« Tolkien, Naturalism and Calvinism |
Main
| More Than You Ever Wanted to Know »
It's That Time of Year
Since Samantha brought up sexual purity, let's discuss some other hot and bothersome topics:
1) How can Christian men, especially married ones, go to the beach? Or to a waterslide park?
I realize that just going out the door at this time of year is visually challenging for most men, but I've never understood how they can plant themselves right in the middle of guaranteed nakedness. It may even be worse than conducting a Bible study at Hooters (which I blogged about here and here).
2) How can Christian women wear bikinis in public?
I confess that I did for a season (I could write a whole post on that), but after I got married (and foolishly read Every Man's Battle--every man should read it, but not most women), I repented. Of course now I wouldn't be caught dead in any swimsuit, but that's another matter.
3) How can Christian teens wear skimpy outfits? And how can Christian parents let them?
Waterfall expresses my thoughts exactly:
One of my pasttimes lately is to contemplate the fact that pre-teen and young teenage girls will wear their Jesus t-shirts and cross necklaces with shorts that are so miniscule that you can see the beginning of the curve where the bottom of their butts start. Now, I'm not one to look at that aspect of people's anatomy, but you really can't help it when these kids wear these clothes. Particularly when their Jesus t-shirts are about two sizes too small, bringing their neo-breasts into perky prominence. My word. I'm really not getting prudish in my old age ... I just find it odd that these kids, of all people, dress this way.
Odd..dangerous..tragic. Moms, where are you? Hopefully not in the closet looking for your low cut form fitting sweater or your cleavage peek-a-boo sheer blouse or your butt hugging jeans or your...let's see, what other outfits have I seen on women of all ages at church lately?
A woman at MOPS shared how she overheard her two elementary age sons discussing which woman at church wore the most "trampy" outfits. They were debating whether it was one mom or another, based on the articles of clothing that had seen them in, i.e. "her shirts are the most low-cut" ..."yeah, but she [the other mom] wears the shortest skirts."
Because I'm on a major modesty crusade, I've blogged about this topic before here and here (you might want to check those before rehashing what I may have already covered). Sexual sins (which aided by lust) have brought down more Christians, especially leaders, than any other kind. I'm not isolating immodesty and lust and adultery from other sin issues that are obviously inextricably linked, and I do agree with getting to the root causes, but the basic fact remains that men are wired a certain way, and just as they have a responsibility to take precautions against lusting, we women need to do our part to not cause them to stumble...which means having our identity/security/esteem in God, not in the feeling we get from men paying attention to our looks.
Thank you. As a male struggling with sexual purity and a member of this accountability group; I appreciate the sensitivity to the issue. Anybody got their Victoria Secret catalogs coming to the house?
I am on Parental Control at MSM (I am a "teenager"). My wife gets a report on all the web sites I visit.
For my major rant on sexual sin: Homosexuality Part I: The State of my Brain (today)
Ahaha, there was a germ of an idea for a similar post sprouting in my head just this morning. Perfect. :) I was thinking more along the lines of how some go to the other extreme, and you end up with things like this. (I'll admit I snorted when I first saw it.) Of course making modest clothing is a noble pursuit when it is so hard to come by, but is our goal to make sure we never look attractive, in the merely aesthetic sense of the word, to anybody?
Laura, I snorted too. I think it is possible to be modest and not look like my grandma's bedspread.
We live in Colorado and don't go to any beaches. With five children, we can't afford to go to any waterparks, plus it is too difficult to keep track of them. So hubby isn't subjected to young ladies in string. Still, I am not so naive to believe his head doesn't turn when he sees young women dressed provoctively. It is the way God made men, very visually oriented. It is their battle.
So I do my best to look really attractive to *him*. That means not wearing a dress we could have a picnic on.
My particular frustration is finding appropriate clothing for my 8 year old daughter. I am tired of seeing t-shirts with words like "Naughty" and "Not An Angel" emblazoned across the chest. I saw a little girl at a store with the word BRAT embroidered on the back of her jeans. I am tired of the Jr. Prostitute look in girls' fashion.
A 14 year old girl from our church wore to our last all-church Bible study a shirt that read, right across her bosoms, "Dorks Are Hot". I said this is an email to a friend:
"What does that mean? It means that she finds dorks to be sexually stimulating, or that she is telling the watching world that she does. Now, I know that my sleeveless shirt would probably give Paul and John Calvin heart attacks, so I know that it is a very difficult thing to avoid being truly legalistic, in making lots of binding pronouncements about everything. But it seems to me that a young girl is not being a great witness when she is making public comments about what turns her on. "
This also from another email to the same friend, sparked by my inital entry on this topic:
"This is actually one of the concerns I have when I say I question the relationship between law and grace. And I get frustrated that in so much reformed thinking, there is such a reluctance to ever give specific applications of what things such as "chastity" and "purity" really mean in practice, in order to avoid chages of "legalism" or "preaching salvation by works". The people who wrote the Westminster catechisms had no problem doing this. "
I probably should have saved these thoughts for my next entry, but decided to just use them as a comment!
jch--thanks for being real and for the link to that great resource (men's accountability site) as well as your blogging series, which I hope to read fully (I read the "we protest too much" post and really appreciated what you had to say).
Laura, I know what you mean but that dress (and a few like it) was the least flattering of all the ones I saw on that site. There were like 20 other ones that I thought looked cute (but my style does tend toward casual conservative). Maybe this is why I've started shopping at Sears when I actually buy something new (mostly I just do hand-me-downs, garage sales and thrift stores). I'm obviously not especially hip, but I think there's something to be said for timeless sophistication--classic looks fit, even if they have to be a size or two bigger to fit properly.
Mopsy--thankfully No. CA beaches aren't as warm as their So. CA counterparts, but we tend to go to in the off-season. Waterparks are too expensive, so that's a handy excuse for now. The sad thing is that I absolutely love waterslides. But I think when the time comes, we'll compromise by going to amusement parks and marine parks where at least swimsuits aren't the standard attire.
I know the shirts you guys are talking about. The "Bratz" line even extends to toddler girls, though the phrases are more spoiled/rebellious than slutty. I wouldn't want to be buying clothing for an older child or teen right now. So much for the supposed "modesty trend" that was blogged about.
Samantha, your comment fits well with this post--thanks for sharing, and I'll be glad if this inspires most posts from the rest of the team.
One thing (well actually two) that I just thought of to tack on to this discussion (but might be better for another post) are the subjects of youth pastors (how do they deal with the young girls who often have crushes and are physically at their prime) and Christian music festivals (I used to go to them when I was single, but am apprehensive about going as a family because of the numbers of half naked teenage girls).
I'm not sure what you mean by "especially married men" in your post. I have found that I am tempted to lust less since I wed. Just want to throw this out there, but I think it may have something to do with being "satisfied" at home.
Also, I may be the only guy willing to say this -- and the last time I said something like this on a post at your solo site, Marla, I was accused of "protesting too much" (which really ticked me off) -- but I believe our definition of "lust" is too broad these days. It's possible to look and not lust. Heck, it's possible even not to look (although harder, I admit).
