When we speak about issues of modesty as it relates to holiness and Christian living, we tend to focus our attention on ladies and what they are supposed to do (or not do).  The gentlemen seem to rise above the fray, seemingly untouched, while preachers and other leaders lecture the ladies about the dangers of over-exposure.

Modesty is an issue that God-fearing men must consider, as well.  Pardon my college-level grammar, but it ain’t just for the women.

“But speak thou the things which become sound doctrine: That the aged men be sober, grave, temperate, sound in faith, in charity, in patience…Young men likewise exhort to be sober-minded. In all things shewing thyself a pattern of good works: in doctrine shewing uncorruptness, gravity, sincerity, Sound speech, that cannot be condemned; that he that is of the contrary part may be ashamed, having no evil thing to say of you.” (Titus 2:1-2, 6-8).

In my last post, I references the apostle Paul’s exhortation to the ladies regarding their “shamefacedness” and “sobriety.” It is obvious here that “sobriety” should be found among the men folk. It is the same Greek word (sofroneo, sofrosune) describing what is commanded for each gender.  How do men show their “sobriety” in this case?

First, gentlemen must refine and redefine what they find attractive in a woman.  One main reason why worldly women parade their assets in front of worldly men is because the worldly men encourage them to do so.  Men need not say one word, because their head-swiveling, elevator-eyeing actions say it all.  I wish I could say that it were not so within the Christian community, but I’ve seen enough to know that we often have difficulty distinguishing ourselves in this arena.  I am not saying that it is wrong to find a member of the opposite sex physically attractive, because both men and women are naturally wired that way.  But when men constantly put the fleeting physical beauty of a woman above her lasting inner beauty, we are causing women who don’t feel that they “measure up” on the outside to feel insecure.

In the courting phase of life, men are the pursuers; in the married phase of life, they are the heads of their home. The “aged men” (elders) Paul told Titus about are men who understand what lasting beauty really is, and it is their responsibility to teach these principles to younger men.  Younger men must be conditioned to appreciate the beauty of a woman’s inner holiness and purity as it is exemplified by her dress and demeanor.

Secondly, gentlemen must critically consider their choice of dress, as well.  Men need to use good judgment to ensure that what they are wearing does not immodesty expose body lines, either by tightness of the clothing or by exposure of the skin.  It may be socially acceptable for men to go shirtless in public, but that does not mean that it is acceptable for the child of God.  As godly women try to protect their brothers’ sensibilities, so also should godly men try to preserve their sisters’.

Why is all of this important?  Holiness is Biblically defined in terms of modesty and separation. We are commanded to be holy as He is holy (1 Peter 1). Our perfection is not inherent in our own works, but is made possible by Christ’s sacrifice and His presence in our lives.  We are also commanded to live in the world, but not to become worldly.  There must be something attractive and discernible that distinguishes Christians in these last days.  Certainly it begins with inward transformation through the Holy Spirit, but it must extend to all aspects of our lives, including our appearance and dress.  Consistency ought to be the mark of a Christian, and inconsistencies are fodder for the enemies of Christ.

“… Sound speech, that cannot be condemned; that he that is of the contrary part may be ashamed, having no evil thing to say of you.” 

Let’s not give our adversaries any reason to doubt the validity of our faith or the power of God.

My wife recently began a series of posts on her blog dealing with the issue of modesty as it relates to clothing. To coincide with her thinking on the subject, I wanted to put in my $0.02 and take on the principle of modesty from the male standpoint.

The purpose of modest apparel is not to prove our Christianity. Jesus Himself stated that the world would know that we are His disciples if we have love one for another. It is brotherly love, not apparel, that marks a Christian. We are not to make a spectacle of ourselves; rather, we should be reflections of His glory.

The purpose of modest choices of dress is to protect each other from the insatiable monster of lust. By doing this, we glorify God and show that we truly love one another. Humanity was forever aware of the need to cover up after Adam and Eve’s sin. The Bible says they knew they were naked (implicating that they did not realize this before) and immediately tried to cover themselves. Nakedness induces shame in God-fearing individuals. What we may deduce from observing 21 Century society is that the fear of God is severely lacking.

Women must understand that protecting the man’s sensibilities in this regard requires more than simply wearing a skirt or dress and a blouse or other top with sleeves. Men are keenly aware of the feminine form, and will notice when a woman is forcing her size 14 curves into an outfit that is a size 10. Ladies, your skin may be covered; but if a man can still ascertain the exact shape of your figure, you have not achieved the goal of modesty.

