Show Notes: Christian Modesty and the Public Undressing of America

Welcome to the Hard Men Podcast, I am your host, Eric Conn. Today I’ll be reviewing a book by Jeff Pollard, Christian Modesty and the Public Undressing of America. If you’ve listened to the previous two episodes of this podcast, you know we’ve been talking about modesty, and I hope this review adds more Scriptural ammunition and historical context to the discussion.

Jeff’s book is fairly short at 74 pages in length. It is available for purchase on Amazon, or as a free PDF online, though the online PDF appears to not have the forward by Doug Phillips. The version I have is the 9th printing, and it was originally published in 2004. Overall, I would give the book 5 out of 5 stars and highly recommend it. It’s a great resource for laymen or pastors who want to teach on this subject matter.

Why is it useful? The three main aims of the book are to show a Scriptural defense of Christian modesty; to uncover the historical view of modesty from key biblical interpreters; and to highlight the influence fashion designers had in the 20thCentury with the evolving design of the swimsuit.

Why does the church need this message? As we’ve been discussing the last few weeks, the American church has been conformed largely to the pornographic practices of the culture around us. It’s my hope that as faithful pastors, elders, and teachers rediscover the Bible’s teaching on modesty, nakedness, and shame, that we will repent, put some clothes on, and live as God’s distinct, holy people in the midst of a twisted and crooked generation.

Before we delve into the three main arguments in Pollard’s book, I want to highlight a few helpful points made in the forward. These insights help explain why modesty is such a hot-button issue in the culture today—something Brian Sauve, Dan Berkholder, and I saw when we tried to address it on Twitter.

First, as Henry Van Til said, “culture is religion externalized” and therefore “dress is religion externalized” (11). Likewise, this means that “the way a people live their lives, the way they communicate, their philosophy of work, and their approach to aesthetics all reflect the standards and priorities of the people, and those priorities are dictated by their true faith” (11). In other words, contrary to what many Christians believe today—including many prominent evangelical leaders—the way we dress is not morally neutral or insignificant.

While good Christians can and will differ on various particulars of application, we should all agree that holiness, piety, and biblical principle should drive the way we conceive of a “dress code” and not the dictates of a godless, sensual, pornographic culture.

Likewise, three main false ideologies are largely responsible for the church’s present weakness on the issue of modesty. These issues are Gnosticism (the physical body doesn’t matter), Antinomianism (disdain for God’s law), and the Neutrality Postulate (that Christ is not Lord over every area but only our “spiritual” lives). Sadly, many pastors teach along these lines: what you do with your body doesn’t matter, it is fundamentally your own decision to wear “whatever feels fun,” and Scripture doesn’t speak to a certain issue or, if it does, it somehow doesn’t apply to you.

Finally, the introduction gives a very succinct summary of the historical view of the church: in general, bodies are made to be covered—not uncovered—public nakedness is associated with shame, and the aim of clothing is holiness and modesty as a covering, not intimately highlighting the sexual aspects of a person’s body by uncovering them and sensually drawing attention to them.

In turn, that’s been a helpful principle for me as I sift through the myriad issues with modesty in our culture today—I simply ask myself, “Is this clothing item or dress choice driven by the desire to cover or uncover nakedness?” If anything, as Christians, we should err on the side of covering rather than exposing and causing shame.

First, the book presents a strong Scriptural defense of Christian modesty.

When discussing modesty among Christians, I’ve noticed at least two major trends. On the one hand, there are those Christians who grew up in legalistic environments where extra-biblical commands were placed on them. For example, fundamentalist Baptists or charismatic believers who were taught that drinking a beer, showing bare ankles, playing cards, or wearing hair shorter than mid-back was inherently immoral (commands that are not supported by Scripture). Many in this camp chafe against any discussion of modesty, since it was a subject often abused by legalistic authorities in their past. They can tend to land in the other ditch, living in disregard for any sexual restraints in dress or behavior.

