Catholic, Mennonite and Muslim Veiling Practices in Canada: Or What I Study

My last half year or so has largely been spent preparing for PhD studies next year. By “preparing,” I mean that I had to write a tonne of scholarship and program applications, all of which required me to specify my research plans. Since my proposed dissertation is (surprise surprise) closely connected to the interests I express on this blog, I decided my research proposal might be of interest to my readers.

Now, be forewarned, it is full of academic speak, which can be a bit dry. But, it does fairly succinctly summarize what I plan to do. Since I have been accepted into my PhD program of choice (it’s a Religious Studies program) and this proposal has been initially approved, it looks like in some way or another I will get to spend the next four (or five) years studying Catholic, Mennonite and Muslim veiling practices in Canada. And yes, that does sound like getting to eat cake all day to me (without the tummy ache … although footnotes are certainly a pain in the … never mind).

Women praying with Catholic mantilla or chapel veil during Mass.

So, here is my research proposal (slightly edited):

My research concentrates on interreligious encounters in North America, particularly in the experience of minority women within the framework of material culture. I examine the intersection of religious ideology, gender, culture and historic factors, and the impact these have on women’s appearance. This material evidence, integrated with oral histories and conventional academic sources, provides unique insights into the role new Canadian Muslim women who veil navigate for themselves in a society which views such customs with suspicion. In my proposed dissertation, Blinded by the Veil: Mennonite, Catholic and Muslim Responses to the Hijab, I will use these two Christian groups and how they respond to this visible Muslim practice as a case study of how North Americans encounter the reality of multiculturalism, while considering Muslim responses to these perceptions.

Part of the Haute Hijab Fall 2011 clothing line.

North American society values the separation of private convictions and public practice. In this culture, Canadians and Americans alike take pride in their tolerance of other’s beliefs. This creates tension, however, when private religious belief is demonstrated in a public way. The Muslim veil, in particular, is a source of fierce debate, extending to proposed legal banning. When Muslim women wear their hijabs or niqabs in public venues, some perceive this as a hostile practice that directly confronts “North American values,” such as equality and liberty, particularly for women. They understand the practice of veiling as a return to a framework of society their foremothers fought to move beyond. Many North Americans interpret hijab through the lens of “liberation,” where instead of promoting feminism’s true ideal (the ability to choose for oneself), “liberation” is turned into explicitly removing the veil. In this way, the veil becomes a solid onto which many North Americans project their own negative understandings of what the practice of hijab represents. In these perceptions, it is a short jump from a hair covering to male guardianship laws and female genital mutilation.

Conversely, these associations are not entirely unfounded. Groups such as the Taliban, Iranian morality police and Saudi Mutawas have used hijab as one of several methods to repress women’s rights. Tragic murders in Canada where hijab (often inaccurately) appears to be the impetus, such as Aqsa Parvez’s, spark heated debates about veiling and fears of further “honour killings” as inextricably linked with Muslim immigration. New Canadian Muslims for whom hijab is a familiar practice cannot reconcile these haram acts with their own veiling practices, and do not necessarily understand the objections Western feminist tradition motivates, are themselves blinded to what their veil has the potential to communicate. Therefore, Muslim responses to these concepts will make up a third smaller, but essential element of this study. Without engaging the internal Islamic theological debates, I will review Muslim women’s reasons for veiling, and how they use the hijab to assert their agency within both the Islamic and mainstream North American communities.

Swiss Mennonites wearing the States Bonnet, a very contentious article of clothing, in 1920. Image from the Mabel Groh collection, Mennonite Archives of Ontario.

Both Mennonites and Catholics present the perspective of people with histories of veiling and that are actively engaged in building relationships with their new Muslim neighbours. Both denominations present a large spectrum of beliefs regarding headcoverings and the role of women in society. Do the dynamics of the debate as these groups moved away from veiling in any way affect the way they respond to hijab? What does covering women’s hair represent to them? Does it relate to women’s sexuality, individuality or liberty?

In this study I seek to bring forth these cultural and religious misunderstandings, and the ways in which these three groups are working to move beyond them. This will provide both a case study of how North Americans are encountering religious diversity, and specific methods groups are employing to transcend contentious differences. To accomplish this I will use a primarily material culture based methodology while incorporating a traditional academic framework, and following the examples of scholars in the field. I will utilize oral histories (in the manner of Willa K. Baum, Thomas L. Charlton, and Robert F. Harney), religious fashion and textile inquiry (such as the works by Linda B. Arthur, Emma Tarlo, Fadwa El Guindi, Heather Marie Akou and Faegheh Shirazi), and previous work on Muslim women in North America (including Sajida Sultana Alvi, Homa Hoodfar, Sheila McDonough, Katherine Bullock, and Donna Gehrke-White).

Bonnets and Burqas: What Mennonite Women can Learn from Veiled Feminist Muslims

I mentioned in a previous post that I would be presenting a paper on this topic. Sadly, I got a bad case of laryngitis and it never happened! However, I was asked to preach one Sunday, and so modified the paper to be appropriate for this setting. Here is the end result:

Mennonite Central Committee Interfaith Bridge Building Program

By Laura Stemp-Morlock

Preached May 30, 2010 at Rockway Mennonite Church, Kitchener, Ont.

