From a real East Coast correspondent came this story about Orthodox Jews in Brooklyn taking modesty into their own hands, better their own furrowed brows:
The Brooklyn shopkeeper was already home for the night when her phone rang: a man who said he was from a neighborhood “modesty committee” was concerned that the mannequins in her store’s window, used to display women’s clothing, might inadvertently arouse passing men and boys.
In many neighborhoods, a store owner might shrug off such a call. But on Lee Avenue, the commercial spine of Hasidic Williamsburg, the warning carried an implied threat — comply with community standards or be shunned. It is a potent threat in a neighborhood where shadowy, sometimes self-appointed modesty squads use social and economic leverage to enforce conformity.
The owner wrestled with the request for a day or two, but decided to follow it. “We can sell it without mannequins, so we might as well do what the public wants,” the owner told the manager, who asked not to be identified because of fear of reprisals for talking.
In the close-knit world of ultra-Orthodox Judaism, community members know the modesty rules as well as Wall Street bankers who show up for work in a Brooks Brothers suit. Women wear long skirts and long-sleeved, high-necked blouses on the street; men do not wear Bermuda shorts in summer. Schools prescribe the color and thickness of girls’ stockings.
The rules are spoken and unspoken, enforced by social pressure but also, in ways that some find increasingly disturbing, by the modesty committees. Their power is evident in the fact that of the half dozen women’s clothing stores along Lee Avenue, only one features mannequins, and those are relatively shapeless, fully clothed torsos.
On the one hand, it is another indication of the way that ancient faiths adapt or don’t adapt to the diversity and freedoms of modern society, right there with Muslims advocating sharia law and theonomists supporting the Old Testament. On the other hand, it is also a case of a religious community exercising the freedom of association, which includes defining who is in and practicing the faith, and who isn’t.
Not sure what more to say.
Old Life 
Boroughs? Or are we talking about Tarzan and John Carter here?
LikeLike
This is indeed a difficult issue, one with which I have struggled over the decades and especially the past two or three. Let’s switch to a different set of tracks for a moment: The big, big hot issue in the national spotlight at the moment is gun control of some kind. It’s mainly political, of course – those denying this are only fooling themselves.
So, let’s visit the 2nd Amendment for a minute. This has been done a lot recently in terms of everything about its meaning and intent to only provide arms to the populace in order to stave off attacks against the state. In other words militaristic invaders. Leftists like to point out the ludicrous nature of this in the face of modern armies with their fully automatic weapons, hand-held missiles, tanks, and air support. Technology, after all, has changed so dramatically since the founding fathers contrived the “holy writ” back in the late 18th Century that armed individuals mean nothing. Fine.
So what about the 1st Amendment, the one intended for the populace (or the landed aristocracy, if preferred) to assemble in a public place to voice their opposition to what they view as inconsistencies in government policy and practice without fear of reprisal. Well, the flip side of push back against the 2nd Amendment might be that such “assembly”, which could include printed and distributed documents as well as speech, does not include the right to distribute and/or sell all sorts of lewd and morally unacceptable forms of written; photographic; painted; electronic, digitally reproduced, or other conventional methods, does it? Well, liberal state and federal courts of the 1960’s seemed to think so.
So if the technology that produced armament has changed so dramatically that it makes the 1st Amendment right for the average citizen to own and/or carry such devices null and void, then why are similar technologies that make pornography in all of its many printed and digital forms OK simply under the guise of free speech? Baloney! If religious sects of various types – Judah, Islamic, perhaps X-ian theonomists are some of those pushing back against what the view as indecent – maybe they have a point.
In the aftermath of Newtown, there was initially brief mention that perhaps all of these violent movies and video games might adversely affect mentally unstable people, but it quickly disappeared from the media in favor talk about gun control. We just don’t seem to want to go there; instead let’s take away their guns…
LikeLike
George, it’s not just leftists who find the 2nd Amendment problematic. Certainly Antonin Scalia would hold you in contempt if you called him a leftist. And it doesn’t take an axe-grinder to see that the point of the amendment was to enable citizens to have a substantial defense against the government, a goal that would be ludicrous to attempt to meet today because citizens would need missiles, fighter jets, etc.
“why are similar technologies that make pornography in all of its many printed and digital forms OK simply under the guise of free speech?”
I don’t know if I follow this. What technology would you outlaw?