On the other hand, there are Christians who’ve been raised with a priori and foundational assumption that what they wear doesn’t fall under Christ’s lordship and is simply a matter of preference or personal choice. Since the Bible doesn’t use the word “bikini” or “yoga pants,” clearly God doesn’t have an opinion on the matter. They are taught that Scripture doesn’t have anything to say about modesty or a “dress code,” and since there’s not a list of acceptable 20th century clothing items, dress lengths, and shoulder strap widths laid out, we can dress however we subjectively and individually see fit. If you’ve got it, flaunt it. Slay, queen.

In both instances, what we really need is a more robust biblical literacy and biblical understanding of the principles and aim of clothing, nakedness, covering, and modesty—one that is neither worldly nor legalistic. While Scripture doesn’t give us a “fixed set of rules” about which specific clothing items are permissible, it does give us plenty of general principles that can be applied in an incredibly helpful way. As always, these principles must be applied with wisdom, not woodenly.

Chapter 2 begins with a discussion about 1 Timothy 2:9, which says, “In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with braided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.”

First, from this passage—and with help from Noah Webster—Pollard derives a helpful definition of modesty: “Christian modesty is the inner self-government, rooted in a proper understanding of one’s self before God, which outwardly displays itself in humility and purity from a genuine love for Jesus Christ, rather than in self-glorification or self-advertisement. Christian modesty will not publicly expose itself in sinful nakedness” (22).

He says it is “a broad concept not limited to sexual connotation [but certainly includes it]. It’s a state of mind or disposition that expresses a humble estimate of oneself before God...it doesn’t seek to draw attention to itself or to show off in an unseemly way” (19). According to Noah Webster, when applied to women it relates to a woman’s chaste manners and apparel. So, in other words, modesty is an inward disposition that manifests itself in outward actions, including how we dress and carry ourselves in society.

It is worth pointing out that the Greek word here for modest apparel is kosmios, from the word kosmos, which means “well ordered, decent, modest, or virtuous.” The second word, which the KJV has as “shamefacedness” and the NASB as “modestly,” is aidos, which means “from a sense of shame” or “modesty.” So, there are actually two words here that get translated as “modest,” depending on the English translation.  

The word kosmios comes from the root word kosmos, which refers to all of creation ordered according to God’s word. In turn, what brings about “good order” is the application of God’s standards. We are not the ones who get to decide what “well ordered” and “virtuous” means, and it is not primarily an order set by the pagan culture or tastes. Again, the passage—and a major theme in Paul’s letter to Corinth—is about God establishing His good order in the midst of his people in worship, and that means Sunday morning worship shouldn’t mirror a whorehouse or, perhaps worse, the red carpet walk at the Oscars.

As the word aidos connotes, modesty in apparel or behavior comes from a proper sense of shame. Scripturally, public nakedness and shame are associated, which is why a modest woman does not seek to uncover her nakedness in public through sensual dress. Keep in mind, the Greek word has referent not only to the woman causing herself shame, but society and others. Thus, sensual dress is a form of rebellion against God’s good order that brings shame upon the whole community, which is why Paul said the whole congregation should be concerned with women dressing immodestly.

Now, what many modern Christians often do with this passage is reduce it to mean that women shouldn’t dress ostentatiously and luxuriously—they claim that is the only thing meant by “modesty.” However, as Pollard rightly points out with the help of several older commentaries and Greek lexicons, Paul’s language here definitely includes sensual dress and the nuance of women dressing so as to be sexually enticing. While Greek religious cults were often accompanied by prostitutes who acted and dressed so as to attract male clientele, Paul unequivocally forbids this type of behavior in the church.

Likewise, it’s obvious that this is a sin particular to women. Just as men tend to sin by lusting with their eyes, women tend to sin by dressing in a way that would cause men to lust after them.

Pollard cites J.N.D. Kelly’s commentary on The Pastoral Epistles, who says of shamefacedness and sobriety “the former, used only in the N.T., connotes feminine reserve in matters of sex. The latter…basically stands for perfect self-mastery in the physical appetites…as applied to women it too had a definitively sexual nuance” (20). And again, Kelly says “While his remarks conform broadly to the conventional diatribe against female extravagance, what is probably foremost in his mind is the impropriety of women exploiting their physical charms … and also the emotional disturbance they are liable to cause their male fellow-worshippers.”