I believe lust is about either intention to have or actually having impure thoughts. There is nothing wrong per se in a man seeing a woman in a bikini. There could be, absolutely, depending on why he's looking or what he does in his mind once he looks.
And I don't mean to deny the very real struggle men can have seeing women dressed immodestly. It's not about that. It's about: a) the idea that ALL men lust when they see an attractive woman not wearing a mumu, and b) that temptation is itself a sin.
I'm not saying I don't lust. But I can be perfectly in honest in saying I don't think I've ever "accidentally" lusted. I see women dressed inappropriately nearly every day, if not in real life than probably on television. I struggle with lust over these women basically never.
You don't have to believe me. But I know that I'm not the only one, and I'm afraid we are creating a huge burden of guilt for an already feminized Christian manhood by condemning or convicting them of things they haven't even done wrong.
Just my 2 cents.
And this is the part where people accuse me of lying . . . ;-)
Oh, and if we can throw out book suggestions, I recommend For Women Only: What You Need to Know about the Inner Lives of Men by Shaunti Feldhahn. It comes as pefectly close to getting the subject right than anything similar I've read.
With regard to intent of dress and looking...
Hubby & I were watching some summer Olympic sports were men and women's bodies were on display, not as the competition, but because of the nature of the competition. I noticed that it wasn't the same as seeing people in similar attire just hanging out at the beach. (Pun not intended.) I attribute that to the context and the purpose of their body at that time. They are the pinnacle of physical excellence, not to be worshipped, but respected for the hard work it took to get them in that condition.
Now, you could take the same people, put them in different clothes and situations and have a completely different effect.
Of course, somebody could see the same Olympic events and say it's just as bad as some mags.
About dress at church:
What do we do? I see similar things. At what point do the leaders step in and say something, especially the youth and singles leaders? Ideally, there would be no stumbling blocks at church, but that's not the case. Then there's the fact that every women in the congergation could be dressed in loose fitting denim jumpers and their would still be guys lusting.
Jared, our pastor has said similar things to what you are saying, but more about "entertainment", insisting that sexually explicit films, for example, will *not* cause every man to lust, and therefore things like that fall in the realm of "Christian Liberty". Douglas Wilson (with all the controversy that surrounds him) has wondered in a clever analogy why it would be fine to watch such films with your friends on a Friday night, but not all right to watch your friends themselves engaged in such activities, and I think his point is well taken.
I do agree with what you're saying, though, that men can and do control their thoughts, and that a fleeting thought that crosses one's mind is not the same as inviting sin in and making it comfortable.
I think it is a fine line to balance where responsibility lies. We know that the old "Well, she was dressed like she was asking for it" in attempting to justify rape or other harassment doesn't really hold water, because while she may have been sinning by dressing that way, that does not justify or excuse another sin. The Christian women should be concerned about what *they* are wearing, that it might cause someone to stumble, but being in the presence of things tempting allows men (and women too, we are not immune from such things) to strive to take every thought captive.
Okay, here I go… I may really be putting my foot in my mouth here, but who better to grapple over things with than a group of women who I respect right? So here is what’s on my mind regarding this issue:
1) I’m often more uncomfortable reading posts about modesty because of the descriptions or examples of immodest clothing that are used to describe the way that women or girls dress.
2) Sometimes when I read posts or comments about this topic I begin to feel angry, mostly because the conversation spirals into judgments about those “other” people. It concerns me because it begins to sound as though modest clothing is a measuring stick for a person’s faith. It is so dangerous to judge a book by its cover.
Please know that I don’t intend to give offence to any of the women who have commented or written here about modesty and I apologize if I’m coming across in that way.
The burning question for me is, is there a Parasitical bent to our fervor for modesty? In our desire to be modest and exhort others to do so, why can’t we discuss the issue without pointing to other women/girls (sometimes those who aren’t even Christians themselves) to make our point?
Phew. Okay, I know I may be asking for it – but I wanted to open up and see what you all think.
Jared,
You are absolutely correct. Temptation is not lust. At a men's purity conference I attended it was pointed out that gender and beauty are gifts from God given to us to enjoy.
Seeing the gorgeous women with the nice body is not the problem. Even doing a mental "Wow! Is she gorgeous" is not the problem. It is crossing the line to desire for that person, and then of course lust, that is the problem.
You are blessed by God that sexual desire/lust for women other than your wife is not your problem.
Laurie...I assume you might mean Pharisaical, not Parasitical, hehehehe!!
Ha, thanks! My husband (who loves to point out my numerous typos to me) would be bummed that you beat him to the punch Smanatha!
Laurie, I think there is some truth in what you say, but I also think that we need to be careful with what you are suggesting.
We know that "man looketh on the outward appearance, but the Lord looketh on the heart", in terms of whether a person is saved. But we also know that we are to be a peculiar people, and witnesses to the holy God and how he transforms us. So, since man does look on the outward appearance, when the outward appearance bears false witness as to the character to God (as I think it does in the case of the t-shirt I mentioned above), I think it is very serious. And I think that the reason this is so much of a problem is not necessarily the hearts of the people themselves (although that is a part of it), but a reluctance on the part of the Church to call Christians to higher standards and holy living. IF the outard appearance is of people who are involved in fornication and other sexual activities, man is looking on that, as well, and is judging God by the actions of His people.
I think it is a fine line to walk, as what modesty is really does change from culture to culture, and from decade to decade, and we become desensitized to seeing what would have in past times been scandalous. That does NOT mean that we know exhaustively whether God is displeased with my sleeveless shirt or someone elses mid-thigh shorts. But, as I was thinking when I posted my entry on purity, God's ideas of such things as chastity, purity and modesty do not change, but it is strange that the Church's idea of what these things mean has kept rapid pace with the shifting thinking of the secular world.
Marla,
i've had more of a problem with half naked women in church rather than the creation festival. sadly true. it's shocking what professed believers will -or won't wear- to service just because it's summer. isn't it great when you're hardpressed to tell the difference between the christians and the world??!
and this is only nj, i can only imagine ca. yikes.
and i agree with jared. you can look without lusting.
monika
forgive no caps. feeding baby.
Laurie, I was trying to figure out if Parasitical was yet another new vocab word to be learned since joining this blog. :)
Also, Laurie, I'm so glad you stepped out and opened up. I hope this blog will be a place where people can talk about things with the assumption of receiving grace, especially from the team.
Another hope for the blog is that all this talking will actually have a positive effect on our off line lives evidenced in a godly attitude towards others. Check our own actions and give grace to others. And if we're in a position to correct them, to do so with grace and mercy.
I guess we point to others as examples because they are examples of what we are talking about. Once again, there's a heart issue involved in the tone of the discussion. Even via writing on a blog, attitudes can come out. When someone at church catches my eye because what they're wearing borders on modest, I remember to give them grace. Some of them may have been out partying on 6th street the night before and this is their first time in church. Leaders in the chruch also require grace. They're human.
Like fleetguy pointed out, "gender and beauty are gifts from God given to us to enjoy." That's also a springboard for another post. (Add that to the list that's accumulating in these comment thread.)
There are so many points to comment on and so little time. I'll be back....
Monika, ye shall be banished for lack of capitalization. :)
Samantha, most folks who know me know I'm big on Christian liberty.
