Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or expensive apparel, but rather by means of good works, as is proper for women making a claim to godliness. [1 Timothy 2:9-10 (NASB)]
Do these verses mean I can’t wear my pearl earrings, diamond wedding ring, or gold cross to church? Do I have to say “farewell” to Nordstrom’s and start shopping solely at outlets and discount stores? Although my hair is short, it’s hard to believe my grand’s lovely French braids are inappropriate at church or anywhere else. What did Paul and Peter mean with their admonitions about women’s attire and modesty?
Let’s put the Apostles’ words into cultural context. The early church was a mix of Jew, Gentile, men, women, free, slave, wealthy, and poor. In the Roman Empire, jewelry and expensive clothing of linen, silk, and embroidered fabric were valued as much for the status they gave the owner as for their beauty. Behaving like a peacock by showing off one’s extravagant jewelry and lavish apparel was the ancient way of openly boasting about one’s position, bank balance, and investment portfolio. While it was as crass and insensitive in the 1st century as it is today, some members of the early church were doing just that!
More valuable than diamonds at the time, pearls represented both wealth and power. Rich women often embellished their clothing with pearls; the more pearls a woman wore, the richer and more esteemed she (and her spouse) were. Because only people of great wealth or high status wore them, pearls set the wearer apart from the rest of the public.
As for braids—when wealthy women plaited their hair during the Roman period, they’d entwine strands of gold, precious stones, and pearls into the braid. The Apostles’ issue with plaited hair wasn’t the braid; it was with the showy embellishments in the braid! Like lavish clothing, pearls, and excessive jewelry, such braids implied a sort of social “pecking order” or class system that was unacceptable in a community where all are to be one in Jesus Christ!
While we think of immodest dress as attire that leaves little or nothing to the imagination, neither Paul nor Peter were referring to things like cleavage, bare midriffs, miniskirts, or “booty” shorts; those things were not an issue in the 1st century. A woman’s lack of coverage wasn’t what concerned the Apostles nor were they establishing a “modesty patrol.” Nevertheless, taking these verses out of context, some denominations have established rules regarding women’s attire requiring things like hemlines below the knee and sleeves that extend to the elbow while prohibiting things like make-up, jewelry beyond a wedding ring and watch, and women’s slacks because “they immodestly reveal the feminine contours of upper leg, thigh, and hip.”
It wasn’t excess skin that concerned Paul and Peter; it was an excess in attire that demonstrated pride, self-importance, and arrogance! The modesty about which the Apostles were speaking was economic and social rather than sexual in nature. Addressing those who were flaunting their wealth and social status, the Apostles took issue with the ostentatious displays of opulence that threatened a sense of kinship and unity within the early church.
Rather than turn legalistic with an external set of rules regarding proper attire, Paul and Peter set a much higher standard for us all—that of godliness. Qualities like respect, humility, love, trust, kindness, gentleness, faithfulness, self-control, and reverence are conditions of the heart—not an issue of clothing. The way we present ourselves to others isn’t supposed to point to us; it should point to Jesus. No matter how we’re attired, if we haven’t put on Christ, we’re not dressed properly!
Many come to bring their clothes to church rather than themselves. [Thomas Fuller]
I grew up attending the Episcopal Church at a time when women covered their heads during worship and the men worshipped bare-headed. While not a hard and fast rule in the denomination, it was a time-honored tradition. Women wearing head coverings in Episcopal and Catholic churches began to wane in the 70s and, by 1983, the Roman Catholic church no longer had rules regarding headwear for men or women. The last time I attended an Episcopal or Catholic church, the women were hatless and some of the men wore baseball caps! Although culture plays an important role in the way we dress and behave in church, how do we interpret Paul’s words today? Should I dig out my mantilla and must our pastor toss out his ball cap?
Jeopardy introduced me to the word “performative” but, in an article about how scandals are hurting organized religion, the New York Times introduced me to another new word, “orthopraxy.” While “orthodoxy” means correct belief, doctrine, or teaching, “orthopraxy” has to do with correct practice, behavior, or action. Orthodoxy says, “Hear my words!” but orthopraxy says, “Watch my behavior!” With the flood of scandals throughout the Christian church, it’s easy to point our fingers at the disgraced Christian celebrities, megachurch pastors, and Roman Catholic priests whose orthodoxy didn’t match their orthopraxy—people who espoused devotion to God and adherence to His word while disregarding it in their own lives. Let’s remember, however, that whenever we point a finger at someone, three other fingers point at us! Although the Times article was about the disconnect between orthodoxy and orthopraxy in the church at large, there’s often a disconnect between the two in our personal lives, as well.
In the category of “Newer Words,” the night’s Final Jeopardy clue was, “Philosopher’s use it for language that accompanies an action, like ‘I dub thee knight’; it also means done for show or signal.” The correct response was “performative.” A new word to me, I encountered it again the following day in an article by Rich Villodas about “performative spirituality.” After asking, ”If a good deed is not posted on social media, did it really happen?” Villodas continued with another rhetorical question, “If an act of generosity is not caught on camera and never goes viral, was it a worthwhile gesture?”
Because the pastor’s sermon was about being thankful, she’d selected “Come, Ye Thankful People, Come” as the evening’s opening hymn. Henry Alford wrote this hymn in 1844 for village harvest festivals in England called Harvest Home. Rural churches would celebrate the harvest by decorating with pumpkins and autumn leaves, collecting the harvest bounty, and then distributing it to the needy. Because of its seasonal harvest imagery, we usually sing this hymn in November at Thanksgiving but this was mid-July! Reading the hymn’s words out of their traditional Thanksgiving context, I understood their meaning in an entirely different way.
Because most of the disciples hailed from Galilee where fishing was fundamental to the area’s economy, Jesus’ parable comparing the Kingdom of Heaven to a fishing net gave them a beautiful visual image of the Kingdom when the final judgment occurs. Since we’re not Galilean fishermen, however, our picture of a fishing net might be like the hand-held ones used for trout or bass fishing. Jesus, however, used the word sagéné, meaning dragnet; its English equivalent is seine.