Likewise, George W. Knight says the passage is not only about costly, extravagant attire, but “also as the mode of dress [here described by Paul reflects that] of courtesans and harlots…it is the excess and sensuality that Paul forbids” (21).

To summarize Pollard’s insights about 1 Timothy 2:9, it is clear that modesty is closely related to a woman’s dress and that godly women should avoid sensual, sexually enticing apparel in public. This passage is clearly not just about expensive or luxurious clothing and jewelry, but also a woman’s natural instinct to use her beauty to attract attention from men.

Likewise, while principles of modesty apply to men, this passage teaches us that the tendency to dress provocatively is uniquely a feature of the feminine nature. As gifted beautifiers of creation, women have the tendency to use their beauty and charms to gain undue attention (and often, power over men).

And contrary to what false teachers like Ron Burns and Beth Moore say, women should absolutely take care not to cause their brothers to sin by giving rise to lust. Yes, men are responsible not to lust, but women are also responsible to not give unnecessary rise to it. That is one of the immediate points Paul is making in the passage.

The second major passage that Jeff Pollard addresses is Genesis 1-3. I’ll summarize briefly. Adam and Eve were naked and not ashamed in the garden, but after the fall, they recognize their nakedness and it produces shame. Adam and Eve sewed together loin cloths, which were something like thongs covering only their private parts. The prescient verse is Genesis 3:21: “Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.”

Interestingly enough, God was the first Father in history to tell his underdressed kids to go back upstairs and put more clothing on before they went out in public. Whereas they attempted to cover only their crotches, God clearly said that wasn’t enough. In response, he killed animals and gave them kuttonets, or tunics, made of animal skins.

Pollard then gives a short lexical history of the kuttonet, which more or less was a loose-fitting garment that had long sleeves (sometimes shorter sleeves, too) and went to mid-calf or ankle. While he isn’t making the argument that we should all wear tunics, Pollard does have a valid point—God’s standard for proper covering of nakedness seems to be from shoulder to knee.

Pollard then examines a few other passages that confirm, from O.T. and N.T., that nakedness means more than exposing your privates or being completely stark naked. In John 21:7, for e.g., Peter is said to be gumnos, or naked, when he has removed his tunic for work on the sea (he still had his undergarments on). In case you were wondering, the word gumnos means “naked, stripped bare; and without an outer garment, without which a decent person did not appear in public” (Bauer, A Greek English Lexicon, 33).

In Isaiah 47:1-3, the Virgin daughter of Israel is humiliated in shame because she has “made bare the leg and uncover[ed] the thigh.” When he was possessed by demons, the demoniac in Luke 8 was naked; when Christ healed him, he was clothed and in his right mind. Satan’s methods seem to be to get people to take off more and more of their clothes in public, while God seems to be covering them. And likewise, pagan prostitutes were known for going around sensuously dressed, an obvious method for gaining the attention of men. In contrast, Christian cultures throughout history have rejected this kind of NC-17-rated attire.

In the end, I think Pollard makes a pretty solid biblical case for modesty, covering, and nakedness from the text. Does the Scriptural standard—being covered from shoulder to knee—seem odd compared to the way our culture views nakedness and pornographic attire? Absolutely. But maybe—just maybe—the point of holiness is being distinct from the world. Certainly, the way Amish and Mennonite folks dress makes their religious convictions immediately apparent. The same cannot be said for many professing Christians.

As Pollard points out, the obvious practical application is that modern swimwear—including two-pieces, skin-tight one-pieces with V-shaped crotch, speedos on dudes, shirtless men—is all a flagrant violation of virtually every biblical principle pertaining to public nakedness. More on that in a moment.

But then so are backless dresses, tube tops, dresses with slits that run to within a few inches of a woman’s crotch, shorty shorts, painted-on jeans that show every contour of buttock and vagina, exposed midriffs, spandex tops, blouses and bras that set cleavage a bursting forth, yoga pants that reveal every bend and curve in the female anatomy, sheer dresses that leave an unmistakable imprint of whatever kind of underwear a woman is wearing, the gym bro shirts that lack sides, and so on.

