Short Pants

[Donnie Gillum]

Short pants (just above or below the knee) for men have become almost standard attire in casual and business dress ... and even in some churches.  I'm getting questions about this, both distant (other states) and locally.  I've been asked what is the difference between them and shorts.  Some are concerned about men in their assembly wearing them in public and being used "on the platform".  Are they wrong, right, acceptable or a non-issue?  Care to comment?

[Mike R. Prevost]

James Silvers said:

Dear Brothers, although I firmly believe in modesty by both men and women, the truth is that the definition has changed throughout the history of the church. It is true that the modern definition is that of the Methodist movement from a past time. The issue of provocativeness lies within the heart of the individual.

Making an important concept like modesty relative to culture is a very scary. You have to pick a point on the curve of moral decline to which you will conform -- and then you are only dealing with your own culture. You have no basis for evaluation other cultures. I was shocked to see in the subways of Paris giant billboards using full blown nudity in advertising -- and that was over 10 years ago. The Parisians weren't alarmed though. We're getting pretty close to this in the US. When I was a kid, I saw in National Pornographic (... I mean Geographic) pictures of topless African women, which was evidently the norm in that culture. Perhaps breasts were not considered a sexual thing. I don't know. I feel that neither of these are an adequate reflection of modesty, but why do I feel that way? And if modesty is relative to culture, on what basis do I make my claims?

It would be great to have a reliable set of principles from the Scripture that defined modesty in a concrete, non-culturally relevant way. I haven't been satisfied with the standard attempts, though. On many subjects great rigor and honesty is exercised in interpretation. But on others (e.g., this one), it seems we are merely trying to synthesize and argument to justify our current ideas. For example, I met a Pastor who has a "platform standard" that said that to be used in a public capacity, one cannot dye their hair. I can understand that dying one's hair may indicate a certain amount of vanity. But when asked to justify his position, he used Mat 5:36, "[...] thou canst not make one hair white or black". It makes you want to laugh and cry at the same time. I just wish that the sincerity with which he held his belief was matched by the sincerity with which he handled the Scripture.

As it pertains to this current discussion, I think that it is entirely reasonable to question the proposed nakedness definition in Isa 47:2 as being either incomplete or only relevant to ancient culture because it does not consider all the items in the list (i.e., "uncover thy locks"). That "uncover thy locks" is part of nakedness definition in Isa 47:2 (assuming there actually is a nakedness definition) is inescapable. Given this, you really have only two choices: (1) women today should be veiled such that you can't see their hair, or (2) this is a culturally relevant definition of nakedness. If (2), then even other passages mentioning nakedness (e.g., Exo 28:42) come under great suspicion of also being culturally relative. But modern Christians are unwilling to accept option #1 -- it's not in line with our culture.

Also, my comments regarding robes was not just some snotty remark. As was mentioned previously in this thread, we must glean principles from scripture and those principles should drive our practice. Amen! Right On! In our zeal to ensure that women don't wear breeches, modern Christians use the examples of scripture to glean principles about both the pattern and length of womens clothing (i.e., not split between the legs and extends down below the knees, katastole, etc). However, we only use the example of scripture to talk about the length of men's clothing, not the pattern? Why leave out the pattern of men's clothing? Why use a different method of gleaning when analyzing men's clothing? All the examples of scripture show cloaks and robes and such. The arguments I've heard about "kethoneth" show it to be a coat or cloak or robe of some sort -- not pants or overalls. In our gathering of principles from the scriptures, modern Christians are unwilling to be consistent when it comes to the pattern of men's and women's clothing -- it would leave us with a conclusion that is not in line with our culture.

Another glaring example is beards. All men in this forum have a beard to some degree and I would wager that over 90% of us shave it off every morning. Where did you get your beard? It was given to you on the sixth day of creation when God created the masculine physique. It is more gender identifying than either the hair of your head or your manner of dress. If we were to put as much energy into gleaning the scriptural principles regarding beards as we do other things, it would surely be universally considered a sin to NOT have a beard. But, modern Christians don't have beards, and often look askance at those who do, because it's not in line with our culture.

