Tag: fundamentalism

family, My Story

Modesty: it doesnt mean what you think it means

Andi

You keep using that word. I don’t think it means what you think it means.

This is what I think when I hear people talking about modesty. Because more often than not, what they mean is how much of a woman’s body is covered by her clothing. They love to quote scripture here too. 1 Timothy 2 is a common one. And sometimes will detail a list of attire they deam appropriate. They love to quote the Proverbs 31 woman as being covered in fine linens to mean she’s modestly dressed because she’s covered. But let’s look at the verses a little more deeply, avoid applying our own perceptions to them, and see what conclusions we come to.

Before we get started, I’m listing here the Miriam Webster 1828 Dictionary definition of modest.

MOD’EST, adjective [Latin modestus, from modus, a limit.]

1. Properly, restrained by a sense of propriety; hence, not forward or bold; not presumptuous or arrogant; not boastful; as a modest youth; a modest man.

2. Not bold or forward; as a modest maid.

3. Not loose; not lewd.

4. Moderate; not excessive or extreme; not extravagant; as a modest request; modest joy; a modest computation.

Notice how only one of these definitions could even potentially be applied to dress and appearance. In fact its base word it is derived from is defined as a limit.

I find it is very important when reading spiritual texts is to understand both the time in which it was written, and the language it was written in. Having a good handle on the language you are reading it in is also a big help.

First let’s look at the verses in 1 Timothy that are so often used. I’m going to use the KJV as its probably the one you heard as a kid or the person arguing for this would use.

In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.
1 Timothy 2:9-10 KJV

Now, just for a comparison, read these same verses but in the Amplified version.

Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves modestly and appropriately and discreetly in proper clothing, not with [elaborately] braided hair and gold or pearls or expensive clothes, but instead adorned by good deeds [helping others], as is proper for women who profess to worship God.
1 TIMOTHY 2:9‭-‬10 AMP

In this instance, κοσμίῳ is the Greek word used in 1 Timothy. Its defined as well arranged, seemly, modest. Interestingly when I stuck this in Google translate, which is using modern day Greek, it came out as cosmic.

Now, let’s take a look at Proverbs 31: 21-22 again in both the KJV and AMP simply for comparison.

KJV

She is not afraid of the snow for her household: for all her household are clothed with scarlet. She maketh herself coverings of tapestry; her clothing is silk and purple.

AMP

She does not fear the snow for her household, For all in her household are clothed in [expensive] scarlet [wool]. She makes for herself coverlets, cushions, and rugs of tapestry. Her clothing is linen, pure and fine, and purple [wool].

And lastly this piece of Proverbs that describes a woman with the attire of an harlot, and I have heard used to line out what a harlot does look like and how not to look like one. This is Porverbs 7:10-12

KJV

And, behold, there met him a woman with the attire of an harlot, and subtil of heart. (She is loud and stubborn; her feet abide not in her house: Now is she without, now in the streets, and lieth in wait at every corner.)

AMP

And there a woman met him, Dressed as a prostitute and sly and cunning of heart. She was boisterous and rebellious; She would not stay at home. At times she was in the streets, at times in the market places, Lurking and setting her ambush at every corner.

Other verses describing the “evil woman” or an “unfaithful woman” don’t give us an image of her appearance or attire. They are filled with descriptions of her sharp tongue, her smooth words, and inappropriate behaviors. As though our actions are more vital than our clothing.

Now let’s go back to the top, to Timothy and the verse that uses the specific word, modest. Isn’t it interesting that the majority of those verses are about elaborate and expensive clothing? It says, costly array. This verse states we should wear modest apparel, not gold plated and expensive, but rather clothe ourselves with good works. We obviously cannot literally cover ourselves with good works, but a point was being made here. Are you more worried about having nice things than you are about caring for your fellow human? Do you greedily spend all your money on gold necklaces and ignore the hungry child? This is what was happening in the early church. In the Amplified version it says it is proper for people who worship God to help others. So according to the 1 Timothy passage, our selfishness is the issue, not how much skin is showing. Modest means moderate, not excessive or extreme, and this is the exact meaning of the word in this verse.

