Sullivan church of Christ – Sullivan, MO
Date: June 26, 2005
PUBLIC SWIMMING -- # 1
Allen Webster
Many Christian young people have never been asked to consider if public
swimming is right or wrong. Their parents took them to the beach for vacation
and dropped them by the city pool for recreation. They saved up money for a trip
to Florida during Spring Break and another after graduation. They just assumed
that it was acceptable to God and Christians to put on a bathing suit and hit the
beach.
It is fair to say that most of our young people want to please God and would not
intentionally violate his will. They don’t mind straight-forward teaching, but they
want evidence. They don’t want to believe something just became mom or dad
says so or because “that’s what the preacher says.” They want to be shown from
Scripture what is right and wrong. Once this is done in a clear way, they are
willing to do what God wants them to do. This article is given to such young
people for careful consideration so each can “work out his own salvation with
fear and trembling” (Phil. 2:12).
The Bible teaches that public swimming is wrong because:
PUBLIC SWIMMING IS IMMODEST
(“In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel” — I
Tim. 2:9.)
Nobody questions whether it is right or wrong to swim. The question is, “Is it
right for a Christian to wear abbreviated swim wear in public?” The reason that
public swimming is dangerous to young people is because of what people wear
when they go. It is a sin to dress immodestly. Sin separates one from God’s
favor now (Is. 59:1-2), and, eventually, will separate one from heaven (Rev. 21:27).
HOW CAN WE DETERMINE WHAT IS MODEST? Adorn (in I Tim. 2:9) means “to
garnish or trim . . . to put something on.” Modest (kosmio) can apply to a salary,
house, or anything moderate, appropriate, and humble. Here it means, “well-
arranged . . . as in the orderly arranged universe; decent, modest . . .” (Vine).
English dictionaries define modest as: “. . . behaving according to a standard of
what is proper . . . especially not displaying one’s body . . .” (Webster) and “. . .
decent or chaste; not calling attention to one’s body . . .” (Thorndike-Barnhart).
We can be immodest by wearing too much or too little. Wearing tuxedos to
worship services, with diamonds and gold on each finger, would be immodest
even if the whole body was covered. Modest apparel is clothing that does not
draw attention to a person. It (modest apparel) de-emphasizes the sexual
aspects of the body and thereby does not arose evil desires.
How can we determine modesty? Is it just left up to the individual or to societal
norms? One helpful principle comes from Adam and Eve. They covered
themselves with fig leaves (similar to swim attire), yet God was not satisfied. He
clothed them in animal skins (Gen. 3:21). They word (ore) indicates a covering
from the shoulder to the knee (Wilson’s OT Word Studies), and gives insight
into how much of the body God wants covered. No swimsuit comes close to
covering that much!
ARE SWIMSUITS MODEST? Can anyone say with a straight face that today’s
swimsuits are modest? Even the world admits they are too revealing. A report in
the Dallas Morning News revealed that fifty-seven percent of men judged women’
s swimsuits to be “just about right.” Amazingly, thirty-three percent said they
were too revealing. Fifty-nine percent of women thought swimsuits were too
revealing and only thirty-three percent judged them to be “just about right.”
(Could worldly people be more honest than church members?, cf. Luke 16:8).
Commercials encourage girls to go “as bare as you dare.” (You would need the
guts of a burglar to wear what some wear to the beach these days). A sports
fitness club ad said, “It’s that time of year again, when it’s hard to tell a birthday
suit from a bathing suit . . so we need to get our bodies in shape.”
Men’s trunks cover very little of the body and often give a shocking display of
their anatomy. Women’s suits leave almost nothing to the imagination. This is
true whether a suit is a one or two piece. Some reason, “Sure, it would be wrong
to wear a skimpy bikini, but a one-piece swimsuit is modest enough.” Bikinis
(see footnote # 1) are worse than other swimsuits but both are very immodest.
One-piece suits reveal all of the legs, most of the back, much of the shoulders
and chest, and due to the skin-tight fit, leave very little of the private parts of
the body to the imagination. Lesser-of-two-evils-reasoning could justify many
sins. One could say, “It’s wrong to get pass-out drunk, but it’s not wrong to
drink a few beers with my friends” (cf. Matt. 24:49); or “It would be wrong to use
cocaine; but a marijuana cigarette wouldn't’t be that bad” (cf. Rom. 6:13).
Someone mused that wearing a swimsuit is like answering the doorbell in your
underwear — except underwear probably covers more and fewer people would see
you. In Bible times, one was considered “naked” if his undergarments were
showing (see ASV footnote on John 21:7, where gumnos, naked, is used).
DO CIRCUMSTANCES DETERMINE MODESTY? Modern fashions may not seem
all that bad to us because we have grown accustomed to them. Worse things
than this were happening in Sodom, and people got used to them, too (Gen. 19).
(But that did not make it right.) Some might say, “Since everybody at the beach
is dressed that way, then there nothing immodest about it. It is just accepted.”
Consider this reasoning on other contexts. Nobody at a bar thinks there is
anything wrong with drinking, but that does not make it right (Pro. 20:1). Nobody
at a gay bathhouse thinks there is anything wrong with homosexuality, but that
does not mean it pleases God (Rom. 1:18-23). Everybody in a denominational
worship service sings with a piano, but that does not mean God accepts
mechanical music (John 4:24; Rev. 22:18-19). Sin is sin, and wrong is wrong, no
matter how many people do it (Pro. 11:21). “Everybody thinks it’s okay” has never
been a safe standard (cf. the flood, Gen 6-9).
The darkest chapter in King David’s life began by looking on Bathsheba in her
“bathing suit” (2 Sam. 11:1-5). Her initial sin was a thing thought of today as
quite harmless — she was immodestly clothed. No big deal. So she shows a
little skin. It wasn’t anything David hadn’t seen before. Besides, those were
modern times. You know, modern age, modern morals. So what if the neighbors
got an eye-full once in a while. It wasn’t her fault. They shouldn't’t be looking.
——————————————————————
1. If a bikini is not immodest, then there is no such thing, because the next step is total
nakedness. The word “bikini” has an interesting background. The book, Why You Say It,
explains: In 1947, the first swimsuit designed to reveal practically every asset of a woman went on
sale. Wondering what to call the daring garment, makers noticed that males who saw it for the
first time reacted like it was an atomic bomb. Scientists used the Marshall Islands in 1946 for a
crucial experiment. Having moved 167 natives to Ronegerik, “Operation Crossroads” head William
H.R. Blandy used the Bikini Atoll (island) for tests of the atomic bomb. Comparing the impact of
the new swimsuit with the world-shaking events in the Pacific, fashion experts called it the Bikini.