So part of my point is that by picking and choosing the principles we want to glean, modern Christians can and have inserted our own cultural biases into the conventional modern "Holiness Standards". Am I really saying that women should wear veils, men should wear beards, and that we all should wear robes of some sort? I don't know, but this does seem to be the honest outcome of the line of reasoning presented in this thread. Perhaps this method of "gleaning principle from example" is correct and we have yet only been willing to take half measures in implementing them. Or perhaps there are other guiding principles of interpretation that define which examples we should glean principles from and which ones we shouldn't (e.g., why don't we practice the "holy kiss" commanded 4 times in the New Testament?).

Got to get to work. I wrote this to clarify my previous post so as to not be misinterpreted as a snotty little complainer. I am actually a confused weirdo. ;)

[David Huston]

Bro. Alex, I have posted a definition of kethoneth and the Strong's reference number. Bro. Frazier has posted a reference on this word. And you have posted a definition. I'm not sure what you're waiting for. I'm willing to yield to your definition, which is a garment that extends down to the knees, rarely to the ancles. All I have said is that the knees ought to be covered for both men and women. Your definition of kethoneth seems to cover that point.

[James Silvers]

I sincerely hope that you did not think I was implying that society or culture defines what is modest to God. What I meant was when this subject comes up it always has a cultural component to the definitions. Just like the breeches in Exodus - they were for the priests not for all men - we use this because we believe it is proof of our conviction at this time in history. We neglect the other items in Exodus such as the "bonnets" because we do not believe it applies today. Just as the women wearing pants in Deu 22 and we negate the verses above and below. This is taking scripture out of context. Our current standard of holiness is what was basically set down by the early Methodists.

In regard to Bro. Huston and his knee being part of the thigh - it is what he believes. I, having 20 some years in Radiology know that the knee joint is where the femur and the tibia/fibula bones are separated by other tissue they are not connected. The knee cap is fastened to the upper leg and the lower leg and it for protection of the knee joint. From an anatomical perspective I simply disagree with it being part of the thigh.
If my brother wants to believe it to be part of the thigh I have no quarrel with him even though I disagree.

The Scriptures - Ephesians 4:24-32 describes what is "True Holiness" for the New Covenant, there is no mention of clothing in this definition given by God to His people.

I will again state that I believe in modesty and yes there is great lack of it in todays society. This is nothing new. Just look through history and you will find there is nothing new under the sun. This has been going on for ever and has been discussed by church leaders forever. Each time someone puts their own spin on the scripture. Just take it as it says in Ephesians.



Mike R. Prevost said:

James Silvers said:

Dear Brothers, although I firmly believe in modesty by both men and women, the truth is that the definition has changed throughout the history of the church. It is true that the modern definition is that of the Methodist movement from a past time. The issue of provocativeness lies within the heart of the individual.

Making an important concept like modesty relative to culture is a very scary. You have to pick a point on the curve of moral decline to which you will conform -- and then you are only dealing with your own culture. You have no basis for evaluation other cultures. I was shocked to see in the subways of Paris giant billboards using full blown nudity in advertising -- and that was over 10 years ago. The Parisians weren't alarmed though. We're getting pretty close to this in the US. When I was a kid, I saw in National Pornographic (... I mean Geographic) pictures of topless African women, which was evidently the norm in that culture. Perhaps breasts were not considered a sexual thing. I don't know. I feel that neither of these are an adequate reflection of modesty, but why do I feel that way? And if modesty is relative to culture, on what basis do I make my claims?