That said, I am absolutely not saying that entertainment designed to arouse lust, whether it achieves its desired effect on all men, is "okay." When I have shared my p.o.v. on this issue in the past, people always, as a counterpoint, ask me if I think p()rn is okay. Well of course I don't. There is no purpose to p()rn other than to cause sin, and so I think it is clearly sinful in itself. Further, I can't think of a reason why a man would view p()rn other than to provoke his lust, and so it therefore falls into my views on "intent."
Oh, I suppose some researcher or somebody could approach p()rn purely for clinical or some-such reasons, but I don't see that as either necessary or wise. Best to stay away from such temptations.
But lots of men, myself included, can spend a whole day at the beach (although I'm not a big "beach guy" for different reasons altogether) and not lust once. It doesn't mean we don't see attractive women wearing next to nothing. It just means we aren't looking for lustful reasons and once we have looked, we don't do anything sinful with what we've seen.
I'm not naive enough to think it's that easy for every man.
One thing I meant to point out in my first comment -- and I'm absolutely NOT directing this at anyone on this blog -- is that I think the very real (and spreading?) problem of Christian women being more spiritually mature than Christian men can contribute to an unfair burden on husbands in the Church. I don't mean that women being spiritually mature is a problem in itself; I just mean that we have entered an age, for whatever reason, where women are stronger and better disciples than men. (At least that's my perspective; some women actually argued with me on that very subject at Thinklings recently.)
But what happens is that you have a Christian wife who is essentially the spiritual leader of her family and has somehow usurped and removed her husband's headship, and therefore essentially his masculinity. (And of course the husband could be the cause of this imbalance in the first place, but bear with me...) Anyways, so you have a Christian wife who is constantly lording her maturity and spiritual headship over her husband, "watching out" for him not like a wife but like a nagging mother in some cases, and it's no wonder he may struggle with lust! Because in many cases, lust isn't necessarily about sex and a man's hormones. It is about control and respect and feeling validated. (See Feldhahn's book especially on this subject.)
So you could have a well-meaning but basically spiritually dictatorial wife who can be the primary contributing factor to the "looking" problem she is constantly berating her husband about. When, if she supported him more biblically in terms of marriage and was more, yes, giving to him in terms of sexual intimacy, that might do a lot, if not everything, to curb his lusts.
But I know that goes to yet another deeper root cause about how the husbands and wives achieved that imbalance, and the husbands bear as much responsibility there for not leading, etc etc.
You could probably keep digging and digging through root problem to root problem. Bottom line, though, I guess is Sin, which encompasses so much more than legalism or license (which is what folks on opposite sides of this discussion so often accuse each other of).
Hey, ladies -- thanks for not flaming me for my thoughts! I really went through the ringer when I said these sorts of things at Marla's place a while back.
Lexie - do you live in Austin? Just wondering if all cities have a "6th street". :-)
For me the greater issue is not what will make a guy stumble, but what is my motivation for what I wear. Am I wearing a slinky silk shirt to church because it makes me feel sexy and I like the attention I will get? Some how I then have the feeling that I shouldn't wear it. What is the nature of my heart in wanting to wear what I wear? I suppose that is why Laurie (?) felt funny about pointing out others clothes - some women might just be wearing what everyone else is wearing because they are not a christian or are a new one . . . etc and really not have a sinful heart about the 'bratz' shirt. Of course I would wager that most women wear immodest clothes for the wrong motivations of getting attention and feeling desirable to other men, but there was honestly a time where I wore Bikini's just because I thought they were cute. I did not have the understanding or maturity to realize the problem. I actually always feel more comfortable in a one piece but I thought it would look like an aqua moomoo :-)
Marla, Great post along the lines of a sermon one of our pastors gave a couple of weeks ago.
As a man, I have my share of temptations and lustful thoughts and the way women sometimes dress doesn't always help. A christians we need to walk a fine line between our God given freedom and not doing things that cause others to stumble.
I would like to add that a woman who dresses modestly in smart and stylish clothing can be very attractive, not just because of the outward appearance but because of her godliness.
Keep up the great writing
Jared, I'm always looking for balance so I appreciate what you've shared. My husband would second the lust struggle is easier when married view as well as the temptation itself not being a sin (and I agree) and no way of "accidentally" lusting.
My intention was not to create guilt but to help safeguard purity, as much as that is within our power as men and women--you'll note that most of my post actually addressed how women dress vs. what men do with that, even though I started it the other way.
I will check out that book--maybe a good one for hubby and me to read together, because I admit that I am a bit paranoid in regards to this issue but that also has to do with my and his backgrounds prior to marriage and our family histories. God is slowly healing me of some stuff I grew up around but the culture (especially when its negative elements infiltrate the church) has a way of pouring salt in my wounds.
Lexie--good points. I think that pastors and youth pastors could help in dealing with it by preaching on the subjects of lust and modesty. That would at least plant the seed in the minds of people struggling and in the parents of teens who are letting them dress immodestly. Also, ministry leaders should talk to their staffs--a dress code is totally appropriate for worship teams and others who are up front. From there, it's the families who need to get it right--mothers and daughters. If leaders and families were all being conscious of modesty, I think it would have a positive effect on the singles and the fraction of them who did dress inappropriately might even feel out of place. Nothing like a little unspoken but positive pressure!
Hoping this doesn't sound legalistic--my experience in churches has been much more "anything goes" than the opposite, and living in California...well, that pretty much says everything ;)
Samantha--I agree with what you've expressed and like Doug Wilson's point.
(for some reason, it's not letting me comment so when this finally gets posted, I'm sure there will be a whole slew of comments I didn't respond to, but I'll try to get to them later)
Annie, I do live near Austin. Been here 18 years. Am a UT Grad...Hook'em! We just moved to the burbs 4 years ago.
Thanks for the input Jared and other guys. We appreciate hearing from the guys.
A friend of mine had a name for young girls in who dress in skimpy clothes - Prostitots.
Now that he has a young lady to nurture, (as do I), it should get interesting. My girl already loves to wear dresses, perhaps things will stay that way. :)
As a homeschool parent, I read and hear a lot about modesty issues.
I think dressing inappropriately may come from a number of causes: immaturity and the desire to fit in; ignorance; the desire to feel attractive; the need for acceptance from the opposite sex, etc. What bothers me most though, is the way some Christians talk about the women and girls who dress this way.
My daughter and I frequently discuss modesty, and I feel it is a mark of maturity to know how to be careful with our appearance; but I know that many of the young women around us have not been taught to think this way, and are encouraged by our culture not to.
Last week I read a number of posts on this topic in a Christian homeschool blog ring, and I was sad to see the 'offending' young women called 'tramps', 'sluts', 'loose' and 'immoral'. That's a lot of judgement coming from people who should know better.
I am all for discussing the call for women to be chaste and modest (as has largely been done here!), but without the name-calling and dismissive arrogance I've seen elsewhere.