Mennonites love dialogue. Along with borscht and quilts, it’s one of the things that we do best. We dialogue within our congregations, we facilitate dialogues between offenders and victims, and we dialogue with people of other religions. Today, I’m going to focus on dialogue with Muslims, because that is the group with whom I have the privilege of being closely connected.

Throughout the Bible, there is a strong theme that encourages us to dialogue with people who know God in radically different ways. The Book of Ruth, as well as passages in Micah and Isaiah, show people of other nations and religions to be righteous and God-fearing. In the passage just read from John 16:12-13 Jesus lets his followers know that there is truth outside of our knowledge parameters. This is one of the reasons that talking with other people who are connected to God – sometimes in very different ways – has the potential to reveal new truth to us.

Too often, though, I believe we limit the impetus for dialogue with Muslims to a better understanding of one another, in order to promote peace. While I certainly have no opposition to such dialogue, I believe that we have a great deal to learn from Muslims – not just about who they are, but about who we are. I propose that Muslim theology has the strong potential to inform our own.

Mennonites, perhaps more than most other Christian denominations, can relate to Muslims. Both communities identify themselves outside of the mainstream, and both have earned the term “radical.” This is most visibly represented in attire, in that both Mennonites and Muslims have a tradition of covering their women. It is a talking point that is immediately identifiable with both communities. In fact, many Muslim women explain part of their rationale for wearing the hijab as representing their religion: “When I go out in hijab, everyone knows I’m Muslim.” The current debate over Quebec’s proposed ban on the niqab (the Muslim face veil) brings into sharp relief how visible and contentious religious attire can be, even within the Muslim community itself. That being said, it is important to remember that Mennonites need not wade into the internal debates of the Muslim community in order to learn from their theology.

Let me be clear about what this is not: I am not calling for a re-institution of conference dictates on hem length or head coverings. I am not admonishing “frivolous young women” to dress more “modestly”. And I am not saying that all is perfect with Muslim women and that the veil has never been used as an instrument of oppression. It’s important to remember that a history of oppressive theology is wrapped up in discussions of Christian women’s dress. What I am saying is that feminist Muslim women, who are quite familiar with negative theology directed at themselves, can convey to us that there is a possibility of combining a self-empowering theology with a modest and particular one, demonstrated through their attire.

I propose that Christian women (Mennonites in particular) can learn a great deal from Muslim women on how to demonstrate their theologically based self-empowerment through their attire, without dismissing modesty or adopting legalistic and damaging mandates. This may seem like a conversation more suited for old order participants than the more mainstream churches, but in fact, that is my very point: engagement with Muslim women reminds us that this is an important issue.

But why? Why should we care? Why am I resurrecting this issue of “dress” when most Mennonites have given up dress codes, and only discuss the topic in reference to the Mennonite theological dark ages, where a skirt that hung above the knee was immodest, and therefore displeasing to God? Because, quite simply, how we dress and what we wear still has theological significance.

The subtle (and not so subtle) theological messages wrapped up in our clothing have the potential to shape our understanding of God. The old paradigm, that God wants us to look prim and proper, teaches us that God wants cleaned-up lives and happy masks. If, however, our church welcomes people in jeans, this message has the power to convey a God who wants us to “come as we are.” This theology teaches us that God wants us to come before our Creator in our brokenness, in all of our messiness, and that it is through broken vessels and not perfect people, that God works.

Yet is it not odd that a relationship with God would have no affect on our wardrobes? With all the time, money and energy that we invest in our clothing decisions, is there a way to honour our Creator in how we dress? Feminist Muslim women who veil often explain their choice as providing them with a sense of freedom and rightness with God. Is there a way for Christian women to have a similar experience through how we dress? This is a conversation that must walk a very fine line, for both Muslims and Christians. From the Christian perspective, it is very easy to slip into traditional concepts of “modest Christian dress,” that are in fact little more than attempts to control women’s bodies.

Within the Mennonite tradition, concern over beauty, and appearance in general, was considered vainglorious and sinful. “Fashion” was a worldly concept that contradicted Mennonite non-conformity. With the rejection of Conference determined dress codes in the 1950s and ‘60s, Mennonite women were free to shorten their hair and their hemlines. But what if fashion could be embraced as part of a non-conformist theology? As Mennonites, we have not yet accomplished this. While there is a somewhat particular style of dress that characterizes some Mennonite congregations – vests and beards on the men, and scarves and peasant blouses on the women (both genders wear Birkenstocks), this manner of dress is really more of a reflection of tradition and secular style than theology.

Many Muslims, on the other hand, have embraced their theological particularity in manners of dress and have created culturally based haute couture. Muslims refer to this as “fashionably faithful.” If you Google this term, this Islamic fashion is simply stunning.

I am by no means suggesting that Mennonites adopt the hijab. Instead, I seek to move beyond mandates of starched shirts and learn from Muslim women’s appreciation of their own beauty.