LikeLike
Interesting article. Obviously from a confessional reformed perspective the ultra-orthodox Jewish “modesty committees” in view represent a pharisaical/legalistic approach to the modesty issue, somewhat akin to some of the taboos of fundamentalist culture (for example, think of some fundamentalist churches which prohibit their women from wearing pants, wearing makeup and/or having their hair under a certain length). But in today’s environment the question of modesty is an issue, even in the church. Truth be told, a woman who typically dresses in many of the current fashion trends that are popular today in the West (including some fashion trends that we would even consider acceptable in church) would be regarded in other parts of the world as either a prostitute or a slut. It seems that many of the popular ladies’ fashion trends today aim at showing as much skin, cleavage and figure as possible.
So obviously a reformed-confessional “modesty committee” is out of the question. But what does a session or consistory in a reformed church do when a female church member (or the teenage daughter of a member family) shows up on the Lord’s Day in an outfit that is basically sensual and flirtatious in its effect (for example, super-tight outfit, shows lots of cleavage, etc.)? Just try to ignore it? (“After all, this is a matter of Christian liberty, and we don’t want to be legalistic about it.” Never mind that some of the brothers in the congregation may find her manner of dress to be a stumbling block and a source of temptation to lust!) Or try to address it somehow? (Picture a pastor and session meeting with the woman in question in an attempt to exhort her to dress more modestly; only to have her retort, “Why are you, my pastor and elders, looking at my cleavage?”) Any thoughts?
I know this topic of modesty may seem silly to some, but I can think of at least one church where the modesty issue has become a source of great tension in the church. And I suspect that in many other churches where it isn’t a live issue, it probably should be.
LikeLike
Geoff Willour wrote: “I know this topic of modesty may seem silly to some, but I can think of at least one church where the modesty issue has become a source of great tension in the church.”
Just to be clear, the church that I have in mind in the comment above is NOT my own congregation. (Thankfully, modesty is not an issue in our church, at least not at this time.)
LikeLike
MM – I’d never call Scalia a leftist (he is famous, in fact, for the majority opinion that was handed down in District of Coumbia v. Heller reversing a DC hand gun ban). I was referring to the liberal court of the 60’s, particularly the Warren court.
And I agree that the shotgun or deer rifle owning citizen would be all but defenseless against a modern invader, but don’t discount their effectiveness as underground and resistance fighters. The .303 Enfield owning Afgans demonstrated that against the USSR and they’ll likely do the same to the US before it’s all over. Nevertheless, as I said, “fine” – I’ll grant the need for some restrictions since so many improvements in firearms have been made during the past 200 years.
But my point is to say that many advances have been made in various types of communications media during that time, as well. Yet, we see very few laws to control the production and distribution of excessively violent movies and games and pornographic material. In fact, any laws that did exist have mostly been over turned by the higher courts. In other words, it’s OK for a demented individual to obtain and read or view things that might push him over the edge (during a last minute interview Ted Bundy admitted that it was pornographic material that led him to become a serial killer), but eventually it won’t be permissible to own firearms. Isn’t this like the bandaid cure for the bleeding artery?
LikeLike
Geoff, I know what Calvin would do. He would haul the family in before the consistory. Actually, that sounds like a plan. Of course, we would be more “pastoral” than Calvin was “threatening” (interesting how the papacy has shifted in precisely the same way over the same period), but a session with the family and all elders could be useful (even if awkward).
LikeLike
Geoff & DGH: there’s a perfect situation for one of the older, respected women in the church to have a talk with the woman about her choice of clothing.
LikeLike
George, it’s not precisely that there have been changes in guns. There have been changes in what the government uses in warfare, and those changes make it infeasible to realistically satisfy the intent of the amendment, i.e., to give citizens a credible deterrent against the military power of the government. And, if that’s the case, gun rights end up being an undefined, almost symbolic nod to an amendment the goals of which are not attainable.
I sympathize with your concerns about what is put in media. Specfic solutions are difficult to achieve.
LikeLike
Geoff, instead of the immodesty of women, more ubiquitous and interesting to me is the informality of everyone, including so many Reformed pastors who have exchanged gowns for suits. Should a woman being both provocative and a disturbance have a chat with the council? The answer seems obvious. But I’d be more interested in hearing pastors explain why they dress as if low church egalitarianism beats high church elitism.
LikeLike
M&M, well said.
LikeLike