I live near 6th Street, but I'm in Illinois. Actually, all the streets in my neighborhood are numbers, with streets running north/south and avenues running east/west. Yup, my wife's gotten lost before...on 11th St and turned on 18th Ave. At the time we lived on 11th Ave near 18th St. I'll never let her live that one down! ;-)
To the topic at hand...great post and great comments! My only addition to the discussion is that I don't think pastors/youth pastors can do a lot, but they can influence those who can, namely the women who work with young ladies. In having women, who are highly respected by our teens, discuss this issue, our youth can work toward the necessary balance between being attractive without being "slutty."
One issue that plays into that is that often parents will defend their children's choice of dress. No one likes to be the bad parent, and life is all about "choice" in the minds of too many. Interestingly, though, the young ladies themselves would probably prefer a different alternative, and the women who invest in those relationships can have that influence. Often these women are respected far more than the parents, sadly enough.
As a teenager and young adult I was basically clueless about how I dressed. It wasn't until after I was married and began to understand more about the nature of human attraction that I realized I had been playing with fire. Now I didn't become an advocate of Christian burkhas, but I did become more aware of what I wore and how, when, and where I wore things.
Fast forward 20 years and I am now the mother of teenage sons. The other day my 17 year old came to me, aggravated and frustrated, and told me that he was having a serious problem in his (very small) youth Sunday School class. The pastor's daughter, a very sweet young teen, was wearing clothes (and moving around them in ways) that were causing him serious problems. He was concerned that having to deal with it on a regular basis was either going to cause him to have trouble dealing with other females or cause him to shut down his God given maleness--in other words, oversensitize him or desensitize him. He has several other beautiful female friends who wear shorts, sleeveless tops, etc. and with whom he has little problem..so it's not like he's ultra-prudish--it's just that in this case the problem is really bad. Her parents, my pastor and his wife, are precious Christians and good friends. They are just completely cluess about this--and I don't get it. I've tried addressing this issue with the girls at our church. (I teach a life application Bible class to teen girls.) But without the parents' understanding and backing, it feels like almost a waste of time. I read the girls this quote from a Feb. 2004 Dennis Prager (Jewish, conservative columnist) article, titled "Why Young Women are Exposing Themselves":
"This leads to the sixth and final reason: women's naivete. It is doubtful that women have ever been as naive about men as are large numbers of contemporary educated women. I believe that my grandmother who never went to school understood men better than the average female college graduate today.
So, as a service to any woman who is confused by the difference between "cute" and provocative as regards women's clothing, this may help. What you often call cute or attractive, men see only as a sexual come-on. If you wish to dress for sex, you should be entirely free to do so. But if you want love and attention, you have to know the difference between dressing for sex and dressing to be cute and attractive. The more skin men see, the more they think sex, not love. And that includes guys your age, your male teachers, your clergyman, your mailman, and the old man next door."
lol@"I think it is possible to be modest and not look like my grandma's bedspread."
I was laughing all night because of some of these comments!
God's ideas of such things as chastity, purity and modesty do not change, but it is strange that the Church's idea of what these things mean has kept rapid pace with the shifting thinking of the secular world.
Great observation, Samantha. This is exactly what I've been seeing and wondering about, too.
This issues bugs me a lot. As a woman on the curvy side I have enough trouble finding attractive clothes to wear as it is. Working in a virtually all-male environment, albeit one where the dress-code is non-existent (they're physicists) has made me think more about what I wear to the office. I also cycle to work, so that throws another set of conditions into deciding what to wear.
I agree that God's standards of modesty and chastity don't change, but fashions do, otherwise we'd all still be long skirts and bonnets. No, we don't have to embrace all that high fashion or the high street has to offer, but surely we can dress modestly without being frumpy.
And some guys will still look and lust. I remember hearing a radio piece in which the reporter described a conversation with a young Muslim man. (Can't remember the country he was in). "Look at the woman," the young man said, "see how provocatively she's walking." The woman in question was wearing full head to toe Islamic dress.
Just another random thought - I agree that many girls don't understand men, but many girls do, too well. From a bit of personal experience, the increase in broken homes has dramatically increased the amount of young women who are so lost in terms of their value. I am so glad sparrow made her comment. Instead of calling these girls "tramps" we need to realize that they are largely fatherless, lost and deeply hurting. That is why they dress for attention. Many are desperate for someone to affirm their value and the have no idea how to get that need met other than what Cosmo is telling them.
This is a great post and discussion. I'm glad I'm not the only one out there who is considering what modesty looks like. Its a perpetual debate on the BIOLA University bulletin boards, even today, five years after I graduated. I can't believe some of the attitudes out there! "Its the guy's fault for looking at me like that. Never mind that I'm dressed like Britney Spears!" That's a very Christian attitude isn't it?
And while I think its obvious that, as Christian women, we need to be concerned with how we look to the world and to others, I think that its very easy to run completely the other way and look frumpy and unstylish (is that a word?). Do I have to cover my head too? And I guess I must invest in a collection of jumpers because that seems to be the uniform of the "modest" Christian woman these days. Not only do you have to dress like you're living on the prairie (bonnets included), but if you wear pants, you're violating Deuteronomy 22:5 and you're an abomination! Even pants are considered immodest by many of the modesty folks and I think that's part of what turns so many women off to the issue.
So where's the happy medium? Personally, I think the link Laura provided above to Hannah Lise is one of the better sites for modest clothing (the hideous dresses on the front page aside). I think the modesty checklist Marla provides on her website is an excellent litmus test. I definitely think Christian women need to consider their clothing because it does reflect our culture as Christians. We don't need to look like Laura Ingalls, but we shouldn't be dressing like Britney either.
Annie, I agree that the root of the problem is more than just naivete and ignorance--but in the Christian community, I guess I'm hoping that's what it is--mostly.
I don't know what the answer is. If it's to the point where you think you have to dress codes at church, you've already lost on the real issue, anyway. And while educating young people is important, as I said earlier, it really is not very effective if their Christian parents don't see it as a problem.
As the example from pigwotflies shows, you can't dress in a way that guarantees absolutely nobody has a problem. But on the other extreme is dressing in a way that guarantees most men will have a problem.
To me, the problem of Christian women and their dress is a symptom not an illness. Whether it's judgemental and/or fearful women dressed in 'grandma's bedspread' or Britney Spears goes to Church, the illness, not these symptoms, is the real issue. This illness is effecting Christians, men and women, on many levels and in many different areas. The illness is the disconnect, we seem to be experiencing, between the Truths we learn in the scriptures and the application of those truths in our lives.
Samantha wrote:
"Now, I know that my sleeveless shirt would probably give Paul and John Calvin heart attacks..."
No, actually what would have given poor Calvin a heart attack was the young coed I saw a couple of years ago. She was apparently a Calvin College student, wearing short athletic shorts with "CALVIN" emblazzoned across the b*tt. The first thing I thought of was "What would John Calvin say/think? He's probably rolling over in his grave."
WHAT IS CALVIN COLLEGE THINKING SELLING THIS KIND OF JUNK!?!??!!!?
Actually, if you lived near Calvin College (as we do) and spent some time on their campus you wouldn't really be all that surprised. Someone else lamented in the comments the fact that the reformed camps don't do a good job of dealing with this issue. Having "watched" what goes on at Calvin the past few years, it doesn't surprise me at all. They are so eager to be "relevant" reformers that they frequently fail, IMHO, to even be biblical. Granted Calvin College is only a small part of the reformed family, but given their prominence, it is a sad testimony that they encourage their female students to wear such things by selling them on campus.
