Modesty: propriety in dress, speech, or conduct (Merriam-Webster)
It’s an old-fashioned word, uncommon in our hyper-sexualized, push-the-envelope, anything-goes culture. It even has negative connotations, as when it is associated with oppression of women in Islamic countries, or with certain Christian circles in which women, even young girls at play, wear only long dresses.
But it’s a good word, and a good concept. We’re not meant to share all that we are with all-and-sundry. Merriam-Webster’s other definition, freedom from conceit or vanity, gives a hint as to one of its benefits: modesty focuses our attention away from ourselves.
Perhaps because of the extremes, discussions and practices of modesty almost always focus on matters of dress and behavior: physical modesty. To our great loss, we have largely ignored what I will call soul modesty. What is blogging but baring our souls to anyone with an Internet connection? What is Reality TV but a striptease in which hope of financial gain entices the few to allow their emotions, weaknesses, and character flaws to be exposed to the ogling many? How can the reporter’s demand that a grieving mother tell the world how she feels about her child’s murder be considered anything other than verbal rape?
Lest you think this is not a problem if one stays out of the public eye, how much do you know about what happens in your children’s schools, Sunday school classes, day care, and other activities? As a school volunteer as well as a parent, I came to realize that our young children are frequently subjected to emotional intrusion that, were it physical, would have a teacher out on the street in a heartbeat. We take great care to teach our children about private parts of their bodies, and how to recognize and report “uncomfortable touches,” but don’t give them the tools to detect and deflect uncomfortable questions or manipulative exercises.
What puzzles me the most is that I find as little respect for soul modesty among those who prize physical modesty as I do in the general community. It is particularly prevalent in churches, where community, fellowship, and bonding are often forced, rather than being allowed to grow organically from shared life and work. I had one friend from a former church—a dear, self-sacrificing lady—who not only shared the most intimate details of her own life but pressed others to reveal themselves similarly—all the while thinking she was “just being friendly.” It was uncomfortable enough talking with her, but downright scary to see her apply the same approach to children. More than that, she saw it as her duty to be intrusive in this way, and was hurt when others were not similarly “friendly” to her. And she was hardly unique. It must be difficult for churches to discern how to be inquisitive enough to appear friendly to some people while not driving others away.
I’ve been to more than one church gathering where crowd dynamics and peer pressure have induced people to make revelations that I’m certain they regretted the morning after, if not immediately. I mean, what sadist dreamt up the idea of asking, “What was your most embarrassing moment?” as an icebreaker? To this day I’m embarrassed for some of the things others confessed. There’s a reason confessional booths are small.
Although they may differ on the particulars, most people will agree that when it comes to physical modesty, relationship and circumstance should guide our behavior. That slinky nightgown is appropriate to wear for my husband, but not for my neighbor. Family members may see us in our underwear, but that’s not how we dress for grocery shopping. Doctors have privileges with our bodies that almost no one else does.
It’s time we took as much care for our souls.
I think I would generally think of modesty in the non-physical realm in terms that are fairly close to humility: no boasting or flaunting of achievements and abilities. If I understand you correctly, you're saying this: "Sharing or not sharing intimacies has less to do with their value or truthfulness, but with a consideration of the relationship involved and the trust earned within it. Just because a certain woman looks attractive in lingerie doesn't mean she ought to wear it in public; just because a certain intimate detail is true doesn't mean it ought to be shared in public." Is that about right?
Even if I'm on the right trail, it would help me understand your point better if you gave a few examples of what this immodesty looks like - anonymously, of course - both of what people press for in church or school and of what they share that makes you and others uncomfortable. (You give examples of the contrast in physical modesty in your last paragraph; a similar set might help those who are new to your topic.)
Also, since there are so many views on what physical modesty should look like, do you think there will be a similarly broad spectrum of views on soul modesty? And since Christians in particular seem to fall short in this type of modesty, do you have verses or passages come to mind that would underscore what you are saying? Does it fall into the broad category of Paul's exhortations to edify each other? Or were you thinking along other lines?
Good questions. I'll attempt a few answers....
