Clothing is communication

There has been in recent years the popularisation of the term ‘micro-aggression’ as a shorthand for the subtle communication of aggression from one person to another. This sounds rather reasonable, and not at all something that needs to engender any controversy or discussion. Have we not all seen the rolling of eyes, or the turning of a shoulder, to indicate someone’s displeasure? So, aren’t these communications simply greatly softened acts of aggression? Perhaps, but it depends on what you mean by aggression.

In the day in which we live, there has been a wife-swap between the terms ‘speech’ and ‘violence’. The word ‘speech’ was once married to the act of opening one’s mouth and breathing out coherent words. Likewise, the word ‘violence’ was once married to the concept of physical acts of destruction; whether burglary, assault, vandalism, domestic abuse, etc. We won’t go into great detail about the terrifying consequences of this foolishness, except to say that if speech is violence, then physical violence can be used to counter speech, and that is also known as fascism, coercion, and in some cases, terrorism. Oh, and let this author not neglect to mention: this viewpoint is being taught at the Universities. He should know, he sat through it himself.

So, the concept of a ‘micro-aggression’, though carrying with it ideas which are bordering on treasonous, reveals something true that our society would in other places deny. That truth, which we shall henceforth consider, is that communication is not limited to the words that come out of one’s mouth.

In a way, we all know this. Does a picture not represent a thousand words? Likewise, do actions not speak louder than words? What is a hypocrite, but someone who speaks one thing with their mouth, and then speaks the antithesis with their actions?

Having established that human communication encompasses more than just words, and that sometimes our words contradict other things that we communicate, let us address the issue at hand.

Simply put, clothing is communication. There are lots of directions you can go with this observation. For one, this author finds value in reflection on the internal monologue (or self-communication) that is affected by one’s wardrobe. Let the following scenario serve as an elucidation.

A young man rises in the morning, and prepares to dress himself for the day. Lying on his floor is a pair of tracksuit pants that he has been wearing for at least the last week. They are not terribly smelly or dirty, but a wash would be in order. He certainly wouldn’t wear them on a date. He picks them up and puts them on, not because they are particularly suitable to any of the plans he might have for the day, nor necessarily suited to the weather, but simply because they are directly within his line of sight, and do not require further thought.

Opening his wardrobe, he takes a printed tee-shirt and puts it on. He puts no thought into the combination of those two pieces of clothing, whether they complement each other, or his day’s tasks, or the weather, or anything else.

If this young man were to go to a cafe, or to stand in line at a library, or to be sitting on the platform at the train station, as he sees himself in reflections and with his own eyes, the decisions he made in the morning might convey the following statements, from morning-self to afternoon-self:

“I am not prepared to make a good impression on a stranger today. I am not looking to interact with other people. I have not made a plan for my day, and I am unprepared for the conditions that the day might present. The level of thriving or productivity that I expect to come forth from today is equivalent to what might be achieved by sitting on autopilot. I am not someone that you will feel compelled to take a second look at, and I am not interesting.”

Granted, this review may be overly scathing. Dear reader, if you happen to be dressed as the young man in this illustration, do not hear our words as a personal attack directed at you. However, we do not know your life, and it may be that the shoe fits.

However, this illustration is only tangential to the main point we are slowly angling on. Having established that clothing can (and does) achieve internal communication, we will now grapple with the elephant in the room: what you wear tells the people around you a number of things, and just as you are responsible for the intention and presentation of your words, you are also responsible for the presentation of your body.

Firstly, your clothing communicates how you want others to formulate your identity. If you are always wearing merchandise from your favourite film/TV/game franchise, you are successfully communicating that you want others to interact with you as a fan of that franchise. If you are often wearing your sporting apparel, whether from the AFL team you follow, or the local sporting club you’re a part of, or some such other thing, you are telling people that you are sporty, that your club is important to you, and that you are potentially ready for some activity or exercise.

If you have disfigured your body with subdermally implanted horns, and such other grotesque things, you are communicating that you reject the vision for manhood or womanhood that God has prescribed for you, and that you would rather be created in the image of some beast than of the one true and living God.

Further, if you are a young lady who routinely comes to social events wearing inappropriately revealing clothes, you are communicating that you want others (particularly the young men) to see you as sexually available, at the very least, if not something more forthright than that.

That statement will stir up in the bosom of many in our generation accusations of victim-blaming, slut-shaming, pharisaical judgement and a host of other things. Well, the fact is that we could go further in our assessment. You might want to sit down for this one. This author doesn’t think that his generation is anywhere near ready for this discussion: since when did it become acceptable for Christian men and women to walk around in form-fitting clothing that leaves basically nothing to the imagination? Even Christian women of godly character will take umbrage at our raising this subject. They will say that they are not to be blamed for the lack of self-control shown by their Christian brothers. As with many murky subjects of discussion, they are partially correct. A man cannot blame anyone else for his sin. Adam tried it, not a good idea. Men are required by God to be themselves disciplined in their practise of holiness. Christian civilisation does not reach the conclusion adopted in some Islamic cultures, which is that the women must be covered up in sacks, lest a man see a curve and be forced by his instincts to take her to bed.

Be that as it may, if it were not for our unbelievably individualistic culture, we might see more clearly that we are all members of one body, we are all stones in one temple. There is blame on both sides, so we will put it plainly: men have a long way to go with not committing adultery in their hearts as they look at their Christian sisters. This author himself is guilty of that. Likewise, women ought to refrain from advertising, by their clothing, something that it would be sinful for their brothers in the faith to take them up on.