Sparrow said something that that really made me take a step back. It is not at all worthwhile to stoop to name-calling or jumping to the conclusion that a girl or woman dresses less-than-modestly is doing it because of immorality.
I am guilty of seeing young women dress in a way I never would and making assumptions about her character---I would never let her babysit my kids/a girl like that would never date my sons/my daughter will never look "like that"/my daughter will never be friends with a girl "like that".
Thanks, sparrow, for pointing out that much of the language surrounding this issue is just as harmful as the issue itself.
It is easier to change a wardrobe than to mend a heart wounded by careless words.
Slight tangent: Does anyone else think there's an Atlantic divide on this one? I've come across loads of US-based blog discussion on modesty recently, but it's a subject that very rarely comes up here in the UK. Perhaps we're less bothered about it, or perhaps it's just that it's rarely hot enough to be an issue! (Not quite true, right now we're enjoying a brief interlude of summer. ) Some of the stuff I've come across just screams legalism and tends to be women bitching about each other rather than the more reasoned discussions found here.
One thing I would like to add: For the man that lusts, clothing has little effect. Let's transplant me back in college. I wouldn't care if you were wearing ten dresses over seven sweat suits. If I wanted to picture you lustfully, I would. Clothes (or lack of them rather) only made things easier on the imagination, but could never stop it.
Here's where I think the rub is. The lack of clothes or tight fitting clothes only tells others they don't mind to be looked at. If you don't mind guys noticing your body, go ahead, wear that bikini. And if I see you wearing that bikini, I'm only going to assume you don't mind to be looked at. I think this is why folks change their views as they have kids. Suddenly, they don't want anyone looking at their kids body, whether their kid is 12 or 21. So naturally, the wants become conservative.
This is what I will be teaching my daughter, that she shouldn't give the idea she likes to be looked at if she really doesn't.
I don't know, MC. What you say is kind of freeing and you're right about the man who wants to lust, but lust-filled people can invite others to participate in their lust by the way they dress. As a man who struggles with "the lust of the eyes," I react differently to a woman in a swimsuit according to how it's cut. It can be modest or immodest. I don't understand how some cuts can be worn in public or printed in posters or on beach towels.
Excellent comments.
My husband loves the beach. He doesn't wear his glasses there, so I love it too.
I'm not sure why, but I'm more bothered by the flirty 'come hither' looks and actions of women. Those can't be blamed on fashion.
Actually, when you think about it, God provided Eve with animal skins. Where, oh where is the movement calling us back to that?
I'd like a mink, please.
Thanks to everyone who responded to my comment. I really appreciate it. There is always a danger when making statements like I did in coming off preachy. When I look at what everyone said as a whole I can better understand the concerns this issue raises for those who have daughters and/or who work with young women.
I also really appreciated Pigwotflies comment. It helped me to re-examine my motivation and acknowledge that some of my discomfort lies in the amount of energy and time that so many women devote to this issue. (Note the irony in that statement.) What would you think of me if I said that I’m just tired of this issue? Eeep! Did I just write that?
Reading some of these comments and the various attitudes and takes on this subject confirmed my instinct that this subject was too probably too controversial to bring up my son's problem at church. Let me say he is far from a lustful young man--he's just a normal guy with hormone levels that are reaching their peak. But I knew that no matter how lovingly, kindly, non-judgementally, or carefully, I or he brought this subject up, it was going to come off looking like he was the 'bad guy', the only one with the problem, make everyone feel bad, and accomplish little.
I'm not judging anyone on this one. I know for a fact I've erred in this area. I dressed 'to be looked at' in college and one day had a guy proposition me. I told him that as a Christian I wasn't into that --and he responded with 'Then why do you wear those tight jeans to class?' That was the beginning of my understanding that I was sending out signals with what I was wearing--and while you can't 'please all of the people all of the time' I started trying to be more aware of how I was effecting others--in all areas of my life.
As far as their being cultural differences on the different sides of the Atlantic--I'm sure there are. There are differences and levels of appropriateness and tolerance all over the world--and even among different groups here in the US. You do what is reasonable and right---but it must be done consciously and conscientously--not just because of fashion or the opinions of others. It should be done to reflect Christ's love---both to our fellow Believers struggling with sin and as a witness to unbelievers. I adjust my dress depending on the 'culture' I am entering without feeling like I am compromising or being fake. I am just trying to respect the sensitivities of others.
Looking back at it, I'm not so sure that, as a Christian, my desire 'to be looked at' was a defensible one, either. That just doesn't strike me as moving in the direction of selflessness.
"Hopefully not in the closet looking for your low cut form fitting sweater or your cleavage peek-a-boo sheer blouse or your butt hugging jeans or...."
Why, yes, how did you know? I love to exhibit my rolls of flab, and dimpled flesh.... my wing-ed arms and bumpy tummy...
There are lots of battle grounds on this one. When raising your kids you have to chose the parameters. It is a temptation to emphasize the outward and be satisfied with that. It is an area which I will admit is undermined by the behaviors in our churches. As much as I hate to say it. I really hate saying that... it galls me so much.
but women in their dress are peer oriented, and we need to combine an attractive and modest demeanor I think. The tendency is to choose one or the other, which turns out as neither, in my thinking.
Again prov.31 comes to the rescue for giving a good balance on the subject. Perhaps we should use that as a standard: good grooming, quality fabric and workmanship, appropriateness,utility and beauty.
Probably less fashion magazines;)
Hmmm...interesting. So the question is this: Why not require *people* (not just men) to deal with their lust issues so we can get back to running around *totally* naked like we did in the Garden?
It seems similar to saying "never own anything because someone might covet."
All I'm saying is there's plenty biblical material to support "don't lust" but I don't think I've ever seen a dress code in there.
There are some general principles mentioned in scripture regarding dress, but you're right, there's no real dress code--which is what puts the matter of proper attire in the category of 'disputable matters' discussed in Romans 14. Here is the verse that I think pretty much sums it up and applies to everyone no matter where they stand on this:
"Therefore let us stop passing judgement on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother's way." Romans 14:13
The question then seems to me - is it a stumbling block to our dear brothers to coddle them with excuses for their behavior - "Well women shouldn't tempt you! I mean, you're a man...that's the way God made you."
Let no one say "God tempts me!" - including his creation of the female body.
Yes, I would count the excusing and coddling of sinful behavior as stumbling blocks. And I don't think the creation of the female body is the problem anymore than His creation of anything else. It's how humans put His creation to use that causes all the good and bad in the world.
Wow, so this is the kind of comment activity that happens when I decide to stop neurotically checking my blogs and take a 15 hour sabbatical. Cool. Seriously, though, I'm grateful for the discussion and the mix of men and women who've weighed in.
Debra, please don't think you shouldn't have shared. I totally understand where you're coming from with your son. Teenage men have an even tougher battle in some ways because they're just starting to be sexual beings. I'd be livid if one of our pastors' daughters was dressing like a temptress. But talking to parents about their kids (we tried with a former pastor whose six year-old girl was a control freak toward my stepson) is probably the hardest thing ever, as I think someone touched on here. People just go ballistic over anything critical of their "little angels' behavior. It's sad that so many in the church have bought into the cultural idea of child-centered parenting rather than God-centered parenting, which allows fellow believers to gently come alongside the parents and help raise up the child, esp. where the parents may have a blind spot.