Muslim women veil not out of shame but because they wholeheartedly believe that this is what God asks of them. Veiling is an act of submission, and it is this concept that Mennonites need to resurrect. This is where Christian feminists become uncomfortable (and I include myself in this). The term “submission” carries an almost insurmountable negative connotation, no matter how it is defined. What I seek is for Christians to reclaim submissiveness and yieldedness, not to be “thrown down and run over”, as John Howard Yoder put it. This submission stands in contrast to the blind community obedience that dominates individuals. It goes beyond gender, and applies equally to men and women. While I do not suggest that Muslims have mastered this radical submissiveness, feminist Muslims feel no dischord in explaining wearing their hijabs as acts of submission to God, and as a means for being judged for who they are, rather than how they look. My hope is that through dialogue with Muslims

The believer’s baptism rejects the notion that as individuals we make choices that have no impact on others in our communities. We choose to be accountable to the community of believers, but we have a say in what those standards are.

Our community has embraced the “come as you are” theology I began this paper with. The problem with this is that it does not require much, if any, preparation. Our lives are frantic and focused on ourselves. In church we have an opportunity to be still and focused on God. Muslims have a strong sense of this, performing ritual cleansing before each prayer, and wearing specific attire for both men and women. When we wear our street clothes to church, we can fail to appreciate the transition. Author Steve Lansingh provides a strong analogy: “It’s kind of like the difference between dressing up for a big date and just hanging out with someone at home. The casual evening allows you to be yourself, but the formal event gives you time to anticipate and prepare and be ready to meet the other person.”

Worship is not supposed to be limited to what we do on Sunday mornings. This is hardly a new concept in Mennonite theology, and used to be part of our dress. Unfortunately, through dress, Mennonite women encountered a faith that justified their subjegation. I want to reclaim this notion, however, that getting dressed each morning has the potential to be an act of worship. Exodus 28 provides a detailed description of the sacred garments Aaron must wear as the High Priest of Israel. Through this mandate of physical ritual, God is reminding Aaron to make preparations to meet with the Almighty God. God is concerned with our hearts, not with our outward appearance, but the physical directly affects the spiritual.

1 Timothy 2:9-10: Part 1 of 4

I am very excited, because I get to combine an assignment for my Master’s program with my interests represented in this blog. For my course, Reading and Teaching the New Testament, with Dr. Tom Yoder Neufeld, I am examining the passage in 1 Tim. 2:9-10:

“I also want the women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, adorning themselves, not with elaborate hairstyles or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God.” (TNIV)

Or, as the NLT has it:

“And I want women to be modest in their appearance. They should wear decent and appropriate clothing and not draw attention to themselves by the way they fix their hair or by wearing gold or pearls or expensive clothes. For women who claim to be devoted to God should make themselves attractive by the good things they do.”

To examine this text, I will be writing a series of posts. First, I will set the context by looking at women in the first century Greco-Roman society and the Jewish culture. Then we’ll look at different interpretations of 1 Tim 2:9-10, beginning with the historical Mennonite interpretations that lead to plain clothes and then looking at what  several Biblical commentaries, such as The New Interpreter’s Bible,  The New Century Bible Commentary: the Pastoral Epistles, and the Women’s Bible Commentary have to say. Finally, we’ll finish with some concluding remarks that brings this all together and looks at the passage’s relevance for today.

1 Tim. 2:9-10: Greco-Roman Women, Part 2 of 4

This is part two in my series on 1 Tim. 2:9-10 (see what this series is about here.) Today, we’ll be looking at women in the first century Greco-Roman world.

Women in Roman culture were ranked according to several standards. The first was their class — plebeians (lower class) and patricians (upper class). From there women were divided according to a moral standard that separated respectable women from those in a “disreputable” profession, from slave and free, and by age. A woman’s marital status was also a key factor in her social rank, following these distinctions: young virgin, celibate adult, wife, wife married only once, and widow.1

Hellenistic Style

Since 1 Tim. 2:9-10 is dealing with fashion, let’s look at that. The author of 1 Timothy’s appeal to modest attire would not have been news to his audience. In fact, Roman law went so far as to say:

“If anyone accosts young girls who are dressed in the clothes of slaves, his offence will be seen as minor, and even more so if the women are dressed as prostitutes, and not as [respectable] mothers of families. Therefore, if a woman is not dressed as a matron and some-one calls out to her or entices away her attendant, he will not be liable to the action for injury.”2

In other words, women who did not dress “respectably” were fair game. Furthermore, matrons had more protection under the law than the lower class women, but only if they looked respectable.

toga praetexta

Comparatively little academic work has been done on what freeborn girls wore, but it seems as though they wore what their brothers did — namely, the toga praetexta.3 The styles of a toga indicated a person’s status and function, and in the case of the toga praetexta, the reddish-purple (purpura) band woven along one edge signified a liberi ingenui (freeborn boy), or in this case, a puella ingenua (freeborn girl). Veiling was an important part of Roman attire, but would be more suitable to an examination of 1 Corinthians 11. For a quick discussion of this, see my previous post on Roman veiling.