It would be great to have a reliable set of principles from the Scripture that defined modesty in a concrete, non-culturally relevant way. I haven't been satisfied with the standard attempts, though. On many subjects great rigor and honesty is exercised in interpretation. But on others (e.g., this one), it seems we are merely trying to synthesize and argument to justify our current ideas. For example, I met a Pastor who has a "platform standard" that said that to be used in a public capacity, one cannot dye their hair. I can understand that dying one's hair may indicate a certain amount of vanity. But when asked to justify his position, he used Mat 5:36, "[...] thou canst not make one hair white or black". It makes you want to laugh and cry at the same time. I just wish that the sincerity with which he held his belief was matched by the sincerity with which he handled the Scripture.

As it pertains to this current discussion, I think that it is entirely reasonable to question the proposed nakedness definition in Isa 47:2 as being either incomplete or only relevant to ancient culture because it does not consider all the items in the list (i.e., "uncover thy locks"). That "uncover thy locks" is part of nakedness definition in Isa 47:2 (assuming there actually is a nakedness definition) is inescapable. Given this, you really have only two choices: (1) women today should be veiled such that you can't see their hair, or (2) this is a culturally relevant definition of nakedness. If (2), then even other passages mentioning nakedness (e.g., Exo 28:42) come under great suspicion of also being culturally relative. But modern Christians are unwilling to accept option #1 -- it's not in line with our culture.

Also, my comments regarding robes was not just some snotty remark. As was mentioned previously in this thread, we must glean principles from scripture and those principles should drive our practice. Amen! Right On! In our zeal to ensure that women don't wear breeches, modern Christians use the examples of scripture to glean principles about both the pattern and length of womens clothing (i.e., not split between the legs and extends down below the knees, katastole, etc). However, we only use the example of scripture to talk about the length of men's clothing, not the pattern? Why leave out the pattern of men's clothing? Why use a different method of gleaning when analyzing men's clothing? All the examples of scripture show cloaks and robes and such. The arguments I've heard about "kethoneth" show it to be a coat or cloak or robe of some sort -- not pants or overalls. In our gathering of principles from the scriptures, modern Christians are unwilling to be consistent when it comes to the pattern of men's and women's clothing -- it would leave us with a conclusion that is not in line with our culture.

Another glaring example is beards. All men in this forum have a beard to some degree and I would wager that over 90% of us shave it off every morning. Where did you get your beard? It was given to you on the sixth day of creation when God created the masculine physique. It is more gender identifying than either the hair of your head or your manner of dress. If we were to put as much energy into gleaning the scriptural principles regarding beards as we do other things, it would surely be universally considered a sin to NOT have a beard. But, modern Christians don't have beards, and often look askance at those who do, because it's not in line with our culture.

So part of my point is that by picking and choosing the principles we want to glean, modern Christians can and have inserted our own cultural biases into the conventional modern "Holiness Standards". Am I really saying that women should wear veils, men should wear beards, and that we all should wear robes of some sort? I don't know, but this does seem to be the honest outcome of the line of reasoning presented in this thread. Perhaps this method of "gleaning principle from example" is correct and we have yet only been willing to take half measures in implementing them. Or perhaps there are other guiding principles of interpretation that define which examples we should glean principles from and which ones we shouldn't (e.g., why don't we practice the "holy kiss" commanded 4 times in the New Testament?).

Got to get to work. I wrote this to clarify my previous post so as to not be misinterpreted as a snotty little complainer. I am actually a confused weirdo. ;)

[Mike R. Prevost]

James Silvers said:

Just like the breeches in Exodus - they were for the priests not for all men - we use this because we believe it is proof of our conviction at this time in history.

Very interesting. I've heard about the priests' "breeches" (aka, the "Priestly Boxer Shorts") before to show that pants were exclusively mens' clothes, but I've never heard anyone explain that they weren't for all men -- just the priests. Thanks! I learned something new -- these forums are great. I wonder if this implies a different level of modesty at Church, i.e., "church clothes". Doesn't Pagan Christianity have a chapter on "church clothes"?