I would certainly agree with "just because a certain intimate detail is true doesn't mean it ought to be shared in public." I confess to being a little confused by the idea that sharing intimacies might have anything at all to do with "truthfulness"; I would never have put the two together in my mind. Sharing --> truthfulness, but not the converse. That's so obvious to me that I'm almost certainly missing your point, so feel free to elaborate....
Examples. Let's see. I mentioned the "share your most embarrassing moment" exercise, which was done in a going-around-the-circle format so that it was difficult to opt out with grace. (I've since learned that humor is a good tool to help deflect such queries; a leader with any sensitivity will know better than to push the issue. "My most embarrassing moment? Right now, being asked my most embarrassing moment.")
Then there was a church class (different church) in which participants were asked to share experiences with grieving and death, and were pressed to talk about specific feelings. I don't think I would have liked this exercise in any case, but it was unfortunately soon after the unexpected death of someone very close, and I felt quite awkward declining to bare my soul on the matter.
I've also known of more than one instance where church groups insist their members hold hands while praying; when spontaneous and reflective of a real communal bond, this can be beautiful, but as an effort to force a bond that is not there, it can be disconcerting at best, especially to visitors.
As far as school goes, a prime example is what in our school was called "guidance classes." In addition to hearing stories from our kids and other parents, I was able to look over the materials myself, and was appalled. There, too, was the "most embarrassing moment" question. And "When did you last tell a lie? Why?" Or "This line represents how people feel about stealing, with 'It's fine' on the left and 'It's wrong' on the right. Mark with an X the spot that shows how you feel about stealing." Or "The last time you had a fight with your parents, what was it about?" And the notorious Lifeboat Game: "You are in a lifeboat with seven other people [categorized as a priest, a child with Down Syndrome, a young mother, a doctor, a convicted criminal, etc.—I don't remember the exact designations]. The lifeboat can only hold five people without sinking. Which three do you throw overboard?"
I agree that there will be a variety of views on soul modesty; that's a good reason for erring on the cautious side when dealing with others. Even if I were comfortable with my teenage daughter wearing a bikini, I would think twice before allowing her to wear it to a church-sponsored beach trip.
Let's see—examples of boundaries for non-physical intimacies. There are certainly things I would feel uncomfortable sharing with anyone but my husband, as well as things things about me I wouldn't want him to share with others. (The Biblical "to know" as in "Adam knew Eve his wife" is usually considered a synonym for sexual intercourse, but I think it also speaks of a greater "knowing" and intimacy between spouses than just the physical.) Some things are best shared only in the confessional, or with a psychiatrist. Women (and this applies equally to men) experiencing marital challenges may benefit from the counsel of a few wise friends—but the circle should be small, and not include anyone of the opposite sex, nor anyone with a negative attitude towards men and marriage, such as someone currently undergoing a divorce. Every family has stories that would be best to keep within the family, no matter how delightful it might be to share them. Parents are particularly egregious sinners in this regard, and I am certainly no exception. We delight in telling of the things our children do or say, often right in front of them, with little regard for their feelings. I think the problem is that we start when they are infants and don't know when to stop. No one, except an over-sensitive teenager, minds very much hearing a little bit about his potty-training difficulties as a toddler, but to mention in public an eight-year-old's bedwetting problem is cruel.
After that, I guess, there come questions of interest, appropriateness, and need-to-know. Don't brag about your latest hunting successes at a PETA meeting. Don't ask a couple why they don't have any children unless you know them well enough to know they aren't suffering from infertility. If you're talking about homeschooling with a group of teachers, emphasize the positive aspects of homeschooling rather than the negative effects of school. Don't ask a pregnant woman if the child was "planned."
And then there's the Internet. I sometimes find myself amazed at the audacity I have here on this blog, but then again, it's my blog and no one has to read it. I'm also pretty free about commenting on other people's blogs. But every once in a while I stop and think, "Does the world really need to know my opinion? Do I need to add one more voice to the cacophony on this issue?" It's a question worth asking.
As for Scriptural justification for the importance of soul privacy, I'll have to think about it some. I can't think of anywhere the issue is specifically addressed, but of course that doesn't mean there are no principles that apply. Right now it's late, and the verse that keeps coming to mind is Ecclesiastes 12:12: Of making many books there is no end; and much study is a weariness of the flesh.