Modesty

Modesty was considered an essential virtue in a respectable Roman woman. Many Roman authorities lamented the preference for Asian silk when it began to be imported, as they felt it revealed too much of a woman’s form.5 Horace notes this when he compares the dress of a matron and a prostitute:

“In a matron, one can only see her face, for … her long tunic conceals all else. But if you seek forbidden charms that are invested with a rampart … many obstacles will then be in your way — attendants, the sedan, hairdressers, parasites, the stola dropping to the ankles, the mantle wrapped round — a thousand things which hinder you from a clear view. In the other — no obstacle. In her Coan silk you may see her, almost as if naked, so that she may not have a poor leg, an unsightly foot; you may measure her whole form with your eye.”6

Class

Obviously, fashion was an important class distinguisher. Romans attached a great deal of religious and cultural significance to their attire. Everything from the colour of cloth used for certain garments at particular life stages to the way knots were tied represented ritual significance.7

1st Century elaborate jewellery

At a glance you could see if a woman was a slave or the mistress of a large household. Not surprisingly, part of these distinctions were marked by jewellery. In Rome, colour, rather than glitter, was most important. Therefore, the most sought after (and therefore the most expensive) jewellery was made from pearls. In fact, “during the first century, authors frequently used pearls as a symbol of expensive jewellery, and wrote disapprovingly of their use.”8 Gold, too, was the preferred metal for those who could afford it.9 Does this sound familiar? 1 Tim. 2:9 specifically states “gold or pearls” and the author was not alone in his injunction against them.

It is important to remember that Romans were ambivalent about their women’s jewellery. In Jewelery as a Symbol of Status in the Roman Empire, Ann M. Stout notes, “Throughout Rome’s history a tension existed between the desire for showy gold, gem-encrusted jewelry and the restraint appropriate to republican values of simplicity and modesty.”9

We know that Hellenistic thought influenced the writers of the New Testament. We also know that these people lived amidst these Hellenistic social influences. Wouldn’t it make sense that this discomfort with excessive jewellery would extend to the Hellenistic Jesus community? But I don’t think that’s all that’s going on here.  1 Tim. also specifies hairstyles.

Hairstyles

Throughout the Roman Empire, women who wanted to keep up with the fashions could do so by using official statues and coin portraits in order to follow the latest hairstyles from the Imperial court.10

Roman hairstyles

Many of these hairstyles were (obviously) quite ornate, and required false hair, pads, or wigs. The complexity of these styles, as well as the time they would take and skill of a hairstylist to complete, restricted them to the leisured classes. A poor woman would, of necessity, wear a much simpler style.11

Hmmm, could there be a theme here? 1 Timothy 2:9 does not want women wearing expensive clothing, or wearing jewellery or hairstyles that would distinguish them as wealthy. Here’s a hint: maybe the author is getting at what is supposed to be the egalitarian nature of worship. We’ll get to that in a later post.

Worship

But as long as we’re talking about worship, let’s take a look at what worship looked like for Roman women.

Aphrodite

Religion provided an outlet for women whose lives were quite restricted. In Roman society there were essentially two kinds of religion: the native state-sponsored cults, and the imported Oriental cults. Some of the cults (the ones that tended to be most popular) provided opportunities for “joy and release.” There were religious festivals exclusively for women where “drunkenness, obscene jests, and lewd behaviour were appropriate.”9

So, in summary, you have a group of women whose lives are strongly defined by their class and gender — largely in a restrictive way. You also have a group of women who are used to religion as a means of “letting go.”

Keep this in mind as we take a look at first century Jewish women in the next post.

1 Tim. 2:9-10: Jewish Women, Part 3 of 4

This is part three of my series on 1 Timothy 2:9-10. In order to understand this post, please see the previous one on Greco-Roman dress.

The Samaritan Woman - a modern rendition

Unlike for Roman styles, there are no contemporary images of first century Palestinian attire. In fact, there are very few sources that deal with ordinary Jewish women at all. With no statues or paintings to go on, reconstructing what Jewish women wore in the first century Mediterranean is piecemeal work. The only surviving material we have from that time was found in the Cave of Letters, located near En-Gedi in the Judean desert. This cave was occupied by the followers of Bar Kokhba during the second Jewish war against Rome. Therefore, assuming that the garments were brought to the cave, and not manufactured there, we have representative textiles for 100 to 135 C.E. We also have a great deal of Jewish literature that discusses clothing, particularly from the Mishnah.

Together, these sources tell us that Jewish dress was essentially the same as it was throughout the Roman Empire, but with some modifications to meet Jewish law. Most particularly, the laws of shaatnez and tzitzit. Shaatnez is from Deuteronomy 22:11: “Do not wear clothes of wool and linen woven together” (TNIV). This meant that the Roman style tunics (which, incidentally, used the same colour coding to denote status) were woven exclusively of wool or linen. Likewise, the tzitzit came from Deut. 22:12: “Make tassels on the four corners of the cloak you wear” (TNIV).1

The infancy of Moses, west wall of the synagogue of Dura-Europos. One of the earliest representations of Jewish clothing.