James Silvers said:

I sincerely hope that you did not think I was implying that society or culture defines what is modest to God. What I meant was when this subject comes up it always has a cultural component to the definitions. Our current standard of holiness is what was basically set down by the early Methodists

You originally said that "the definition [of modesty] has changed throughout the history of the church". I think I may be grasping your meaning now. Are you saying that the Church's definition of modesty has changed over time, but that God's definition hasn't? If so, how do you determine what God's definition is? Can you point to a definition of modesty in the scriptures that is clearly not relevant to the culture to which it was addressed? More importantly, how would you recognize such a passage if you did run across it?

[I don't think we are off topic here at all. Just taking a bird's eye view of the issue at hand.]

[Alex Thornhill]

Bro. Huston,

I guess I am just confused as to how GOD could make the garment "kethoneth" for Adam and Eve- a garment that was "GOD-approved" however, you claim that a Christlike garment goes to the ankles.

-Bro. Alex

[David Huston]

Alex, perhaps I could argue that the New Testament is more demanding than the Old. Or perhaps I could argue that Jesus always goes a little farther than He requires of us, and then waits to see who will follow His example without being commanded to. But instead I will simply restate what I have said all along: We teach that godly people should have their knees covered, which means wearing clothing that goes far enough below the knees to keep them covered in all positions. We also teach that the only actual description we have of the clothing Jesus wore depicts him being covered down to the feet. For those who want to setttle for the minimum, covering the knees is fine and acceptable. For those who want to go all the way to the example of modesty set by Jesus Himself, the feet are the line. Again, it is not the type of clothing that's of interest in Revelation 1:13, it's the degree of modesty. So let's not digress back into the argument that in order to be consistent, if you say clothing should extend to the feet, then you also have to say that we should all wear white robes and golden girdles.

[Alex Thornhill]

Thanks for clarifying Bro. Huston. I am familiar with this train of thought, but I wasn't sure if you would employ it or not.

I remember when I would fellowship with an assembly that taught long-sleeves as the dress standard, I politely questioned it and I got a few different responses. One response said the coats GOD gave Adam and Eve were long-sleeved. Another answer said that there was no biblical standard telling us how short we could have our sleeves, while still being modest and pleasing to GOD, so they said that long-sleeves were best in order to play it safe, so as to not be immodest and unpleasing to GOD. One other answer I got said that since the elbow was the midpoint, covering past the elbow showed our desire to cover more (more than 50% in this case) rather than less.

I was happy with the answers and followed these ways of thinking for a while, but upon further examination I just couldn't be satisfied and believe myself to be intellectually honest with the speculative conclusions that I was going by.

I won't digress into conversations about robes, golden girdles or even short sleeves, I was just sharing my experience with the long sleeve standard, since it is comparable with the short/long pants standard.

-Bro. Alex

[Mike R. Prevost]

MICHAEL AND DELLA WINSKIE said:

AS far as I can see, in spite of todays attempts to explain away scriptures as being only relevant to the cultures of their day, ALL scripture is given for our doctrine and instruction in righteousness.

How about these:

Rom 16:16 Salute one another with an holy kiss. The churches of Christ salute you.
1Co 16:20 All the brethren greet you. Greet ye one another with an holy kiss.
2Co 13:12 Greet one another with an holy kiss.
1Th 5:26 Greet all the brethren with an holy kiss.

Commanded 4 times. Why no holy kisses?

MICHAEL AND DELLA WINSKIE said:

I happen to agree with the pastor that said we shouldn't dye our hair because the principle that Jesus laid down in that statement and passage is that we shouldn't try to (among other things).

What?!?! Really?!?! Jesus wasn't forbidding them to try and make their hair black or white, He was saying that they were unable to do so. He was telling them not to swear by things they had no control over. To use this verse as a prohibition against dying hair is preposterous.


MICHAEL AND DELLA WINSKIE said:

As for the shorts and dresses thing, If the Bible says it shameful (which it does in several places) to show your thighs, irregardless of where you draw the line, then it is shameful.

