Dec 122011

I have read and heard a lot lately, among Christian women who consider themselves “modest”, about what that means.

There are the obvious “finer points” debates, about exactly how long a skirt should be, or what the appropriate length is for sleeves.

There are some more significant choices debated, about whether women should wear pants, how to handle swimming suits, etc.

And there are some totally philosophical arguments. One extreme says that “they” are being vain about their appearance and that’s not a modest attitude; while the opposite camp insists that a woman should make herself look good to appreciate the gifts God has given her and to please her husband (among other reasons), and “they” are getting holier-than-thou and being proud of being frumpy. Whew!

One thing that I realized from all this debate is that we are spending a lot of time and energy talking about this, thinking about this, and writing about this.

What if we didn’t have to?

If you’re a “conservative Mennonite” like these ladies, you and your friends don’t have to worry about debating the finer points.

While you may or may not consider the group’s “dress code” to be 100% in line with your deepest personal beliefs, you, and everyone else at your church, have agreed to follow them.

So you know what length your skirt and sleeves should be.

No stress, no debate.

And, obviously, they are modest.

That seems to me like a valuable thing. One less distraction on the path. One less question that the Enemy can use to start a nagging concern in the back of your head, or an afternoon debate over coffee with a friend.

Couldn’t that time and energy be put to better use? Studying Scripture? “Debating” how to implement a new service project? Or playing with your kids?

Me? I’m willing to die to self a little more, for that gain.

 Leave a Reply



You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>