Head Coverings

Like Roman women, Jewish women covered their heads. A woman could be divorced without payment of her marriage contract if she went out in public showing her hair.2

Again, this would better suit a discussion of 1 Corinthians 11, but it is relevant to see the importance placed on women’s modesty. It is also interesting to note that the Mishnah allows for the differences in local customs: “Women of Arabia may go out veiled, and women of Medea with their cloaks looped over their shoulder.”3 This allowance for local custom will come back in a later post as we discuss the relevance of these texts for us today.

Braids

Likewise, it is somewhat ironic that the author of 1 Timothy tells women not to braid their hair, because as far as we can tell from the limited sources we have, respectable Jewish women wore their long hair braided and pinned up. Letting your hair down was associated with the orgiastic ecstatic worship in Hellenistic cults.4 Again, this is edging near the discussions around covering women’s hair and the role of women in worship. By the way, if this interests you, be sure to check out my bibliography. Several of the sources have excellent discussions on women in first century synagogues (see, for example, Women & Christian Origins). While undeniably connected, that conversation warrants its own study. Let’s get back to fashion.

So, in summary, Jewish women’s social attire was pretty much the same as it was for Roman women. That means that the admonition in 1 Timothy 2:9-10 would have sounded very familiar to both Hellenistic and Jewish believers.

1 Tim 2:9-10: Interpretation, Part 4 of 4

It is frustrating trying to research 1 Tim. 2:9-10. That’s because few people are writing about it, and those who do are talking about the next part – the role of women in the church. As I have already said, while that is an important discussion, it’s not what I’m after. I’m trying to ascertain what 1 Tim. 2:9-10 is really talking about, and how that affects Christian women today. Even go-to sources, such as Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza‘s In Memory of Her focus their discussion of this text on the role of women in worship and ministry.

What Schüssler Fiorenza, as well as other scholars such as Judith Plaskow, Elizabeth Struthers Malbon, Janice Capel Anderson, and Alison M. Cheek (among many others) have done for me (with regard to this study) is to create a lens through which I can examine 1 Tim. 2:9-10. In other words, I read their works to learn how to engage a biblical text in a critical (as in thoughtful, not cynical) way.

So, in order to get at the question I’m asking, I’ll have to go in through a back door, so to speak, by looking at how this passage has been used and interpreted in the past. And where else should I begin, but with Mennonites (seeing as how I am one, after all – but check out my Why Third Way page to understand that my branch of Mennonites dress like the general public).

Mennonite Interpretation

Most people, when they think of Mennonites, think of the Old Order or Amish: horses and buggies, prayer caps and plain clothes. While the majority of Mennonites actually dress “like everyone else,” clothing is inextricably linked to the Mennonite faith.

In 1943, John C. Wenger, Dean of the Bible School at Goshen College wrote:

“The Mennonite Church is today confronted with the question, Shall simplicity of dress be maintained? In the final test only one foundation is strong enough to guarantee the perpetuation of this distinctive Christian witness: that foundation is the personal conviction that Christian simplicity of dress is a Biblical truth.”1

This is very telling. He goes on to say that while,

“Ministers may plead, and conferences may pass resolutions … the battle against worldliness will not have been won until each believer has decided for himself to live the nonconformed life … and that this break finds application even in one’s dress.”2

So, according to Wenger, and many Mennonites of his day, simple attire was a biblical and essential aspect of the Christian witness against worldliness. Guess what Bible verse his book, Christianity and Dress, uses to support this thinking? That’s right – 1 Tim 2:9-10, in which (according to Wengel) “The Bible dares to be specific in giving instructions on the dress and appearance of the Christian.”3

(If you are interested to know how this discussion evolved, as well as a 1989 update, read this article on dress from GAMEO).

United Mennonite Church, Yarrow B.C. 1938

Biblical Commentaries

When I turned to Biblical Commentaries, I found (by this point, not surprisingly) that 1 Timothy 2:9-10 was only referenced in passing. However, some of these passing comments provide important puzzle pieces. The New Interpreter’s Bible and the New Century Bible Commentary on The Pastoral Epistles both point out that this text is part of a larger domestic code, seen in the larger society that surrounds the first century believers (think back to the similarities of rules regarding Hellenistic and Jewish dress). This means that each group in the community has conduct that is considered appropriate to them.4

In the Dictionary of the Later New Testament and its Developments, P.H. Towner notes that a wife whose husband was an unbeliever might “win him” to faith in Christ if her own behaviour was exemplary, and by extension connected to her own faith. “Outer adornment is the specific aspect of respectable conduct given to illustrate [this] teaching.”5

The New Interpreter’s Bible commentary on 1 Timothy also points out a key piece to the puzzle:

“The warning presupposes the presence of some wealth in the congregations being addressed and a tendency on the part of well-to-do women (often severely limited in their freedom of action …) to find satisfaction in costly attire (the tendency illustrated in poems, paintings, and sculptures of the time). A religion that saw its end result in such terms would be no more than a club for social advancement.”6

While I’m not big on the hint that “girls like pretty things,” Dunn’s final point is crucial – the community of believers was not a club for social advancement. Where I disagree with Dunn is his next statement that this passage makes modern readers cringe (true) and does not apply to modern women.