It would take pages of disclaimers and caveats to cover all the exceptions that are running through the minds of some readers right now, so we will make no effort to cover all of them. We make no apology for putting it to you straight.

This is a problem in the church, but it is also more broadly a problem in our societies. As a result, we have to negotiate the proper standards for clothing with people who do not honour God, and who care nothing for saving a fellow Christian from stumbling.

Additionally, we have to deal with the most revolting and disgusting sin of rape, which is related to this issue. If a young woman is raped after a night out in the city, which has happened enough times that this author trusts you will grant the scenario without need of reference, it is inappropriate to senselessly jump in with a quip like ‘she probably was asking for it’ or ‘that’s what you get for clubbing’. These statements are deeply judgemental in a way that is totally inappropriate, and cares nothing for proper standards of justice.

Deuteronomy 19:15 establishes that “A single witness shall not suffice against a person for any crime or for any wrong in connection with any offence that he has committed.” Rather, a charge must be established on the basis of two or three independent witnesses. This same legal principle is seen all throughout the Scriptures (Matthew 18:16, John 8:17, 2 Corinthians 13:1, Deuteronomy 17:6, 1 Timothy 5:19, Numbers 35:30, Hebrews 10:28, and more).

As a result, it is totally inappropriate for Christians to jump on an accusation they have just heard and reach a conclusion before multiple witnesses have been cross-examined (Prov 18:17). If you hear an accusation levelled against someone, especially for a crime that will bring a serious punishment, you mustn’t be quick to assume the guilt of the person accused. Rather, the principle of ‘innocent until proven guilty’ must prevail. There is much that can be said about how media in our day subverts this process by creating an association of guilt with a person even before their hearing, but that is the subject for another time.

Let’s apply this for a second. If a minister is accused of adultery, you mustn’t say or entertain a thought that says ‘that sounds about right, that’s just what I thought he was like’. If a girl is accused of fornication (in the common term, ‘sleeping around’), we likewise shouldn’t let that accusation impugn her good name until it is proven. If you hear that a young man called Kyle Rittenhouse shoots and kills another man on the streets of Kenosha, it is sinful for you to go too far in either direction, assuming (a) that it is impossible that he has committed a crime or a sin, or that (b) it is a foregone conclusion that he is guilty of a crime or a sin. We must treat the accused as innocent until proven guilty, but we must not determine beforehand which outcome we will require of the examination.

This does mean that evil women and men will get away with murder. This does mean that criminals and traffickers and drug cartels will get away with their schemes. Why is that? It is because they don’t truly get away with anything. A man dies, then comes before God for judgement (Heb 9:27). No crime or sin, no matter how big or small, can escape the gavel of the Omniscient Judge, who is also the Omnipotent Executioner. It is for that reason that some crimes must go unpunished in this life.

The alternative would see twenty innocent women incarcerated or killed falsely on the basis of one false witness, just to ensure that the real criminal can also be caught on the basis of one true witness.

It is a greater evil for an innocent person to stand condemned than for a wicked person to go free, because no one really goes free.

So, let’s bring this back to clothing and communication. The sin and crime of rape is the stickiest and most heated element to the discussion of ‘appropriate’ clothing and where guilt should be assigned when some such evil occurs. This author is convinced that a biblical standard of justice would see a rapist who is condemned on the basis of three independent witnesses justly executed by the state. We will by no means make light or trivia of this gross perversion.

Hopefully the wise reader will have the honesty to at least acknowledge that a society in which sexual misconduct occured less would also be a society in which women and men communicated clearly by their words and their clothes that they are not willing or hoping to have casual sex with someone they have just met, and that intimacy only ever comes after commitment, and not before it.

For a final note, we will address the subject of Christian bodies. If God created you as a woman, he gave you the physical, mental and spiritual attributes of femininity. If God created you as a man, you were likewise given the physical, mental and spiritual attributes of masculinity. Not only are you to verbally communicate truthfully, and with language that submits to and honours the truth, you are to communicate your masculinity or femininity (for they are the only options) with your clothing according to the standards of God’s law and the standards of the culture around you. To take a classic example, the Scottish man would be honouring his Scottish masculinity before God when he wears his kilt, but if a Lebanese or Korean  Christian went into the town square to preach the good news in a kilt, that would be entirely inappropriate. God’s law doesn’t state that all men must wear a suit and tie, and that all women must wear a summer dress with a blouse over the top. The duty is given to the Christian man to see the clothing that says ‘I am a man’ in his culture, and to dress in that fashion (provided that this doesn’t contradict God’s law in another place). The same goes for women.

For both men and women, you honour God when your clothes communicate that you embrace the sexual identity God gave you at conception. It is ungrateful and rebellious (not to mention directly prohibited by Scripture) to dress according to the clothing of the opposite sex. If you are now wondering whether that means dress-ups in theatre are sinful, leave a comment, and we may consider a follow up article.

To summarise what has been a winding journey, we have work to do. Men: we need to make leaps and bounds in self-control, regardless of the fact that our society is presenting us with porn and easy women (whether real or digital) at every turn. Women: if you are able to rise above individualistic thinking and see yourself as a member of Christ’s body, you will realise that you have a part to play in dressing with modesty that communicates the same purity you profess and love in the other parts of your lives.

Brothers and sisters, let our voices not be found among the number that foolishly cry “she had it coming!” or “can’t she dress however she wants?”. Both things are folly, and belong only to the darkened hearts of the enslaved world around us, and not to our liberated hearts that have been set free to serve and honour Christ.