Personally, I don't believe modesty dictates dressing plainly, either. The meaning of the word is
"...orderly, that is, decorous: - of good behaviour, modest."
Do you (Daniel & Renda in particular) read the verse to forbid gold, pearls and costly array?
To me, the verse is emphasizing that our adornment is not these things, but rather our works. However, I don't take away from the verse that we
can't wear gold, pearls or costly array (the virtuous woman was clothed in fine linens); I just understand it to mean we should emphasize good works and manner above outward adornment.
I also understand that (maybe) it is the pointing out of the inconsistency, whereas gold and pearls are forbidden, among other things, at least on certain parts of the body, but costly array is not. However, since the forbidding of those items comes from a poor interpretation of the verse to begin with, it's somewhat pointless and disingenuous to criticize people for wearing costly array--unless you truly think it's sinful.
In the particular excerpt that Daniel posted, I would agree with tstew that it's just about style, and would suggest that the majority of young people did look modest, at least as it's defined in Strong's. Personally, I don't equate "fashionable" with "immodest" unless fashionable IS immodest in some way. (e.g., indicative of indecorous behavior or attitude; disorderly) We don't call clothing immodest simply because it's in vogue--do we?
This reminds me of the Easter thread last year...why is it bothersome when people wear dress clothes? Unless you're opposed to dressing up, generally speaking (and I know for a fact that most of the posters on this thread are NOT opposed, including Daniel, if the occasion demands it), then what exactly are you harping on?
Threaded Mode