A stark example of how 1 Tim. can be interpreted

Similarly, in her commentary on 1 Timothy in the Women’s Bible Commentary, Joanna Dewey simply points out that such a description of virtue is common to “Greco-Roman men’s rhetoric describing their ideal of a virtuous woman.”7 Her interpretation is, essentially, that this passage puts women in their place.

John Temple Bristow starts to get where I want to go in his book What Paul Really Said About Women. Not surprisingly, he proposes that the author “was not forbidding the wearing of gold nor the braiding of hair per se, but the practice of braiding gold items into one’s hair.”8 This, he argues, was the practice of prostitutes, and had been adopted by fashionable Roman women. Likewise, he notes that the arrangement of the wording urging women to avoid expensive clothing places the emphasis on “expensive”, or “costly.”9

Like in other commentaries, Temple Bristow says the author is advising women to wear clothing that is tasteful and attractive, not disheveled or ostentatious, and to avoid jewellery that is extravagantly expensive, or prostitute-like. He notes that these qualities can be divisive in the community, and that the author illustrates this with the previous passage.10 1 Tim 2:8 asks men to pray “without anger or disputing” (TNIV). Verse 9 begins with “likewise” or “also” indicating a continuation of his thought.

What I Think

This is, for me, where the rubber meets the road. I believe that 1 Tim. 9 is not so much a dress code as it is asking believers in the community to avoid division. Any study of Greco-Roman fashion shows pretty clearly that it was strongly class based, and that the fashions mentioned in verse 9 were those of the upper class. The author of 1 Timothy doesn’t want believers coming together in order to judge each other by what they’re wearing – isn’t it ironic that that is precisely how this verse has been interpreted in many cases?

Customs have changed, and styles no longer mean what they once did. Therefore, many people argue the author of 1 Timothy’s instructions are no longer relevant to modern Christians — that this is an obsolete passage. I completely agree that the Hellenistic context in which the passage was written is different from our context today. I also don’t think this passage should be used to restrict women and what they wear. I don’t even think there is a “should” to how Christian women dress.

Anne Hathaway in the Devil Wears Prada

But I think the passage still is relevant, and still is important for us. Verse 8 asks us to avoid divisions in the community, verse 9 asks us not to dress in a way that would isolate members of the community, and verse 10 tells us that what is most important in Christians is not how we look, but how we act. What if, instead of using this passage to restrict women from wearing specific items (which are part of an obsolete social context), it was used to remind Christians that in Christ there is to be no difference between believers (Gal. 3:28). What if, instead of using this passage to advocate for denim jumpers over “flashy” clothes as “befitting a Christian woman” we took verse 10 to heart. It’s true, a woman should not be defined by her clothes. This means that Prada shouldn’t define her. But it also means that preferring haute couture is not a sin. Don’t judge a book by its cover, and don’t judge a woman by what she wears. Instead, look at the person and see how she treats others. How should she do that? Try James 2:14-18, 3:9, 13, and 18 for starters. And who knows, maybe to finish off we should read 1 Tim. 2:9-10 alongside James 4:12: “who are you to judge your neighbour?”

Christian Women’s Prayer Caps and Veiling

A lot of people are interested in why some Mennonite women (I’m not one of them) wear prayer caps, also known as “coverings” or “veiling”. So I thought I’d do a post on that.

To begin with, while those who cover their heads now are the exception, this was not always so. Women in European traditions wore head coverings up until very recently (think of ladies in the ’50s always going out with hat and gloves). It is really only within the last fifty years, or so, that this has gone out of fashion (much to my chagrin – I love hats).

 

Kelly Lynch as Mrs. Bennet in "Pride and Prejudice" doffs the Regency's married lady's bonnet.

 

 

 In essence, women in modern plain and reform churches take the Biblical verse 1 Cor. 11:5 to heart when Paul asks women to cover their heads when they pray. They wear them at all times because they try to follow Jesus’ call to “pray always” (Luke 18:1).

The Quaker church in particular has a very beautiful concept of prayer. For them, prayer comes from a depth of quiet, and that the quiet of the heart is a state of listening for God’s voice. This is one way in which they pray.

This excerpt explains it very nicely:

“If I am tempted to be impatient with a store clerk, my prayer cap calls me to patience.  If I am tempted to judge the noisy teenager in the car pulsating with rock music, my prayer cap calls me to pray for this youngster.  When I feel hurt by a rude neighbor, my prayer cap reminds me that the word “neighbor” is a holy word and denotes someone I must love, even when the loving is hard.  And so I lift her up to Jesus.  The prayer cap is more than a symbol, it is more than a statement, it is more than a tradition, it is a way of life.  It is a way of life we are called to in Christ.” (http://www.michiganquakers.org/prayer_cap.oym.htm)

 

Mantilla

Prior to Vatican II, many Catholic women wore headcoverings – usually only in church, but some wore them always. The could be hats, a simple scarf, or a mantilla. Some traditionalist Catholics and Eastern Orthodox ladies still wear them.

I find the mantilla prayer coverings very reminiscent of what Jewish ladies wear when lighting the Shabbat candles. I would hazard a guess that there’s a link between them, going to the early history of the church and the Judaism is arose from, but I don’t know that for a fact. If anyone can shed some light on this, I would be interested to know.

