I remember the first time I heard the words chirped by an eager female college student as we discussed the topic of modesty. Her enthusiasm was mixed with perk and reprimand, producing a tone that landed somewhere between Emily Post and a cheerleader.
To be honest, my initial reaction to "modest is hottest" was amusement. I thought the rhyme was clever and lighthearted, a harmless way to promote the virtue described in 1 Timothy 2:9 and 1 Peter 3:3-4. No harm no foul.
Since then, I've heard this mantra of the pure proclaimed many times by young women, Christian artists (including, most famously, CCM singer Rebecca St. James), and Christian leaders. In conversations the phrase always elicits chuckles, but my response has changed over time. I still wholly affirm modesty as a biblical practice for men and women, but now I hesitate to embrace the "modest is hottest" banner. Those three words carry a lot of baggage.
The Christian rhetoric of modesty, rather than offering believers an alternative to the sexual objectification of women, often continues the objectification, just in a different form.
As the Christian stance typically goes, women are to cover their bodies as a mark of spiritual integrity. Too much skin is seen as a distraction that garners inappropriate attention, causes our brothers to stumble, and overshadows our character. Consequently, the female body is perceived as both a temptation and a distraction to the Christian community. The female body is beautiful, but in a dangerous way.
This particular approach to modesty is effective because it is rooted in shame, and shame is a powerful motivator. That's the first red flag. Additionally concerning about this approach is that it perpetuates the objectification of women in a pietistic form. It treats women's bodies not as glorious reflections of the image of God, but as sources of temptation that must be hidden. It is the other side of the same objectifying coin: one side exploits the female body, while the other side seems to be ashamed of it. Both sides reduce the female body to a sexual object.
Of course, this language isn't new. Consider how profoundly the female identity has been negatively linked to her body throughout church history. For several decades now, feminist theologians have critiqued the mind-body dualism by which Christians have equated men with the mind and women with the carnal body. Citing Eve as the original "gateway for the Devil," thinkers such as Tertullian have peppered Christian tradition with hostility toward the wiles of femininity. Origen likened women to animals in their sexual lust. According to author Jane Billinghurst, "Early Christian men who had to greet women during church services by shaking their hands were advised to first wrap their hands in robes so as to shield their flesh against their seductive touch."
In response to this aspect of the Christian tradition, Rosemary Radford Ruether and other feminist theologians have over the past 50 years rightly challenged the mind-body dualism by which women were thought to be "modeled after the rejected part of the psyche," and are "shallow, fickle-minded, irrational, carnal-minded, lacking all the true properties of knowing and willing and doing."
All this negative talk about the female body may have created a vacuum for the "modest is hottest" approach to fill. Perhaps the phrase's originator hoped to provide a more positive spin on modesty. I sympathize with that. However, "modest is hottest" also perpetuates (and complicates) this objectification of women by equating purity with sexual desire. The word "hot" is fraught with sexual undertones. It continues a tradition in which women are primarily objects of desire, but it does so in an acceptable Christian way.
Making modesty sexy is not the solution we need. Instead, the church needs to overhaul its theology of the female body. Women continue to be associated with their bodies in ways that men are not. And, as a result of this unique association, women's identities are also uniquely tied to their bodies in a manner that men's identities are not.
How do we discuss modesty in a manner that celebrates the female body without objectifying women, and still exhorts women to purity? The first solution is to dispense with body-shaming language. Shame is great at behavior modification, even when the shaming is not overt. But shame-based language is not the rhetoric of Jesus. It is the rhetoric of his Enemy.
Second, we must affirm the value of the female body. The value or meaning of a woman's body is not the reason for modesty. Women's bodies are not inherently distracting or tempting. On the contrary, women's bodies glorify God. Dare I say that a woman's breasts, hips, bottom, and lips all proclaim the glory of the Lord! Each womanly part honors Him. He created the female body, and it is good.
Finally, language about modesty should focus not on hiding the female body but on understanding the body's created role. Immodesty is not the improper exposure of the body per se, but the improper orientation of the body. Men and women are urged to pursue a modesty by which our glory is minimized and God's is maximized. The body, the spirit and the mind all have a created role that is inherently God-centered. When we make ourselves central instead of God, we display the height of immodesty.
That is not to say that godly women will not attract godly men with their modesty. They might. But that is not the purpose of modesty. If "modest is hottest" encapsulates the message we communicate to young women about modesty, then we have missed the mark. "Modest is hottest" is foundationally human-centered, whereas biblical modesty is first and foremost centered on God.
To add a comment you need to be a registered user or Christianity Today subscriber.
or
or
The Feel-Good Faith of Evangelicals
Don't Let Women's Ministry Turn People Into Projects
Bless These Hands That Instagram My Food
Don't Tell Emily Post: Guests Are Paying For Weddings Now
RSS
Twitter
Facebook
Pinterest
Comments
Displaying 1–10 of 230 comments
See all comments
Eunice Tippins
"check PETA's excellent list of cosmetics companies that do and do not test on animals." I agree Katrelya, animals need a voice which can speak for them, because they cannot speak for themselves. Modest gal, I believe that it's a responsibility to understand other cultures, and to leave decisions about dressing down to women, and not to any book or doctrine written by men. There's nothing wrong with showing off our bodies as we see fit.
Katrelya Angus
I think that we in the 21st Century might apply St. Peter's and St. Paul's admonitions to electronics and things besides clothing. Perhaps many of us do not need new iPods every year, or those of us who can do our own nails may see the manicurist only on special occasions like Christmas and Easter!