But that's a whole nuther topic. Coming back to what you said, let me give an example from my own growing up. My best friend and I used to wear short skirts to church when we were teenagers. An older (wise) woman in the congregation approached each of our mothers individually, saying that she had had reports from some of the men (ironically, they were in the ex-gay ministry) that they were struggling because of it. My friend totally dismissed it ("too bad for them") but my parents made me change the way I dressed, and later I understood why. Unfortunately that same friend (who was a big influence on me) also set the example of wearing a bikini and of premarital foreplay. I'm not using her as a scapegoat, but peer pressure (esp. where we're tempted anyway) is huge. Thankfully she's got a good marriage and is a teensy bit more modest now.
I also think two separate issues are being intertwined here: how believers dress and how unbelievers dress. It still ticks me off to see any woman dressed immodestly but I have to suck it up and have compassion. However, part of the discipleship process of believers should include teaching modesty--in dress and in attitude. So it's a lot harder for me to play the compassion card with fellow believers, especially those who have grown up in a Christian home. New believers who have insecurity issues warrant a compassionate response, but in supposedly mature believers (e.g. ministry leaders and wives of ministry leaders, etc.), I don't think there's a valid excuse. They know what the Bible says and they have a secure identity in Christ.
The question then seems to me - is it a stumbling block to our dear brothers to coddle them with excuses for their behavior - "Well women shouldn't tempt you! I mean, you're a man...that's the way God made you." . . . Let no one say "God tempts me!" - including his creation of the female body.
Do you keep a ice cold six pack in the fridge if you live with an alcoholic? Sure, the addict is responsible for their addiction - but is there some level of grace and mercy we have to them? Again, I think of two different wives in a group of six men I meet with who, even knowing their husbands struggle with sexual addiction, have their Victoria Secret catalogs come to the house.
I know it will never happen, but I'm doing my part to put VS out of business. Their catalogs (and lifesize ads at the entrance to their stores) are pornographic. I'm not into boycotts, but I make exceptions for pornographic industries and abortion mills. Tasteful lingerie can be found in dept. stores.
Is it okay if I ask what the difference between "tasteful lingerie" and, um, other lingerie is?
Marla,
I can't tell you how much I appreciate your understanding comments. I didn't regret bringing it up here--your blog has gathered a good crowd. (I'm really excited to have discovered it.) My concerns were over bringing it up at my very small church. The reason I was so desperate to have a forum to 'vent my spleen' over this was because I can't talk to anyone at church without it amounting to gossip. It is very frustrating. I'm not looking for someone to blame--just some answers. The Bible says to "Flee sexual immorality". If the problem was coming from books, movies, wherever, you just steer clear of the offending material and be careful and selective. When it's your Sunday School class...well, there's not too many options there--you go or you don't go. I am not being a chicken about bringing this up at church. We are really praying about it. When God makes it clear I need to speak, I speak. But this case is so difficult. I really don't think it would do much more than embarrass people and make them think my son was the one with the problem.
Plus, he's going to have to learn how to deal with this problem in the world and so there are no real pat answers as to how this ought to be handled.
Interestingly, the day we started praying about it, I went to teach the girls at church that evening. The pastor's daughter's friend was there--and started teasingly criticizing her for sitting and moving in a way that was, uh, er, how should I say--revealing a bit too much. This was also said in front of her mom, my pastor's wife (and dear friend) who is in the class, with us. Maybe we just need to let God handle this, continue praying and maybe God will continue to work so that she and her parents can 'get a clue'.
My concerns are not just for my son. He's got a good head on his shoulders so while I hate to see him struggling I know God will see him through on this, just fine. But, I love this young lady, too and am concerned for her. As I said, I've tried to talk to the young women in my class about this subject before--it looks like it's time for a refresher course.
Debra,
Kudos to you for maintaining a relationship with your son that grows such conversation.
Sounds like you're in a position to influence through words and prayers. Keep up the good work.
When I was a young mom just starting at a church, the way women dressed conservatively was actually a detrement to my connecting to a church. I was a believer, secure in my identity as a child of God, but I felt like the "Mary Kay" women of the church were somehow unlike me. I needed to see myself and these women as fellow travelers, imperfect as we all are. Today I think when walking into a church I want to see lots of styles and even varying degrees of "modesty" so that anyone walking in the doors will be comfortable. Modesty is so culturally variable. I have two sister-in-laws from other cultures, and their styles are very much reflective of where they came from, not on their morality or purity. A Muslem student I had explained to me once that she would never take off her scarf in front of her brothers or her dad, it would be like walking around in her underwear. And a friend visiting Mynamar said long skirts and sleeves were always worn there, but clothing was very form fitting. I think the church as a whole needs to guard against being ungracious to anyone, believer or not, based upon clothing style or preference. It concerns me to read of people who are angered by a woman's "immodest" dress. Seems a heart issue more than a clothing issue for both. Just my perspective.
Debra, thanks for clarifying--I'm glad you didn't mean here. And I agree with Lexie that it's rare and wonderful that your son honestly shares with you about these things--he's got half the battle licked right there!
Jared, you have a knack for detecting my poor wording ;) What I meant was non-hokey lingerie.
Mag, that's true, but the male struggle with lust transcends culture. It's universal that the more skin that is bared and curves that are hugged, the more likely it will be for a man to take notice and be tempted to lust. I agree that immodesty is a heart issue, but it also has a very real effect on others. Obesity is also a heart issue but viewing it doesn't tempt anyone to sin.
This was such an interesting question - particularly as in Finland we are in the midst of a heatwave.
Attitudes in Europe are a bit different to those in the USA. You can see that in film censorship. Here we censor out violence more easily, where as in the US it seems that sex scenes and bad language are more harshly rated, while the violence is more acceptable.
(that's only my observation, forgive me if I'm wrong)
Anyway I loved the comment here that questioned our motivation for what we wear. That is the key - or one of them at least!
Be blessed PS: I asked your two questions in my journal. Tried to trackback but it doesn't work!
Mag, I agree with you that there should be a tolerance for a wide variety of tastes and styles---and believe me, even in our tiny church we run the whole spectrum. Which is one of the things I love about it. There should be no church 'uniforms'. And, Lorna, I agree that tolerances and levels of acceptability will vary from culture to culture. (You and pigwotflies have raised my curiosity about something, though. It would be interesting to know whether Christian males in Europe are so used to seeing skin that it no longer effects them. And is that a good thing or a bad thing?)
But there are reasonable limits to everything. We can differ on whether or not it's OK to drink alcohol--but we all should agree with scripture that it's not acceptable to get drunk. The line on how we should dress is not as clear. But there still should be a line. It should be each Believer's responsibility to consciously and conscientiously (and prayerfully), with love and respect for themselves and others, seek to find out where that line is--and teach their children to do the same.