Now the passage in Proverbs 31, I think is pretty straightforward, but nonetheless, I’ll go over it. This woman is first off, not a real woman. But she is held as the pinnacle of godly womanhood. She is indeed someone impressive. She’s intelligent, financially prudent, crafty, businesslike, and loving. But the verses discussing how her children are warm in winter and her family can afford expensive clothing because of her wise investments has nothing to do with how much that expensive clothing covered her body. These verses are expressing her families prosperity more than anything.

Now the verses from Proverbs 7 say to beware a woman with the attire of an harlot. But what is the attire of an harlot? If this had been written today, you might describe a woman with lots of makeup, short tight skirts, maybe fishnet tights. But surprisingly clothing was not the same when this was written as it is now. So if trends and styles have been changing continuously then how are we to know what the attire of a harlot is and how do we avoid it? First of all, based on every other verse describing bad women, your actions and words play much more into your appearance than you think. This woman speaks softly and tempts the young man to come home with her. She is unfaithful to her husband, and lays in wait at every corner. Secondly this verse suggests there was a specific way harlots dressed and if I said the word prostitute, you know a specific image came to your head. So I think society plays a piece in this idea of harlots attire.

Another thing to consider is to take a look at our biology. Every part of our bodies has a function, even parts we have sexualized. Woman’s breasts can be sexual, but that is not their primary purpose. They are meant to produce milk to feed our young, exactly like every other mammal on earth. Elephants don’t cover to breastfeed. Our necks house our esophagus and throat. Our feet hold us up when we stand and our toes keep us balanced. But yet some people are aroused by neck biting, and foot fetishes are a very real thing. We cannot cover every piece of the body that arouses somebody or we’d all be walking around in body bags. The only body part designed and meant for sex are the sexual organs, and even they serve a purpose to reproduce as well. So we can’t make modesty rules based off of potentially being considered sexual. Beside the fact that this is a big variant, we can’t cater to everyone. And nowhere does the Bible say, woman be sure not to tempt that random man at the store, it says men keep better control of your eyes.

I know, I know they use the verse about not causing a brother to stumble, but I also refer you back to we’d be walking around in body bags. And that verse discusses being mindful of a friends struggles and helping them as they heal and grow. That random man isn’t my friend and I’m not responsible for his growth, he is. Plus, in the state of him growing, he will eventually not be tempted and be able to control his eyes. I am not to remove temptation from his path, whatever his temptation may be, he is learning to control himself.

Additionally, what does this teach girls and women? If we are to dress in such a way as to not cause any man, anywhere, to stumble or look at us lustfully, what are girls learning? To start with, this is impossible, you cannot keep every man ever from looking at you and thinking, “Dang, I’d like to tap that” no matter how you dress. Go back again to, we’d have to be walking around in body bags. But this is placing the personal growth and responsibility of all men and boys on women, not on the men it belongs with. It is no woman’s duty to keep another man from sinning. That is his duty. We are each responsible for our own actions, it is no one else’s, only ours. It is degrading and insulting to inappropriately place that duty on the shoulders of girls.

This is also degrading to our men and boys. You are teaching them they have no control, no limits. You are telling them they are barbaric and stupid, while simultaneously telling them they are in charge and in control of women. If you say it enough, they will believe it. You are teaching them if they see a scantily clad woman in the mall, they aren’t able to avert their eyes and wrangle their thoughts. You are teaching them it’s the woman’s fault, not theirs.

Which leads directly into, this nonsense feeds rape culture. From youth these boys are being taught they are not at fault, that a womans attire can literally make them insane. If they are not to blame when they have lustful thoughts, its only two steps further to say, it’s not their fault they raped a woman, because she was wearing a low cut blouse. Case after case after case have proven this is horse manure. Men and women have been assaulted in pajamas, robes, floor length pants and long sleeve shirts. It is never what they were wearing, it is always because a disgusting person attacked them. But we’ve also seen case after case of assault victims coming forward and their rapist is defended and they are demonized. Sadly, we see this a lot in the IFB group. Satan is not attacking your pastor, this is not spiritual warfare. Your pastor assaulted teen girls and he is a bad person. Period. End.

