated more with a pornographic movie than public attire. However, this trend is not limited to the wrong side of town, but is increasingly apparent in more "up-scale" areas. What in the world has happened to the concept of decency?
On magazine covers and TV shows about the latest fashions, headlines are similar. They speak of "sexy," "revealing," "eye-catching," "provocative" and "hot" styles. Hemlines are going up, necklines are going down in the fashion world. Commercials for under garments leaving nothing to the imagination are now broadcast on television. A recent survey showed that the average span of fabric between the armhole and leg hole on a one-piece bathing suit is between four and six inches. It is clear they were not designed that way to facilitate swimming. The target market for such styles is not the poor who cannot afford as much material, but the affluent who seem happy to pay more for less.
The rich and famous celebrities of our times show a clear acceptance of these immodest styles. Among the teen pop stars like Britney Spears, Christina Aguilera, Jennifer Lopez and Mariah Carey, there appears to be a contest to see who can wear the least. Country stars like LeAnn Rimes and Shania Twain are no better. Male rappers seem clueless as to placement of a waistline on pants. Hollywood events are little more than exhibitions of trashy dress. Male stars are also trending towards a greater level of undress. The exposure of the stars is being imitated by their fans. A visit to your local school will verify that fact. Many early teen and pre-teen girls are spending large amounts of money for skimpy outfits to emulate their idols in revealing styles. Numerous boys have pants pulled down so low that they more closely resemble shin-guards -- and they paid good money to look that way!
The Bible condemns such outrageous and lustful displays. After commanding men to be characterized by holiness, it instructs women to be of the same mind or manner which causes them to "adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefastness and sobriety; not with braided hair, and gold or pearls or costly raiment" (1 Tim. 2:8-9). If both men and women are to be guided by holiness and that holiness causes one to dress modestly, would it not cause the same result in both? Obviously it would. Thus, the attitudes and characteristics of proper dress are equally applicable to both. Let us examine a few of the things said about that which causes and characterizes "modest apparel."
The Bible says the modest apparel to be worn is associated with "shame-fastness." What does that mean? The original word from the Greek referred to a sense of shame or modesty which is rooted in the character. In other words, it is that inner decency which recognizes the lack of clothing to be shameful.
The word of God speaks of the lack of full clothing or "nakedness" as being shameful (Rev. 3:19; Isa. 47:3; 2 Sam. 6:20; Jer. 13:26). However, the Bible term "naked" does not only refer to nudity, but to a lack of sufficient clothing to protect one (Jas. 2:15-16). The book of Job speaks of one who "stripped the naked of their clothing" (Job 22:6). How could one strip the clothes off of a person who was already totally without them? Thus, the "nakedness" which is shameful is not just total nudity. Isaiah spoke of the uncovering of the thigh as resulting in nakedness being uncovered (Isa. 47:2-3). Since many modern fashions totally expose the thigh, how do you think God views them? "Shame-fastness" causes one to blush if seen without being fully covered. It is a rare quality in our time! However, it is demanded of those who would please God.
The Bible also says that modest clothing is associated with "sobriety." The sobriety under consideration is not solely speaking of being free from intoxication due to alcohol, although that may be involved, but is describing a state of sound judgment. W.E. Vine makes these comments (Expository Dict. of N.T. Words, vol. 4, p. 44-45):
It is that habitual inner self-government, with its constant rein on all the passions and desires, which would hinder the temptation to these from arising, or at all events from arising in such strength as would overbear the checks and barriers which "shamefastness" opposed to it.
"Sobriety" would keep one from wearing the "sexy," "revealing," "eye-catching," "hot," and "provocative" styles currently in fashion. It would see such as the "attire of a harlot" (Proverbs 7:10).
While "shamefastness and sobriety" are the allies of modesty, the New Testament depicts the clothing characteristic of wealth as that which opposes modesty. Paul cautions against being clothed in "gold or pearls or costly raiment" (1 Timothy 2:9). Peter warns "of wearing gold, or of putting on fine apparel" (1 Peter 3:3). Were these writers merely prejudiced against the wealthy or is something else involved?
To answer that question, we need to find out what kind of clothing was the "costly raiment" or "fine apparel" of the New Testament time. This is not difficult since a great number of historical sources clearly and unanimously tell us about the fashions of the day. The following is an extended quote from Robert Collen's book, East to Cathay: The Silk Road (pages 44-46), dealing with the introduction of silk clothing into the first century Roman kingdom:
Silk in its natural state clung to the female form in a way that was infinitely more pleasing to the eye than Parthian banners. But Roman ladies did not stop at that. For one thing, there was not enough pure silk to go around at first. And, anyway, it was not sexy enough for those freewheeling days. So, they unraveled the close-woven Chinese fabric and rewove it into a flimsy gauze which left little to the imagination. So unlike Chinese silk was this Roman adaptation that the Chinese, when they eventually saw it, named it "ling," assuming that Rome was growing a special product of its own. For the average Roman girl-watcher those were golden years, but the moralists raised a fearful outcry. "I see clothes of silk, if clothes they can be called," wrote the philosopher Seneca (4 B.C. - A.D. 64), "afford-ing protection neither to the body nor to the modesty of the wearer, and which are purchased for enormous sums, from unknown people." Pliny told of garments that "render women naked." Other writers waggishly referred to clothes "made of glass."
Thus, the expensive clothes of New Testament times were the revealing clothes that lacked modesty. It was not a prejudice against wealthy people or luxuries they could afford which caused Bible writers to condemn "costly raiment." We know Lydia sold purple, a costly garment, but she was approved by God (Acts 16:14). It was the indecency associated with clothing that condemned it.
Late in the first century, Clement of Alexandria spoke of the same silk fashions as "fabrics foolishly thin, and of curious texture in weaving." He went on to speak of such as follows (The Instructor, II, xi):
For these superfluous and diaphanous (transparent - HRO) materials are proof of a weak mind, covering as they do the shame of the body with a slender veil. For luxurious clothing, which cannot conceal the shape of the body, is no more a covering. For such clothing, falling close to the body, takes its form more easily, and adhering as it were to the flesh, receives its shape, and marks out the woman's figure, so that the whole body is visible..."
Clement said such clothing was associated with "vice" and not "modesty." The 2nd century Tertullian spoke of "garments which, light and thin, were to be heavy in price alone." He called them "prostitutionary garbs" appealing to "the provocative charms of apparel." He noted it was the opposite of "modesty."
In our time, the same is true. Modest clothing which covers the body is relatively inexpensive when contrasted with the price of the provocative styles in vogue among the fashion world. One can buy several decent changes of clothes for the price of one fashionable swimsuit. The centuries have changed, but the principles have not! Such fashions are no more tolerable to God today than they were when He condemned them through the New Testament writers. Let us not take our direction from the sinful fashions of our day, but from God.