A misplaced plea

An article on planet wisdom calls for women to dress more modestly during the summer.

Josh Wiehagen explains even though girls want to fashionable, "I can’t say I’m always completely impressed with the . . . coverage."

He goes on to write about how Christians are called to a very tall standard. We are called be completely pure. We are to flee sexual immorality.

Wiehagen's point is that its hard enough to be sexually pure when ladies are completely covered, let alone when they are wearing things which are made specifically to make lust happen. (Mini-skirts and low-cut shirts ARE made for this reason, no matter how much we pretend they are not. For example, a girl might say, "I just want to look good." This begs the question, "For whom?")

I agree with Wiehagen, girls do need to think about the reaction they are really getting. As he points out, "what my flesh would like to see is not what I need to dwell on. And if you think about it, it’s not what you’d want me to dwell on, either." If girls truly thought about the reaction they are getting, they would want to cover up more.

Unfortunately, I think Wiehagen's plea is wrongly focused. I don't think modesty should be asked for, instead it is beauty. I think Wiehagen is actually asking for beauty and he doesn't even know it. This is why he ends with this scripture:

“Don’t be concerned about the outward beauty that depends on fancy hairstyles, expensive jewelry, or beautiful clothes. You should be known for the beauty that comes from within, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is so precious to God. That is the way the holy women of old made themselves beautiful.” (1Peter 3:3-5, NLT)

There is a huge difference between modesty and beauty. While being modest is important, it is also subjective. It changes from person to person, and context to context.

Don't believe me? Try this... can a 3 year old baby run around without a shirt on? Or is it immodest for certain rural tribes' women to not wear shirts? We can easily see both of these situations are not immodest, but this same situation would be very immodest in certain contexts.

Beauty on the other hand is objective, not subjective. Beauty has a standard.

Again, you may not agree, but I think you should. You might think, "Well, beauty is in the eye of the beholder." No it is not. Plain and simple. And you don't want it to be either.

If beauty is in the eye of the beholder then there is no standard to strive for. Anything anyone does/wears can be beautiful to them. I am sorry for the blunt and vivid picture coming, but to take the roof off of this argument, I don't know anyone who would say a murderous rape and rampage is a beautiful thing. And the people who might say it is beautiful are probably insane.

But there is a standard for beauty. It is God. He is the Beauty all beauty strives to be like. And if we keep this in mind, we realize this is really what we are appealing to when we ask ladies to "be more modest." We are asking them to dress up to the standard God wants. Look amazing! God looks amazing! Your relationship with God will be beautiful, when you are trying to please him, and this radiates off you. True Beauty is more an experience, and being in line with God's wishes for how we look, sound, interact in our daily lives. When we are in true alignment with the purposes God made for us we are being a reflection of the harmony of the Holy Trinity.

So, again, I would love ladies to wear more, but because of Beauty, not because of modesty. Modesty is a good thing, but is so much less satisfying then striving for true beauty.

A very good commentary on the nature of beauty can be found in a 9 part series by John Mark Reynolds.