 

Shabbos candles

Muslim women, of course, wear hijab because of this verse in the Quran:

O Prophet! Tell thy wives and daughters, and the believing women, that they should cast their outer garments over their persons…that they should be known and not molested.” [Chapter 33, verse 59]

See Naheed Mustafa’s (a Canadian Muslim) article in the Globe and Mail, My Body is My Business http://www.islam101.com/women/naheed.html

 

Sisters of St. Joseph

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Finally, it would never do to have a discussion of Christian women’s headcoverings without addressing the distinctive look of the traditional nun’s habit.

While there are variations, the general rule was a white coif (the garment’s head piece, a white cotton cap secured by a wimple or a guimpe of starched linen or cotton (sometimes covered by black crape). There is then a black veil pinned over the coif (sometimes with a white underveil). The Holy habit is the central piece of the garment and is a loose black dress. The habit is often secured with a woolen belt. Their rosary hangs from the belt, and a silver cross is traditionally worn around the neck. The outfit has two sets of sleeves, the larger ones can be rolled up to work, or rolled down for formal occasions and entering chapel. The complete outfit includes two underskirts, a top skirt of black serge and an underskirt of black cotton. All orders wear the scapular, the symbolic apron that hangs both in front and behind. The Benedictines wear it over the belt, whereas most others wear it under. A scapular comes with a set of promises for the one who wears it.

Amish, Old Order, Hutterite, Quaker, etc. Plain Clothes

I’ve been talking so much about fashion in the Middle East I thought I would come back to the West to discuss something that intrigues most non-Mennonites: plain clothes. So this is a post to introduce you to the topic, and later on I’ll be discussing specific aspects in more detail. To start with, why do they dress that way?

Well, to start with, I say “they”, even though I’m a Mennonite, because (despite what most people seem to think) most Mennonites don’t dress that way. In fact, we look just like everyone else. We live in houses with electricity, drive cars, and wear jeans. In the 17th century, there were arguments within the Mennonite church about the appropriateness of attire, and other practices. When buttons were invented around this time, there was concern among some for their use for ornamentation. A latch, which is purely functional, did not cause this problem (hence why Amish don’t wear buttons, but latches). There was a similar “problem” with feathers in hats. This, among other issues, led the Amish to break away from the main Mennonite church in order to preserve what they felt was more true to the original tenets of the Mennonite faith.

If this seems strange, you must remember that Mennonites believe in allowing your beauty to be purely natural. In conservative churches, people do not wear wedding bands, or jewellery of any kind. This comes from 1 Timothy 2:9-10, where it says, “I also want women to dress simply. They should wear clothes that are right and proper. They shouldn’t braid their hair. They shouldn’t wear gold or pearls. They shouldn’t spend too much on clothes. Instead, they should put on good works as if they were their clothes. That is proper for women who claim to worship God.” Conservative churches take this to heart, and apply it to their daily wear. This is something I have always struggled with. I love fashion. Clothes, hair, makeup, the whole deal. But how do I get out from under that pretty clear passage? I was raised to believe that the key was to ensure that interest in fashion never became more important than my relationship with God, that when makeup, etc. acted as a barrier or distraction, then it was a problem. But in and of itself, it wasn’t. [Note: I wrote a series of posts on this verse]

In the 19th century, again some Mennonites felt that as the Industrial Revolution changed daily life, the Mennonite church was becoming too “of the world.” Side tangent – that concept, by the way, of “be in the world, but not of the world” is not actually a Bible passage. It’s a paraphrase of Rom 12:2 and John 15:19 – and that’s not exactly what it says. Anyway, there was another big split, and some Mennonites became what we call Old Order, or Conservative. Their style of dress is called Plain Clothes.

Also, to clarify a common misconception, Old Order Mennonites are not “stuck in time”, or trying to preserve a time period. As each new technological advancement comes along, each ordnung (basically group) decides whether or not to adopt it. There are guiding principles governing this, and elders who make the decision. This is why you see many different styles and levels of technology. Some groups wear no colour and live very strictly, shunning almost all modern conveniences. Whereas other conservative Mennonites drive cars, live in houses in town, but still dress very simply and wear head bonnets. There’s an interesting article on this in MennoWeekly.

One final note. Conservative Mennonites are very private people, and do not like being treated like spectacles. It is not infrequent to see people stopped outside of Amish meeting houses (churches) taking pictures of all the buggies – even going so far as to climb up into the buggies to have their pictures taken, while the owners are in worship. How disrespectful! What really gets me is when people go up to the windows of conservative schools and take pictures of all the children in class. If there were people peeking in windows of public schools and taking pictures there would be a public outcry and they would be arrested. So please, when you’re in Amish Country, treat them with respect. Don’t take their picture, give them space, and don’t stare. That’s why on my blog I will only use pictures of plain clothes where the subjects in the pictures are aware their picture is being taken and are alright with it.

Modesty’s Effect

Kris McDermott left this post here:

“I’m not very familiar with the modesty movement, but I’m curious- what sort of implications do you think the modesty movement has on modern women, either religious or secular?”