Katrelya Angus
While much has been said about how a Christian woman ought to dress in the summer, not enough is said about how she should dress in the winter. The epitome of immodest dress is the causing of animals to die in agony in the obtaining of real fur - any real fur - even real fur trim - and of wearing cosmetics that are tested on animals. I believe in refraining from even giving the appearance of evil, and so I am very discreet when I wear Renaissance cloaks and elegant jackets trimmed with imitation fur; I can wear such garments to parties at which everybody knows each other, but I will not wear them to a concert or ballet. If a woman truly wants to show her inner beauty, then she must refrain from wearing not only real fur, but imitation fur, and to check PETA's excellent list of cosmetics companies that do and do not test on animals.
Kristen Cardinale
I'm not sure the last few commenters quite understood the focus of this article. The author was NOT saying we can't teach modesty without shaming women. She was honing in on the objectifying aspect of the specific phrase "modest is hottest" and the historical notions that women's bodies are merely carnal, sexual objects . On the contrary, I believe the author is 100% behind teaching modesty to women and young girls. She is simply suggesting that we teach them the correct "why" behind modesty as well as the depth of it. Modesty is not simply about covering your skin; modesty is about having purity in your actions, words, thoughts, and all manner of behavior. True modesty (and all other virtues) comes from a desire to please our Lord. Teach your daughter to love and follow God and you will teach her modesty.** **Not meant to imply that teaching love for God excludes teaching anything else. You'd think this would be obvious, but people get so picky these days.
Leah de Jager
I get that modesty is about more than what we wear. But Sharon has centred her whole article about clothing-based modesty. And I disagree with most of it. I was a teenager in the early 2000s and throughout all the youth group discussions on modesty that I sat through, never was I taught to be ashamed of my body. Yes, we were told "Too much skin is seen as a distraction" etc, but this does NOT logically lead to shame like Sharon suggests. We were taught that a man's thoughts and actions are his own responsibility, but we can be considerate towards men in how we dress AND ACT. That is not somehow objectifying women. I get some people might have been taught this but it disappoints me that Sharon mars the whole modesty/purity movement with that brush.
Laura Howard
So it's impossible to teach our daughters to dress modestly without "shaming" them? The whole "our bodies are beautiful" language is nothing new-it's been around for decades. And,yes, our bodies were beautifully designed and made not only to function but to glorify the One who created them. But, just as God created sex to be beautiful and to glorify Him, He also established boundaries. So while we are taught that sex is permitted only in marriage, we also can understand that while our bodies are beautiful, we must dress ourselves appropriately and modestly and teach our daughters to do the same. To imply that by teaching the concept of modesty, we are somehow shaming them and giving them the idea that we are telling them that their bodies are ugly is hogwash. I'm getting a flashback from the Seventies and Eighties, when women's lib and feminism were pushed down our throats. This article is just recycling.
Becky reith
" "Modest is hottest" is foundationally human-centered, whereas biblical modesty is first and foremost centered on God." Very helpful - thanks. A reminder that our motivation for modesty/inner beauty/godliness is not to bag the Best Christian Male in church, but because it's pleasing to the Lord and it's right to live out the heaven-bound life that Christ's death bought for us. The human-centred "modest is hottest" mantra will only end up with us expecting that the holy grail of the hot AND godly Christian husband is our rightful reward, and with us being disappointed if we don't get him.
modest gal
actually, wearing a burka does not mean you do not choose your marriage partner; not really sure how that got lumped together. I think you should do some research before contributing ideas like that to an otherwise very interesting and intelligent discussion. Uninformed comments like that just make it look like we Christians have no idea about other faiths. By the way, marriages can occur even without putting goods on display. It happens all the time - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2LRnz4jHkU http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2223866/Islam-real-love-just-lust-The-party-girl-whos-embraced-new-life-Muslim-convert.html Modesty has to be an attitude, and like other attitudes and personal traits, it gets expressed in how you dress and how you behave. A big part of it is in not ogling one another, keeping a modest gaze. Another part is being sensitive and aware of what effect you have on others. As a person of faith, who is trying to be closer to God with every moment, i am always trying to improve in terms of how i effect others. If i notice that a certain way of acting hurts another person's feelings or leaves them feeling silent and left out, i will change that for next time; likewise, i can tell if a man looks at me in "that" way - and i am able to relate it to something i might have been wearing or a certain informality i displayed in my interaction. So i modify how i act, re-calibrate, and continue. Instead of arguing and wondering what the "line" is, let's just ask ourselves everyday when we get dressed: is this how Mary (peace be upon her) would have dressed? If she were here with me now, would i feel that she is proud of me, or would i feel "ashamed" that i am exposing myself in a way that does not say: I am a woman of God, I am a woman of faith, I am an ambassador of the Divine Message of Jesus. I think a lot has to do with intention. Sometimes we can really cover up but we are giving off all kinds of vibes that say: i'm sexy and attracted to you...and sometimes the opposite; we can be casually dressed but very clean and clear in our interpersonal interactions, and men respond positively and respectfully.
van Rooinek
Womens bodies are not inherently distracting or tempting Only a woman could have written this. ;-) No men believe it. We really, really like the way you look. It's distracting. Modest is hottest Agree, a foolish slogan. The point of modesty is to NOT be too "hot", so as to avoid causing the brethern to stumble. On the other hand, going to the other extreme -- the burkha -- seems foolish in a society where the choice of marriage partner is left up to free will; at least SOME degree of natural attractiveness has to be on display, or no marriages will occur.
Diamond Faison
we have missed the mark. Modest is hottest is foundationally human-centered, whereas biblical modesty is first and foremost centered on God.
*