And if all else fails, remember the goal and purpose of clothing is not to look as sexy as possible, to expose as much as possible, or “do whatever feels fun”—the goal is to be covered, to protect your own chastity and that of the men (or women) around you, and to honor the Lord with modest apparel. This is what promotes “good order.” Remember, you are not your own, for you were bought with a price; so, glorify God in your body (1 Cor. 6:19-20).

Second, the book delivers a strong case based on the historical interpretations from the church on modesty and key relevant passages.

While the historical record of the church isn’t infallible, it is often helpful because, while the men of the past had errors, they didn’t have our errors. They had blind spots, but they are different than ours. They weren’t caught up in a post-1960s sexual “revolution” that’s celebrated fornication, sodomy, and an ever-diminishing standard for public decency regarding dress. And so, they can be majorly helpful to us as we examine the issue of modesty.

We’ve already shared insights from a few theologians as they talked about modesty, but I want to highlight a few more to show how our fathers in the faith viewed this issue.

John Calvin (22, 29).

Gordon Wenham (25).

John Bunyan (72).

Thomas Manton (66-67).

Richard Baxter (66).

Third, Pollard traces the influences and intentions of swimwear designers across the 20th century. 

The last main emphasis of Pollard’s book is to trace the openly stated agenda of the fashion industry as it sought to change American swimwear and, in turn, standards of decency within the culture.

As Pollard points out, swimwear was designed to intentionally undress America and bring erotic, sensual nakedness out into the light of day. Skin-tight materials were developed that would display the contour of sexual organs, breasts, butts, and hips in a way that was erotic and arousing. In fact, fashion designers discovered a significant feature of sexual nature and arousal—strategically designed and sparse clothing can actually be more erotic than no clothing at all. This is one reason why men are so often sexually aroused by lingerie.

Interestingly enough, many of the first swimsuit models refused to wear these garments because they saw it as pornographic and lewd. An entire male pastime of “people watching” at the beach developed. From the beginning, this was the fashion industry’s stated goal: to deconstruct America’s Christian moral standards. Likewise, the industry worked closely with Hollywood and popular media to destigmatize and normalize the uncovering of more and more flesh.

How can we learn from the history of the swimsuit? The main takeaway here is that Christians are too easily duped by cultural trends, which quickly become golden calves that we refuse to repent of. Today, it’s not uncommon for Christian women to argue that two-piece bikinis are perfectly acceptable, even though it has been historically—and is biblically—a clear example of shameful nakedness and immodest dress. It is simply a case in which godless culture and not Scripture has shaped our concepts of propriety and order.

Often, these issues aren’t addressed by pastors or elders in the church because they know it will receive serious pushback from the predominantly female and feminist-leaning congregations. Women and men, along the way, have been completely indoctrinated by state schools to embrace nakedness not as shame but as a means to liberation.

In other news, it turns out that pastor Brian wasn’t the first person to say women in ought not to dress like whores. In fact, Calvin and Bunyan both said very similar things. The only difference is the whores of their day generally had a lot more clothes on than many professing Christian women today. If you can’t say “amen,” you can say “ouch.”

At a practical level, Christians need to rethink swimwear (among many other clothing choices). If it’s a clear violation of biblical principle—and I believe it clearly is—then why do we keep doing it? Why do we allow it in our churches? Why don’t pastors address it from the pulpit?

In addition, it’s made me rethink the whole concept of coed bathing in most situations. Why? First, because coed bathing was actually abnormal for most of human history. Second, because even if my family is appropriately clothed, no one else will be and it’s an obvious stumbling block for men. If we do go swimming, it’ll be in shorts and swim shirts, ideally where we can find semi-private sections of beach.

Some other implications I see: We aren’t watching women’s beach volleyball, swimming, most track and field events, or female gymnastics at the summer Olympics this year, because most of them feature revealing spandex, women’s crotches, bare thighs, and shirtless men. Let’s get real—there’s one simple reason many men watch beach volleyball or gymnastics, and why the Norwegian volleyball team was prohibited by Olympic officials from wearing spandex shorts instead of bikinis.