Is that enough examples to answer your questions? I feel as if I'm going around and around and not really hitting it, so please, ask for clarification if I'm not.
Some more attempts at clarification:
(1) I didn't mean to imply that Christians are worse than others at respecting soul modesty, only that I was surprised that those who recognize the importance of respecting the body don't seem to show a similar respect for the soul.
(2) In my description of the kinds of intrusive questions asked in school, I did not make clear that these were asked of elementary-aged children.
(3) As an example of the kind of respect that used to be present even in the secular media, I offer the example of my great-grandmother. She was a well-known businesswoman in her city, and with that and her many community activities was often written about in the newspaper. She also had a ne'er-do-well son, who was arrested for killing a man in an illegal drinking and gambling haunt. (He never had a chance to prove his claim that it was in self-defense, for he died a few months later of tuberculosis.) The event was big news, and was featured prominently in the paper for months. Yet the articles about him never, until his obituary, mentioned her, and the articles about her never mentioned that she was the mother of the man jailed for murder. I can't say that no one ever asked her, "So, what do you think about your son being arrested for murder? How does it make you feel to see him so weak and sick in the courtroom, and know he's going back to a jail cell?" But if they did, they never published it.
Thanks for the examples!
First, to clarify the connection with truthfulness: I think most people have certain guidelines regarding what they say and what they refrain from saying. Checking a statement for truthfulness would be a reasonable guideline, but, if I understand you correctly, not a sufficient one. And I'd agree: necessary, but not sufficient. Even true statements can be damaging. There needs to be an additional criterion to sharing your opinions, struggles, weaknesses, fears, etc.
One point you bring up is that sharing ought to be voluntary. That, too, is necessary, but not quite sufficient, as evidenced by the many people walking around in immodest attire. I wonder, therefore, how one would help someone think through what soul modesty means and looks like. So far we're at "Don't share lies" and "Don't let yourself be forced into sharing." (I'm thinking it might help to have an equivalent to the three sieves of Socrates [warning: poor spelling and punctuation ahead!].)
There's another question that came to my mind after thinking a little more about the topic. Cui bono? Who stands to benefit from soul modesty? Is this modesty primarily a boon for the person practising modesty, or for that person's acquaintances?
Last first: Good question, and one I wouldn't have thought of. Both, I think. If you've once seen a person naked, doesn't that color your view of that person? Can you easily keep that image from coming back to your mind, even when the person is fully clothed? So, too, with what we reveal of ourselves in other ways. In the "embarrassing moment" example above, one person revealed something that I have never been able to forget, that comes unbidden to my mind whenever I think of her. This is ridiculous and unhealthy, as it has very little to do with who she is, but it's something I very much would rather I not know. Also, I've had conversations with people having relationship troubles in which they've shared very negative things about their spouses and their personal lives. Of course that garnered the desired and maybe necessary sympathy, but later, when the relationship was patched up, put a barrier between us. They knew that I knew what I shouldn't have known, and thus tended to keep themselves more distant, and I had a hard time looking at the offending spouse without thinking of the terrible things he/she did. And one more: we are all human, and the personal things we say can be used against us in the future. That's not a reason for not sharing, but for sharing the right things in the right circumstances. Not only do we not want to be hurt, but we should avoid putting knives in the hands of people who we think might be tempted in a weak moment to use them as weapons rather than scalpels, putting their own souls at risk.
The three sieves of Socrates are good, though I think need to be modified some for this idea. There is a time and a place for sharing negative things about oneself, and about the last, I would ask, Necessary for what? There are different degrees of necessity. It is not in the least necessary for an elementary school guidance counsellor to know when was the last time a child told a lie, but for the child's parents it might be.
I'm nowhere near coming up with s complete set of sieves, but I'll offer this suggestion: "Don't share someone else's story." That's not hard-and-fast, and depends on who's on the receiving end, but I thinking I can speak for someone else usually ends me up in hot water. For one thing, it violates the first to rules, in that it's not a voluntary admission on the other person's part, and the probability of telling the truth diminishes with distance. I admit to finding this one particularly difficult not to do....