To say the idea of modest dress being disproportionately applied to women didn’t effect my childhood would be the biggest lie I ever told. I sometimes look at old pics and just cringe by how awful I was dressed. I’d be told they didn’t want me to dress frumpy, they wanted me to dressed tastefully. That was a lie. I looked like a boat.

I started pushing back fairly early, so I had to go back pretty far to find a picture that exemplified what I mean by good gracious I looked terrible.

You (and by you here I mean women and girls) couldn’t wear a shirt more than three (some places it was two) finger widths below your collarbone. Have you ever measured that? Its remarkably high, much higher than the average shirt comes. So shirts under shirts were incredibly common. Pants were out of the question. They were seductive and clung to the body exposing the curves of your female form. If you needed to do a physically strenuous activity in which a skirt would be indecent, you were provided with culottes. Should you be unaware what a culotte is, it is a knee length overly poofy legged split skirt. Historically I think they were created for women during the Victorian era to remain ladylike but be able to ride a horse (don’t quote me on that though). Some of these were pleated and so full in the legs you couldn’t tell they were culottes. Those were ideal.

Shirts were never to be sleeveless, some people wouldn’t allow cap sleeve shirts either. Shoulders and armpits were not to be shown, and an exposed bra strap was indecent. Your shirt also needed to be long enough that even with your arms raised over your head, it still covered the waistband of your skirt or culottes. Skirts varied a small bit. Some people said a skirt had to come to the knee, some specified that a skirt had to come to the knee while sitting, and others still dictated that your skirt had to cover your knees while sitting. Even the type of fabric of your clothing was regulated. Clingy fabrics like spandex blends were not allowed as they tended to stretch and hug the body. Your clothes had to be loose fitting and not show any form of your body. Girls were allowed to wear jewelry but your leadership could deny you the ability to wear something they deemed “too gawdy”. Only one ear piercing, no brightly colored makeup, no unnaturally colored hair, small necklaces only and one or two bracelets.

Boys had dress codes too but they were much shorter than for the girls. Boys were also not allowed to wear sleeveless shirts. They weren’t allowed to wear jewelry except for a watch and the men allowed a wedding band. Boys and Men were also not permitted to wear shorts. I’m honestly not sure of the reason for this. The girls could show their calves, but the boys could not.

Of course no outlandish hairstyles or colors. Neat hair dos. Clean and well kept clothes and hair were mandatory. Somehow God cared about your hair being brushed.

For how much I heard Samuel’s anointing David because, “God does not look on the outward appearance because God sees the heart” preached, I remember God caring a lot about how I looked. To dress modestly was pleasing to God. In explanation of why God cared so much when he looks on the heart, was because we were to be separate from the world in every way. Someone should be able to look at us and know we were Christian. God also cared because he loved all his children and didn’t want one of them to cause another to sin. In the case of looking different we definitely succeeded. Even the boys and men stuck out in a crowd usually. The women looked odd and frumpy in their loose shirts and long skirts and the men looked like struggling bussinessmen in their tucked in collared shirts and loose legged high waisted khaki pants. Especially in a group, we stuck out. As to not causing someone to sin, I think I’ve covered satisfactorily.