I titled my lesson to the girls in my class "Fashion Statements: What Do Our Clothes Tell Others?" In it I mentioned not only the modesty issue but my personal story concerning being convicted about going around my house and answering my door looking like a complete slob. No, I don't have to go around looking like a Stepford wife, but, here, again, there's a wide, reasonable middle ground between extremes. (Believe me, if you knew me, the thought of me dressing in anything close to Stepford wife style would make you laugh. :) )
My point is that while outward appearance is, by definition, superficial-- that doesn't mean it's unimportant. It does effect others--it's the first contact we have with one another. We send signals to one another when we see each other and consciously and unconsciously, long before words are exchanged, the little neurons start firing and our brains start making evaluations of facial expressions, dress and body language. This is part of how we are wired--it's a visual form of 'communication'. We just need to learn to be more aware of this, and as in everything, use it to help the cause of Christ and Love--not hinder it.
I don't think it's a case of European Christian males being immune, I think it's just a topic no-one gets really het up about. Some parts of Europe do have much more relaxed attitudes re clotheslessness which isn't always linked with a more permissive society. I have this theory that in the US, your history as pioneers make people more extreme/passionate about everything. Sometimes that's good and a challenge to a more laissez-faire attitude, sometimes it leads to huge fights about what are really side-issues. I don't mean to imply that purity of heart is a side-issue, but I do think squabbles about skirt length or what to cover up can easily become petty and distract from what's important.
Well, I've lived in the UK for over a decade, and I tend to think that a lot of people here have way too relaxed attitudes about a lot of things. When it comes to modesty issues, I don't know what most men think, but (a) I think standards are atrocious here and (b) I am sure that some desensitisation is happening and I don't think it's a good thing. A month or two ago, I was in Stamford Hill, a heavily Orthodox Jewish area, and looking around I was practically in shock, thinking, "Little girls who actually dress like little girls!" And their faces were different, too - the children, even many teenagers, had a sort of innocence that I'm not used to seeing on children's faces any more. The adults dressed modestly too, but the contrast wasn't quite as shocking. I don’t think Jewish tzniut is necessary to be modest, but it's a lot closer to reasonable than what I see all over London (especially today!).
Sorry, I should have said, "I don't know what most men think, but as a woman, my opinion is..."
Pigwotflies, I think there is a lot of truth to your observations about our American heritage contributing to our passion. To leave one's country or state and strike out into the unknown does require a people with alot of unique traits and would tend to weed out the less passionate.
Passion does have to be directed and controlled. Like nuclear energy, though, it can light a city as well as destroy it. But I think Americans, in general are pretty laissez faire, too (and in more than just our economics :) ) I hear about all these American Christians 'straining at gnats' over personal and doctrinal issues, but personally, for some reason, I've never run across many (except on the Internet, for some reason ??). I do know they exist in numbers, but I think they may just be a vocal minority. Could be wrong, though. Maybe my experience is just unique.
But some of these topics that do, for some reason, disintegrate into silly, petty squabbles over stupid things, have at their roots some very foundational, vital issues that need to be resolved--issues where we need to be continuously examining our actions, thoughts and motivations for doing things to make sure that we are acting out of genuine love and concern for others and honoring our Lord.
Another very strong trait in Americans is individualism and that has both a postive and negative side, too. For the most part, we don't like anyone telling us what to do. We have a strict rating system for our movies and limits on broadcast TV, not because we're prudish about sex or because somebody up at the top ordained it, but because it's what most of us want so we can at least try to protect some remaining shred of decency, and innocence for our kids (not that it's working all that well).
Just wanted to share these thoughts--although they're a little off the topic of modesty. I guess to conclude back on the topic: The issue of how Christians dress has, at it's roots, vital issues concerning not only purity and concern for others---but our very nature as sexual beings. But that gets into a whole 'nuther topic.....
Re: Europe, isn't it true that things like adultery and prostitution are also more acceptable? I know that in France, where I twice had extended stays (and a French boyfriend the first time), sexual permissiveness was rampant. The lack of modesty fits right in with that. And let's remember, there was a reason that after the fall, Adam and Eve immediately felt the need to cover themselves.
We, the U.S., follow in Europe's footsteps and Europe (based on my missions experience there and what I know from other sources) is all but godless. The cultural mindset is very secular. So we may well be on our way to "relaxing" our standards of purity. Hollywood and other liberal sectors are very Eurocentric, and they're using fashion, film and other forms of media/cultural influencers to make the U.S. more liberal both politically and morally.
We also have a huge problem, and the church is far from immune, with pornography here in the USA. So if viewing naked or near naked bodies is no big deal, then why are marriages crumbling and sex/violent crimes with pornographic connections on the rise? One thing leads to another, just like sexual foreplay, which as I commented on Samantha's post, I unfortunately know firsthand.
A month or two ago, I was in Stamford Hill, a heavily Orthodox Jewish area, and looking around I was practically in shock, thinking, "Little girls who actually dress like little girls!" And their faces were different, too - the children, even many teenagers, had a sort of innocence that I'm not used to seeing on children's faces any more. The adults dressed modestly too, but the contrast wasn't quite as shocking.
Those are thought provoking observations, with possible sobering implications for everybody, on both sides of the Atlantic.
You all sound like a bunch of christian fundamentalists with nothing better to do that examine sexual sin and modesty. Go and do something a bit more productive with your time. Jesus told you to go and love your neighbors and be like the good samaritan. I am sick and tired of fellow christians who come out with the same old "organised religious" rhetoric like this. Who cares what people wear or do! It's not your job to judge! Go and serve the poor. Have a look at the world and you'll see millions of suffering people who don't even have enought food to eat , clean water to drink and clothes enough to keep them warm at night. Here you all are worried about fashion while 40,000 people die each day due to poverty related issues that are preventable. I think you all better go and read your bibles again and look at what it says about serving the poor and suffering, widows and orphans and just how vitally important these issues are! Don't waste your time discussing crap like moralistic fashion sense! Do something instead of trying to spread the great moral crusade of "Churchianity"! Be "real Christians" not "psuedo-Christians" selling a moralistic lifestle.
Several people have provided examples of instances where someone else’s clothing has caused someone to stumble, or instances where they thought that it would cause someone to stumble if there was someone around who might see them and therefore stumble.
I do understand that it is a real problem. It just makes me sad (almost exasperated) that it is such a huge issue for two reasons:
1) Because it is so superficial. I don't mean superficial in the shallow sense, I mean that it only deals with the external or surface appearances. We are all so sick with and full of sin – and it has nothing whatsoever to do with the things that we see.
2) Because I want more for us. (Christian women) I want thought-provoking questions and honest discussions about our weaknesses and strengths. I want women to receive instruction and participate in discussions on the full spectrum of theological topics and not be confined to the sphere of “domestic” theology. I want us to be challenged so that iron sharpens iron.
As Marla knows, that is one of my great hopes for Intellectuelle and I am so grateful to her and all of the other contributors for what they are doing here. Thanks for listening… again.
I've appreciated this discussion for many reasons:
It helped me think about and sort through a personal issue. It has given me insight into the various viewpoints and mindsets of other Christians on this issue and that increases my understanding and empathy for others. It is in a forum where most have been able to discuss the issues and the facts, and share their observations and opinions, civilly, without judging anyone. I also like the fact that it has demonstrated that there are theological and intellectual aspects to everything, even the most ordinary, everyday problems.