Isa 47:1-5 Come down, and sit in the dust, O virgin daughter of Babylon, sit on the ground: there is no throne, O daughter of the Chaldeans: for thou shalt no more be called tender and delicate. 2 Take the millstones, and grind meal: uncover thy locks, make bare the leg, uncover the thigh, pass over the rivers. 3 Thy nakedness shall be uncovered, yea, thy shame shall be seen: I will take vengeance, and I will not meet thee as a man. 4 As for our redeemer, the LORD of hosts is his name, the Holy One of Israel. 5 Sit thou silent, and get thee into darkness, O daughter of the Chaldeans: for thou shalt no more be called, The lady of kingdoms.

Come now. If "make bare the leg" and "uncover the thigh" are nakedness today, then "uncover thy locks" is nakedness today. You can't just take part of this verse and leave out the parts you don't want to deal with. You gotta swallow the whole thing. The point of this passage is that God is dethroning this "virgin daughter of Babylon" and causing her to do the same sort of things as the lowly common people or slaves do -- the same things she made His people do in captivity. This verse has been totally mistreated.

I agree with teaching modesty and gender distinction and I am no liberal -- these are important and often discussed topics in my house. But please don't try to make the Bible say something it doesn't say, or try find something in the scriptures that isn't there. If it ain't there, then it ain't there, and there's probably a good reason it ain't there. If we're not careful, we'll be following a "calf-path" for sure.

The Calf-Path

by Sam Walter Foss (1858-1911)

One day, through the primeval wood,
A calf walked home, as good calves should;
But made a trail all bent askew,
A crooked trail, as all calves do.

Since then three hundred years have fled,
And, I infer, the calf is dead.
But still he left behind his trail,
And thereby hangs my moral tale.

The trail was taken up next day
By a lone dog that passed that way;
And then a wise bellwether sheep
Pursued the trail o’er vale and steep,
And drew the flock behind him, too,
As good bellwethers always do.

And from that day, o’er hill and glade,
Through those old woods a path was made,
And many men wound in and out,
And dodged and turned and bent about,
And uttered words of righteous wrath
Because ’twas such a crooked path;
But still they followed — do not laugh —
The first migrations of that calf,
And through this winding wood-way stalked
Because he wobbled when he walked.

This forest path became a lane,
That bent, and turned, and turned again.
This crooked lane became a road,
Where many a poor horse with his load
Toiled on beneath the burning sun,
And traveled some three miles in one.
And thus a century and a half
They trod the footsteps of that calf.

The years passed on in swiftness fleet.
The road became a village street,
And this, before men were aware,
A city’s crowded thoroughfare,
And soon the central street was this
Of a renowned metropolis;
And men two centuries and a half
Trod in the footsteps of that calf.

Each day a hundred thousand rout
Followed that zigzag calf about,
And o’er his crooked journey went
The traffic of a continent.
A hundred thousand men were led
By one calf near three centuries dead.
They follow still his crooked way,
And lose one hundred years a day,
For thus such reverence is lent
To well-established precedent.

A moral lesson this might teach
Were I ordained and called to preach;
For men are prone to go it blind
Along the calf-paths of the mind,
And work away from sun to sun
To do what other men have done.
They follow in the beaten track,
And out and in, and forth and back,
And still their devious course pursue,
To keep the path that others do.

They keep the path a sacred groove,
Along which all their lives they move;
But how the wise old wood-gods laugh,
Who saw the first primeval calf!
Ah, many things this tale might teach —
But I am not ordained to preach.

[Michael V. Frazier]

Mike R. Prevost said:

Isa 47:1-5 Come down, and sit in the dust, O virgin daughter of Babylon, sit on the ground: there is no throne, O daughter of the Chaldeans: for thou shalt no more be called tender and delicate. 2 Take the millstones, and grind meal: uncover thy locks, make bare the leg, uncover the thigh, pass over the rivers. 3 Thy nakedness shall be uncovered, yea, thy shame shall be seen: I will take vengeance, and I will not meet thee as a man. 4 As for our redeemer, the LORD of hosts is his name, the Holy One of Israel. 5 Sit thou silent, and get thee into darkness, O daughter of the Chaldeans: for thou shalt no more be called, The lady of kingdoms.