After I left the church I went through a phase of awkwardness. I never went through the discovery teenage phase because I hadn’t been permitted to. I had no idea what looked good on me or what styles I liked. Through controlling how I looked and how I thought and acted, my confidence and self image had been destroyed. Or rather, it had never been allowed to grow strong. I was not just building a personal clothing style, I was building myself. Then I entered a phase of anger. For a long time I couldn’t wear a skirt or dress of any kind. I still had my skirts, but I never wore them. Eventually that started to fade and I’d wear skirts and dresses but I couldn’t wear denim skirts. If I did wear a skirt it had to be too short for the church’s guidelines or I’d have to wear it with a tank top or low cut blouse. I was afraid if I wore something they approved of, I was falling back into their grasp. I finally realized that even years down the road, the group I’d left behind was still dictating how I dressed. I was still being controlled. I got rid of all of my clothes I’d had as a youth. I had to clean the space of it. I realized that no matter what I put on, I was still somehow breaking their rules. Their rules were so outlandish that by dressing like a normal human, I wasn’t falling close to their grasp at all. I realized that it didn’t matter how I dressed, how I live and believe is so contrary to them, I couldn’t fall back to them.

I have noticed over the years some churches and localised groups have started to shift in terms of apparel as the younger generations come up an take on leadership positions. You may actually see a woman at a church event in jeans. I see this as mostly good, but it has also created this double standard. The organization as a whole has not changed, and the churches haven’t changed their tunes on modesty. So it makes dress even more complicated. It’s ok to wear jeans to an activity, but not to a church service, and not to a different church’s event. And you can wear jeans, but not too tight and not with any holes. You may wear a dress shorter than the knee, but wear leggings underneath of it to cover your legs. None of this is spoken, it’s just this odd understanding that nobody is sure who made up. Instead of relieving pressure, it’s just made more. But hopefully, this will progress further and real relief will be seen in the future.

When you dress yourself what is your purpose for wearing what you do? If you wish to dress modestly remember these things actually taught in the Bible. Are you spending more money and effort on your clothes than you are helping those in need? How do you behave and carry yourself? Is it seductive and tempting? Are your sexual organs covered? Then if you are good on all counts, wear what you want with confidence and don’t let anyone shame you or convince you to change. You are modest.

family

Damnation

Andi

This one is a doozy, so before I get started on it, I want everyone to take a deep breath and stay calm. I say that because people are very touchy about their faith, and tend to become reactionary when you talk about it. I’m not out to anger anyone.

However, I am out to talk about hell. The place of damnation in most Judaic and Christian religions. This is a piece of faith I kind of ignored because I just didn’t want to think about it. It made me uncomfortable. But recently pieces on hell kept coming across my various news feeds and it seemed time to just delve into it.

Growing up, I was taught that hell is a place of eternal damnation, continual torment, fire, anguish, wailing, and gnashing of teeth. We are all sinners, and sin must be punished, so we are all destined for this awful place. That Jesus was the only way to escape this torment. If you were to ask for his forgiveness and recieve his mercy, he would wash all your sins away, and spare you eternal punishment. Most Christians believe some variation of this narrative, so to challenge that a part of it was incorrect would be to challenge the entire foundation of their faith. So I understand anyone who may be uneasy or wary of the idea. I certainly was.

There were two things that made me uncomfortable with this idea of eternal torment for non believers.

The first was the question about people who never heard of God during their time on earth. This could be as result of being remote and secluded from civilization, or infant death, or mental disabilities. What if a child died before they were able to understand salvation? Now, for the people I was around, most of them made caveats for the mentally disabled and babies, but used the remote civilizations as a rallying cry for further missions. We have to take the gospel to them or they will go to hell. They received no caveats. This just did not sit well with me. I could not fathom a loving God never giving them a chance of redemption.

Second was how hell has been used to manipulate and control people by terrifying them. You must do as we tell you, or you aren’t truly saved and probably going to hell. People didn’t come to God or to church because God is loving and supportive, a very present help in trouble. They came to God and Church out of absolute fear of burning consciously forever in a lake of fire.

One piece I read put forth that hell was not taught by Jesus, or the ancient Jews, it was an idea that crept into Judaism from the Greeks during the span between the Old and New testaments. This idea piqued my interest.

So I looked it up. Every time hell is mentioned in the Old Testament and what was the Hebrew word that was used. Turns out, the English words vary depending on the translation you are using, but the Hebrews words do not vary. So the same Hebrew word would sometimes be translated to English as “Hell”, other times as “death” or “the pit”.

