I believe modesty has been talked about before but why not again.
One of the cries against Christian Naturism is how immodest it is. On the other hand, modesty seems to be a relative thing.
When I was in college, the churches I was going to said "women should not wear slacks in church" because it is immodest. I, on the other hand, felt that skirts were much more "sexy" on women.
I remember seeing a story on the Packastani dress codes and how, since they had been relaxed and the faces were not covered, the "immodest" dress was causing problems.
I know that in a naturist setting, I actually see a swimsuit as more immodest on a woman than nothing at all.
Modesty, by definition, means "less". So the more "modest" you dress, the "less you dress....in theory.
At the time, to dress modestly, is to mean to not dress like the Socialites of the day. Church is not a place to show off your wealth as many Socialites like to do.
Church is an "equalizer". Where there are masters and slaves in the world, the slaves are now equal to the masters in church.
That doesn't mean that the rich should "dress down" to look like "po-folks", that would be an insult. But it does mean that we should not try to impress anyone with our clothing.
Women today are forced to dress up, fancy, "lady like" because of a couple of misunderstood verses and misunderstood styles of today. Can you imagine your local deacon wearing the slacks that are designed for women? To not wear clothing that "pertains to a man", does not mean that women cannot wear slacks designed for women! It means they cannot wear mens clothing.
The idea is to not dress up to look like a man or men looking like women! Cross dressing, "drag queens" are what it is talking about. NOT practical dressing for comfort and style.
Now modest is a funny word in that it means "less". Do they mean to say "dress with less clothing" or "show less with more clothing"? When you read what it really says, we need to realize that they were showing off their wealth. So I would say with less "fancy" and with more "humility". Nothing to do with quantity of clothing. It has everything to do with why and how. We are not to try to impress each other ( especially not God). For example, you cannot impress a hungry person by how much you eat or not eat. You impress the hungry person by giving what you have to them and being willing to give up yourself for them. That works in all things in life. Be willing to give all as God gave all.
Our church does allow women to wear slacks. We are assuming of course, they are wearing slacks that "pertaineth to a woman" (I notice that bible literalists tend to read and quote with perfection only and nothing but King James).
That is not wandering. You are on point! It isn't what you see that gets your attention but rather what you might see. Peek-a- boo. Scriptural modesty is about appropriate dress not amount. The right attire for the right place and occasion. Nude would be proper on a nude beach, a nudist resort, your pool or backyard, or away from others a respectable distance. Bearone
My parents and I, and a few others, have gone around the block a few times about modesty.
Seems most people believe that modesty means to be covered at nearly all times. Wrong. Like Bearone said, it's a matter of appropriatness (sp?). It would not be modest for me to walk into my parents church nude, but neither would it be modest for me to walk into the weekly service at White Tail completely dressed.
At both times the conduct is beyond reproach, there's just a differance in dress. Both services are completely modest. As brought up here before, it almost seems easier to be immodest when dressed. It's easier to be alluring, to show just not quite enough, and always keep others' attention. Seen it plenty of times.
The only talk about modesty is in I Tim. 2:9. There, Paul is talking about women not showing their wealth with too much jewelry, flashy clothes.
I'm sure that some would come naked, if they were poor and couldn't afford clothing. This is what they'd do. Then, if they showed up, the injunction was to clothe them (since they were too poor to do so themselves). Otherwise, they'd have perhaps not even a piece of clothing to cover themselves at night.
Another place, Jesus says not to take a person's cloak because he might then not have anything to cover himself at night.