Hmm. Very interesting. I decided it was worthy of an entire post. First of all, let me reiterate that this blog is not about telling anyone how they should dress. It’s a place for the exchange of ideas. So here are some of mine, and please, leave a comment to say what you think.

A “modesty movement” can be a very dangerous thing. Take Iran. That is a case where the powers that be decided what modesty would be, and imposed that image onto the women of the country (Iran, by the way, is by no means the only place where this is true). They did not/do not care who the women really are, what’s inside of them, what a woman’s own image of herself is. Instead they pull women before the revolutionary committee because she has long eyelashes, and so they suspect her of using mascara. A principal trims a girl’s fingernails until she bleeds because her nails were “immodestly” long. A group of university students eating apples gets reprimanded by the school morality squad because they were biting “too seductively”. (These are all true accounts from Dr. Azar Nafisi’s memoir Reading Lolita in Tehran) The authorities have imposed their own vision of modesty on others, and I don’t support that in any form, from any belief system.

Lest we Christians in the West get too high on our morality horses, let’s remember the Christian missionaries who died of heat exhaustion when they came to hotter climates, rather than take off some clothes! And of course there are the wonderful things we did to the Indigenous populations in the name of modesty:

 

 

“]

Photos: Saskatchewan Archives Board R-A9223-1, Thomas Moore as he appeared when admitted to the Regina Indian Industrial School, and R_A8223-2, Thomas Moore, after tuition at the Regina Indian Industrial School [ca. 1897

 

On the other hand we have pre-teen girls dressed “sexy” because that’s what it means to be a woman (right?) and caught between two worlds, they would rather emulate grown women than little girls. There’s an interesting discussion of this here In my opinion, while there is nothing wrong with sexy clothes, in and of themselves, (hey, it’s nice to feel sexy sometimes), there’s a time and place, and an age. I feel the Girls Spider Web Sexy Tights, made by PrettySinful, are inappropriate. Who makes clothes for an 11-12 yr old girl with the word “sexy” in them? 

So this is what I believe:

• A woman should always be able to wear whatever she chooses, whether it’s a burqa, or a bikini.
• A man is always responsible for his own actions. A woman never ”asks” to get raped. (Women got raped in Afghanistan under the Taliban, you know, even though you couldn’t get more covered)
• Modesty is in the eye of the beholder (see my post on this).
• Within these frameworks, there is such a thing as what is appropriate. You wouldn’t wear a gown to the grocery store, or go to church in a negligée.
• There is also age appropriate.
• In the end, this is something each woman needs to work out for herself, or each parent/child team needs to discern.

What Is Modesty?

Oh boy. This is a biggy. But I thought I should get this blog off and running with one of the fundamental issues around faith based attire. Modesty. According to the Free Dictionary:

mod-es-ty: n. 1. The state or quality of being modest. 2. Reserve or propriety in speech, dress, or behaviour. 3. Lack of pretentiousness; simplicity.

Hmmmm. Let’s try modest.

mod-est: adj. 1. Having or showing a moderate estimation of one’s own talents, abilities and value. 2. Having or proceeding from a disinclination to call attention to oneself; retiring or diffident. 3. Observing conventional proprieties in speech, behaviour, or dress. 4. Free from showiness or ostentation; unpretentious. 5. Moderate or limited; not extreme.

So the propriety part is fairly self evident – don’t wear a bikini to a state dinner. Point 2 above is interesting, and goes along with #4. Basically, not trying to draw attention to yourself. That’s a very interesting point, especially when taken in hand with #3. Wouldn’t you say that deciding to dress “particularly” is the opposite of this? When I discuss Plain Clothes in another post soon I’ll get into the Quaker, Amish, Hutterite, and other plain dressers interpretations of this. 

Often I think modesty is considered tantamount to covering flesh. It’s understandable, I suppose, but at the same time is largely culturally based. What one culture considers revealing, another doesn’t blink at. I was visiting with a friend of mine from India on a hot summer day who was wearing a long skirt. She mentioned that she’s noticed that “over here” exposing your legs is no big deal (even modest elderly church ladies wear shorts or skirts in the summer), whereas in India it is considered revealing.

On the other hand, she noted, even conservative older ladies there wear shirts that expose their midriffs, but here that’s what’s considered immodest.

For myself, what is modest is closely tied with what’s practical. I have a toddler and a baby, so I spend most of my day bending over, reaching, lifting, chasing, and climbing over playground equipment. I would like to be able to do this without flashing anyone when I bend over to pick up a toy, or having to make sure my back is to a wall when I kneel to play with my daughters. I’ve mastered the art of bending over to pick up things by splaying my legs and keeping my knees straight so my jeans stay in place! I also use my inner compass to decide. Would I wear this around my Muslim neighbours? My Dad? My grandparents? And let’s be honest – sometimes the answer is ‘no’, but I still want to wear it. This was more true in high school than now – especially since while-I-do-think-I’m-beautiful-it’s-still-a-postpartum-body!

Discussions around what is modest could fill a library. I’m not going to answer the question in one post, or even in a hundred. But I wanted to get the ball rolling with these first thoughts. For an interesting blog devoted to this very question, visit Is This Modest? And please, let me know your own opinion!