The most common word is Sheol. This word is used in the Old Testament frequently. According to ancient Judaism, Sheol is the place of the dead. Not a place of punishment or of reward, just a place you went after you died. This is why it is sometimes translated as “the grave” or just as “death”. When I was young I was told Sheol was synonymous with Hell and the words could be used interchangeably. I remember this being associated with the Proverbs passage about the seductive woman who tempts a young man and it being said her footsteps have taken hold in Sheol. This was always taught metaphorically, usually to shame young kids into abstinence. This woman was promiscuous and led to hell, the same fate is in store for teens who have lots of unmarried sex.

But what if this isn’t metaphorical? What if we take this literally? If Sheol is the place of the dead and she was on her way there could that mean this woman was dying? It’s made clear, she tempts lots of young men. Hygeiene was not much back then, STIs had to exist, and antibiotics did not. Even just a virus would be easy to transmit. It’s in Proverbs 5:5 that says “Her feet go down to death; her steps follow the path to Sheol;” And another passage about temptresses in Proverbs 7:27 says “Her house is the way to Sheol, going down to the chambers of death.” Could this verse mean literally, this woman will kill you? Do you see how that changed the entire meaning of the passage? It still serves as a warning to not succumb to temptation, but instead of eternal damnation as the outcome, death is the outcome.

Next word I came across was Abaddon. This one is a little more tricky. It appears in both testaments, and means destruction, but in the New Testament it is personified as an Angel. So is Abaddon a place of destruction or is it the Angel of Death? I found lots of conflicting info on this. Some believe Abaddon is actually sent by God to hand out his punishment before his return in Revelation. In the verses I found it in the Old Testament it was coupled with Sheol. So it came as death and destructin.

But then I moved on to the New Testament. Not just needing to know what my English translations said, but what the Greek said. So again I looked up the word hell in the New Testament and which word in the orginal language was used. Most references of hell, or specifically, the lake of fire come from Revelations. Entire book series have been dedicated to explaining the end times, so I’m not going to. I am going to let you know what I can dissect from language though.

The first word I came across was Gehennna. I never heard this word growing up, I first heard it in an anime, as an adult. That is because in the KJV, the version I was raised solely reading, it is translated to hell every time. In this case, it may be more appropriate than with Sheol. Gehenna references an actual place. A valley, where people performed child sacrifices. The land was declared cursed and became synonymous with wickedness, understandably. It became the place where the evil were sent, and over time became known as the land of the wicked. Its is simple to see the connection between it and the idea of hell. Only the evil are sent there, cast out and separated from good.

Another word used in the New Testament is Hades. This word is used in the same manner Sheol is used in the Old Testament. This, actually makes a lot of sense to me. Hades is the god of the underworld, and the land of Hades is were the dead are. It’s a station the dead pass through. The idea of a neutral place all the dead go to, aligns with Sheol and even the Greeks idea of Hades’ realm. Now wouldn’t this confirm the piece I read about Greek culture seeping into Judaism? Maybe. But I could also see it as a simple borrow of their language as well. Although in English it may have been changed to hell, I dont think the ancients meant it as a place of punishment.

Then there is the word Tartarus used only once in 2 Peter 2:4. In KJV this verse says, “For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment” In the Complete Jewish Bible, this verse reads as “For God did not spare the angels who sinned; on the contrary, he put them in gloomy dungeons lower than Sh’ol to held for judgement.” And in the Youngs Literal Translation it reads, “For if God messengers who sinned did not spare, but with chains of thick gloom, having cast [them] down to Tartarus, did deliver [them] to judgment, having been reserved,” It is usually traslated as hell, like in the KJV though sometimes left as tartarus, as in the YLT. This I do find interesting as Tartarus is the pit Zues trapped the titans in after he defeated them. Where the realm of Hades was the land of the dead, Tartarus was a place deeper, a place only the most wicked were sent to be imprisoned. Even though, this seems to borrow from Greek mythology, it also aligns with the idea that hell is a place reserved only for the most Evil, as with Gehenna, and is a seperate place than Sheol or Hades.