It is sad that a woman who would not dare to accentuate or expose her decolletage or her derriere has no qualms about wearing patterned hose or fishnet stockings which only serve the purpose of accentuating her legs. Such a woman would be better served to wear simple “nude” hosiery or else go barelegged if modesty is her goal. This may offend some of you, but fishnet stockings are the legwear choice of burlesque dancers, prostitutes, and “club” girls. They are neither stylish nor chic, and certainly ought not to be associated with women of holiness. I know what a man thinks when he sees them, and for that reason alone, Christian women should remove them from their wardrobe.

What is the point? We are instructed as follows:

“Follow moderation with all men…” (Phil. 4:5)

“In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety…” (1 Tim. 2:9)

We need to have a broader understanding of holiness and modesty, not simply in terms of appearance, but in terms of attitude and heart. Do the concepts of “moderation,” “shamefacedness,” or “sobriety” line up with what passes for “Apostolic fashion” today? Woman of God, is it in your heart to absolutely please God in every aspect of your life, or does the desire to be physically alluring compete? Having believed what the word of God says about your eternal salvation, are you also willing to believe what His word says about your appearance? It is true that Christian conversion is primarily an issue of the heart, but are we true to our mission on this Earth if our conversion is not lived out before mankind? We must think differently about these things, for the sake of the Kingdom.

(Gentlemen, you are not off the hook! My next post will be dealing with modesty as it relates to you! Stay tuned!)

A troubling thing occurred on the business floor of the 87^th General Conference of the United Pentecostal Church International. A resolution, to be ratified by the District Conferences, would change the stated position in our Articles of Faith to relax our stance on the bearing of arms in times of war. In short, it puts the decision to serve in combat positions in our armed forces to the dictates of individual conscience.

My concern does not lie so much in the wording of the resolution itself, but in the “whereas” section that justifies it. To quote:

“Whereas, our position in the Articles of Faith concerning Conscientious Scruples causes concern and has mixed support from the ministerial constituency and does not therefore accurately represent our corporate identity…” (Our stand on television viewing causes the same concern, with far less consequence, and we vigorously hold onto it. Does this mean that if we stop believing in separation or holiness that those positions will change also?)

“Whereas, a recent UPCI publication highlighted the story of a man in combat position on the cover of its magazine…” (I did not see this particular cover story, so I can’t comment. The fact that it happened simply means we need greater editorial oversight, not a change in doctrine.)

“Whereas, the present position leaves no room for individual choice for a minister offering counsel to a member who is making military choices…” (Well, I suppose the minister will just have to counsel from the Word of God rather than the Manual of the United Pentecostal Church! This justification takes a very low view of the ability of ministers to be Spirit-led when they are counseling.)

“Whereas, we have taken no written position on the involvement of a United Pentecostal Church member serving as a Police Officer or Security Agent, thus carrying a weapon with the possible use of force, and whereas we have not addressed the equally difficult decisions concerning home and family protection in the event of a confrontation with a violent attacker…” (These are completely different issues that only serve to muddy the waters.)

“Whereas, In signing ministerial applications and affirmation statements, many ministers are not in agreement with our stand on Conscientious Objector Status and are consequently endangering their personal integrity…” (Well, perhaps ministers should read carefully before they sign on the dotted line. Besides, my recollection is that the biennial affirmation only deals with agreement with the “fundamental doctrine” of the UPCI and not this issue specifically.)

“Whereas, this deep and complicated issue merits the value of individual deliberation and heartfelt consideration…” (On the part of whom? The ministry or the laity? Why can’t we give this same latitude where it concerns television viewing, which does NOT involve the taking of human life?)

I fear that in making this change to our Articles of Faith, we are opening ourselves up to future “concessions” that have equal or greater consequence to our movement. Having been on the conference floor when this resolution was discussed, I have to echo the sentiments of Bro. Rodney Shaw—there was painfully little debate for such a drastic move away from our position. The summary reason why we passed this resolution is simply because we don’t believe it anymore, and that bothers me a great deal.

Whether this resolution passes in 2/3 of the District Conferences or not is really not the issue, because the “hawks” among us will always be hawks and the “doves” among us will always be doves. Some pastors will continue to advise against the pursuit of combatant military service, others will not. However, if we are to change our Articles of Faith, it must be done only after careful deliberation and with Scriptural precedent, not simply because we are caving to external forces and we don’t have the backbone to stand for what we truly believe.