Come now. If "make bare the leg" and "uncover the thigh" are nakedness today, then "uncover thy locks" is nakedness today. You can't just take part of this verse and leave out the parts you don't want to deal with. You gotta swallow the whole thing. The point of this passage is that God is dethroning this "virgin daughter of Babylon" and causing her to do the same sort of things as the lowly common people or slaves do -- the same things she made His people do in captivity. This verse has been totally mistreated.

I haven't become overly involved in this discussion due to time constraints on my end, but I have been trying to (at least) keep up with what has been said. The above statement has been repeated from an earlier dialogue, but I don't think it was responded to. The notion that the uncovered nakedness of verse 3 must imply the whole of verse 2 is a non sequitor. There were no verse markings in the original manuscript. Just because millstones, grinding meal, uncovering locks, baring legs, uncovering thighs, and passing over rivers are all mentioned in verse 2 does not require that they all are references to nakedness.

First of all, I agree that the imagery of Isaiah 47 is one of servitude. It was the work of servants to grind the corn, using hand-mills. The Targum reads this passage as "go into servitude" which is certainly the proper picture. The second phrase, "uncover thy locks" probably is better rendered as "remove thy veil" as Young translates it or "raise thy veil" as Gesenius renders is. The imagery is of captives whose uncovered, disheveled hair would be in stark contrast to bound up headdresses and veils of Eastern propriety. Both phrases are aspects of "shame" (v. 3) which would befall the Babylonian Empire.

The third phrase is one of interest because of its wording. The KJV text here appears to be a translation based on interpretive meaning rather than literalism. The specific reference to a leg is not found in the Hebrew word. Rather, the word refers to something that flows and probably here means the flowing train of a robe (see Gesenius, et al.). In other words, the literal translation would be "uncover (or lift up) the train (or robe)" thereby exposing the leg. It is commonly known that the Eastern peoples wore long, flowing robes which would need to be lifted up in order to pass over water. Doing so, however, would expose those areas of the body that would customarily be covered. Thus, the very act of lifting up the robe exposing the leg was viewed with a sense of shame and nakedness. The imagery of the passage, therefore, is that of the virgin daughter of Babylon (probably as a reference to royalty), once adorned in regal robes, was now going to be brought low and subjected to the deepest sense of shame and disgrace.

The imagery of lifting up the robe is further amplified by the next phrase "uncover the thigh." Gesenius notes this indicates the part of the body from the knee to the foot. Brown-Driver-Brigg's Hebrew Definitions indicates that when the word is used in reference to man, it implies, specifically, the lower leg (calf) as opposed to the thigh.

The purpose in lifting the robes is so that one could "pass over the rivers" by wading or fording. Babylon was surrounded by many artificial streams, and this may be the source of Isaiah's word choice. Although Babylon was not taken away into captivity, the imagery that Isaiah uses does not require that to be understood literally. We are presented with the picture of a once regal woman who is now compelled to ford streams, implying that the power and magnificence of Babylon would be transferred to other places.

Isaiah then sums up the picture by declaring, "Thy nakedness shall be uncovered, yea, thy shame shall be seen" (v. 3). All of the act was a portrayal of shame, but only certain elements illustrated nakedness. The text itself is in a poetic form. That Isaiah makes use of chiastic structures is evident (e.g. Is. 60:1-3), and I believe that verses 2b-3a is chiastic in application.

Remove the veil, [A]
Take off the skirt, [B]
Uncover the thigh, [C]
Pass through the rivers. [C]
Your nakedness shall be uncovered, [B]
Yes, your shame will be seen. [A]
(NKJV).

Removal of the veil is aligned with shame. Taking off the skirt is an exposure of nakedness, uncovering the legs in order to pass through the rivers. The act of pulling up the robes to expose the legs was that aspect of nakedness that Isaiah writes. Therefore, it would be in our best interests to establish a godly standard in such as way as to not bring dishonor to the name of Jesus Christ. Those leaders who have maintained a mark of delineation at the knee cannot be said of allowing too much. We don't build fences right at the edge of danger.