So simply based on the language used in these words we can start to paint a picture. Sheol/Hades is a land where the dead are, neither in happiness or anguish, waiting to be transferred to heaven or hell. And Gehenna/Tartarus is a sereate place reserved only for evil beings.

This brings us to two questions. First being, aren’t believers taken directly from their earthy bodies to heaven when they die? The concept of a realm of the dead kind of contradicts that. And second, is hell then eternal?

For the first, let’s look at the verse so often quoted at funerals and at greiving family members. 2 Corinthians 5:8 “We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.” KJV It is often summarized with a rub on your shoulder as, “you know as the Bible says, absent from the body, present with the Lord.” To try and comfort you about the deceased relative. But if Sheol exists, we are not imemedietly present in heaven the moment we are absent from our earthly forms. The passage this comes from talks about the eternal bodies we will have and how burdensome our earth bound bodies are, so this connection is not hard to make. However, this passage doesn’t ever say were immediately present with the Lord.

Conversely, I think many of even common Christian’s beliefs support the reality of Sheol. In the end times there will be a resurrection and the dead will rise at the trumpet sound. Its pepperd throughout the NT this resurrection of the dead. John 6:40 reads “And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.” KJV (Notice that little prepositional phrase “at the last day”?) 1 Corinthians 15 is where we get the trumpet sounding from. Verse 52 says, “In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.” KJV the resurrection is taught, and sung about endlessly. But if all the dead are already with God why are they being resurrected? I’ve heard this explained as their spirits are with God but their bodies aren’t and that’s what raises at the trumpet sound. Although I’m not sure people want their old bodies in heaven and if we are given new perfect bodies, we don’t need the ones we’re riding in now.

Now for the eternal question. Nowhere else in all of the Bible is the Lake of Fire, often described as hell, mentioned outside of Revelation. So much of this book is confusing and complicated. Chapter 20 speaks quite bit about this Lake of Fire. Starting in verse 10, “and the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.” And then in verse 14, “Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire.” ESV Before this death and Hades give up all the dead and they are judged according to the book (the Lamb’s Book of Life) and then those not found within were also cast into the Lake. This should undoubtedly settle eternal hell right? It does say the devil, the beast and the false prophet are tormented forever and ever, but does not say that about the others. This tiny phrase “their part” in Rev 21:18 leads some to believe that for even the worst of us, the Lake of Fire is temporary “But as for the cowards and unbelieving and abominable [who are devoid of character and personal integrity and practice or tolerate immorality], and murderers, and sorcerers [with intoxicating drugs], and idolaters and occultists [who practice and teach false religions], and all the liars [who knowingly deceive and twist truth], THEIR PART will be in the lake that blazes with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.” AMP Even others draw from the previous chapter that the saints were resurrected before this, and so the dead rising in Revelation 20 would be the non believers who are then judged and punished for their deeds according to the books. “And the sea gave up the dead who were in it, and death and Hades (the realm of the dead) surrendered the dead who were in them; and they were judged and sentenced, every one according to their deeds.” Revelation 20:13 AMP So does this mean only the worst could not be reconciled and had to be sentenced to the Lake of Fire? Several other verses refer to those in torment and state they still refused to repent. Which gives the idea that they had the opportunity to do so.

None of us have been dead, and the end times have not come yet, so all of this is ultimately unknown. But from what we know of God, and what we can learn from the Bible, we can get a pretty solid idea. When we die we kind of hang out in suspension until the ressurection at the end of time, at which point we are judged. The righteous are spared punishment, the other’s sentences are handed down, and some may be punished in the lake of fire, but no one is denied repentance. So according Revelation the lake of fire is real, but I believe it is not a permanent punishment. Only Satan, the beast, and false prophet are tormented forever.

Feel free to share you knowledge and thoughts on this, but again I demand kindness and tact.