[Mike R. Prevost]

MICHAEL AND DELLA WINSKIE said:

Yes, my point exactly, Br Prevost. If we have no control over them, then we should not try and play God by trying to TAKE control over them. This is NOT preposterous, but logical to me.

I'm sorry. You lost me. Take control of what?


MICHAEL AND DELLA WINSKIE said:

So, your trying to tell me that it can be considered holy for a man or woman to walk around in public showing their thighs? Come on, brother. You know better than that.

No, I'm not defending immodesty. I'm trying to defend proper interpretation.

[Mike R. Prevost]

Michael V. Frazier said:

Isaiah then sums up the picture by declaring, "Thy nakedness shall be uncovered, yea, thy shame shall be seen" (v. 3). All of the act was a portrayal of shame, but only certain elements illustrated nakedness.

Now this is an argument that actually deals with the passage! To restate it: All of the items in this list are things that would be shameful for royalty to do (including grinding meal), but only some of them indicate nakedness.

Chiasms are cool, but also very subjective. For example, you left off "Take the millstones, and grind meal". But not a big deal. Your point is that "uncover thy locks"/"remove the veil" is not part of nakedness, but part of shame. As you can see from your detailed word studies, there is a theme of removing, taking off, uncovering that is common to "locks" (i.e., "veil"), "legs" (i.e., "skirt"), and "thigh" (i.e., "calf") which may indicate they are all related to nakedness. But, again, this is not enough to get in a twist over -- the meaning of "locks", "leg", and "thigh" are all very nebulous also.

But you're right. The fact that "grind meal" is in there indicates that this is a list of shameful things (at least for royalty), and definitely not all nakedness things, so "uncover thy locks" is not necessarily a nakedness thing. Of course, nakedness would always imply immodesty, but the question is whether or not this verse gives a universal definition of nakedness. So I assume you will proceed to argue that what was considered shameful in that day is not necessarily shameful today (e.g., grind meal), but that what was considered nakedness in that day must still be considered nakedness today?

Lists can be tricky. You're hemming me in pretty tight. I may have to concede. ;) Actually, I was arguing your point a bit in a Bible study this morning.

[Michael V. Frazier]

Oh, I quite agree that we cannot use this one passage alone to make any definitive case for what should be considered proper and improper. I do feel that we ought (and ought is also a nebulous word) to maintain a high sense of modesty in our lives unto Christ. As such, I have personally followed the principle of keeping a limit at the knee in order to avoid the subjective nuance of "how high is too high?" I realize this is only a principle, not a law, and I can't declare that anything above the knee would be blatantly immodest from God's viewpoint. However, I do feel the knee is a good place where we can at least maintain a sense of propriety without overstepping any true barriers.

It is certainly true that chiasms can be subjective. I left off the mill grinding in the chiastic structure because I do not feel it is a part. Yet, poetry itself is also subjective, so it is an awkward thing to debate. Nevertheless, we see literature experts debating poetic themes and literary works all the time. :)

I am not trying to argue whether shamefulness (as opposed to nakedness) changes over time and across cultures. I am sure we can all agree that aspects of shame could be interpreted differently across cultures, but that is also true for nakedness. In our day, the vast majority of Western Civilization's youth would not consider modern beach attire (boxers to bikinis) as nakedness. Thus, I feel trying to appeal to culture would become (at least from the Christian perspective) a logical fallacy. I agree that we must understand the biblical culture when working to understand a passage's context. And I agree that context is of vital importance for true exegesis. However, I am not convinced that we can arbitrarily discard items we feel are of no true importance by simply appealing to cultural change. We need to understand the biblical texts from a godly perspective, i.e., how does God view it?

With that in mind, we can then assess whether Pollard's presentation of Christian Modesty and the Public Undressing of America is biblically substantive or not. I believe it is.