Thanks & Blessings to all of you.
I have one last thought to share:
Really big issues like poverty and human suffering and deep theological discussion don't add up to a hill of beans unless we first learn love, kindness, and thoughtfulness towards others. "If I give all I possess to the poor....if I can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge..and have not love, I am nothing."
It's not that the big issues don't matter. They do--big time. But, it is through learning to love, respect and care for individuals with whom we daily interact, in small, seemingly trivial matters, that we gain the love and understanding needed to tackle the bigger issues.
I can understand your point, Debra. But didn't Jesus also say that it is easier to love those who love you back? How do you learn to really love if you're only involved in the "trivial matters", where it is relatively safe.
Also on the "really big" issues of human poverty and suffering, have a look in your own world. I would be willing to bet there are people suffering in your own back yard (communities). The real key to Christianity is following the example of Jesus. He served suffering humanity and commanded us to do the same, or did I miss His parable of the fashion designer. I'm sorry Debra, I think you missed the point of my comment. Perhaps it is easier for you to stay where you are and let the real workers get their hands dirty. Using the "hill of beans" arguement is just an excuse to do nothing but sit on your hands, untill you get in touch with the right attitude or righteous feelings. Meanwhile the world slips by........
Mark wrote: I am sick and tired of fellow christians who come out with the same old "organised religious" rhetoric like this. Who cares what people wear or do! It's not your job to judge!
Mark with all due respect, I think you've missed the point.
I don't believe Marla's post was about judging or even criticising - but more along the lines of not leading others into temptation. At least that's a big part of it.
You are right though the poor do need feeding and a whole heap of other things too. What I don't get is your attitude that we can't discuss other issues too and be willing to change ourselves. What we do and how we do it, what we say and how we say it, and dare I say it, what we wear and how we wear it.
Be blessed.
"Perhaps it is easier for you to stay where you are and let the real workers get their hands dirty."
Well, you spoke truth there, Brother. I'm certainly not getting my hands dirty on this keyboard. It is always easier to sit and write than to do. So, I'm back to my work..Wouldn't it be interesting to be God and know what Debra's work involved and what was in her heart?
Grace and Peace, Brother
This issue is as much a "real" Christian issue as is the feeding of the poor or the nature of God. And discussions of so-called "domestic theology" are part of the full spectum of theological thinking.
So far on Intellectuelle we have had entries on inclusive vs. exclusive salvation, why neutrality is imposible, naturalism, J Gresham Machen, etc. There is every reason to think from this beginning that Intellectuelle will continue to deal with the full spectrum.
Those who have said that we should not come at this issue in a condemning fashion are absolutely correct. But at times I think that like the only politically correct thing to be intolerant about in the secular world is intolerance, the only politically correct thing to be judgmental about in the Christian world is imagined judgmentalism, when anyone dares to open a discussion about issues like chastity, purity and modesty, which the Bible has no fear of dealing with repeatedly.
We know, I am sure, that the Scriptures are to interpret the Scriptures, and we also know that the entire Bible is:
"given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work." Paul is speaking to Timothy here as a pastor, of course, but the principle here is that every part of the word of God has something to teach us about His nature and our calling in Him.
So, since the Bible speaks in many places about purity, modesty and chastity, we know that we can legitimately use what it says in discussions, and that these things are *real issues*. They are also "theological issues" because they relate directly to how God is perceived when those outside the faith looks at us, His people.
While we certainly have to avoid being Pharisees in thinking that we are somehow deserving of salvation because we don't wear or do this or that, to be concerned about these issues which obviously concern the Lord is perfectly appropriate.
Mark,
Debra pointed out something gently in love that may bear being pointed out point blank. Why did you assume that no one was involved in the areas you mentioned? I am.
About the only "wise" saying from Mao Tse Tung's "Red Book" I remember from my days as a Commie - and one I still use - is:
"No investigation, no right to speak"
BTW: Someone got a proverb etc that says the same to replace Mao (I hate quoting him even if its true). Of course, many folk might give greater authority to Mao than the Word of God.
"Debra pointed out something gently in love that may bear being pointed out point blank. Why did you assume that no one was involved in the areas you mentioned? I am."
So am I.
I was too tired after feeding poor children (relative to the area in which we live)--my own-- to respond to Mark last night, so I'm grateful to see the comments that have ensued. Samantha said what I would have said (but better).
I just want to add that, Mark, lust isn't a trivial issue...unless you don't believe in the importance of marriage and family, which is crumbling left and right, in no small part due to sexual sins, which the Bible addresses as frequently, if not more, than the poor. If you want to take a gospel-centric interpretation of the Bible, ignoring the epistles and the Old Testament and just looking at Jesus, then your perspective is going to be imbalanced...but even Jesus told the women in sexual sin to go and sin no more and he said that lust was akin to committing adultery. He didn't spend all, or even most, of his time feeding the poor, though he did preach on the importance of doing so. Believers need to get the basics straight (and modesty/sexual purity is one of them) before they try to save (and feed) a world starving for spiritual food that will extend their lives not just on earth but into eternity.
Mark,
You've got a point - and I think you've missed the real point at the same time.
Big issue do matter - you have a point there. So do small things. One isn't better than the other.
Because the real issue is the fact that, as Christians, we're to reflect Christ.
Being legalistic about small things misses the point - I agree with you in that.
But, being careful to concentrate on the "big issues" misses the point as well.
I'm called to be Christ to my brother (both my biological brother, and my "brothers in Christ"). So I seek to help them. And that includes trying not to intice them by how I dress, talk, act, etc.
I'm called to be Christ to my sisters. That includes encouraging them to be Christ-like. Which can include encouraging them to dress & act modestly.
Being modest really isn't anything more than just seeking to be Christ-like. Because being Christ-like means that I don't want attention to be drawn to myself, I want others to see Christ through me & what I do, and that I want to serve others. Which, if that's your goal - you'll be modest. If your heart is right, it may lead you to have certain "rules" about hem-lines, but rules about hem-lines aren't the point.
And yes, I am called to be Christ to my neighbours. Which means any and all of the people God has put me in contact with. If He has given you something that looks "big" to do - great. Do it for Him. Serve Christ. Reflect Christ.
Right now, I don't have something "big". Just buying lunch for someone at school who doesn't have any food or any money. Giving someone a ride home. Being pleasant & polite to the guy at the gas station late last night when I had to buy gas going from one job to another.
No, I can't do it in my own strength. It's about Christ, again. And, by His grace, when I'm given opportunity, I'm called to tell others about Christ directly, as well. And that's the greatest way to serve someone.
We're not all called to serve in things that look like "big things". But we're all called to reflect Christ where God has put us. For some that involves "big things". But all of us have "small things". And those aren't any less in God's eyes.
Hey, Mark, what are you doing participating in this discussion? Shouldn't you be out feeding the poor instead?
Samantha, I honsetly do get your point but I still think that there is an imbalance. I also acknowledge that this is my opinion and there are many people whom I respect that don't agree with me.
Debra, grace and peace to you too, sister.
No Jared I'm sorry to say that I'm am not out feeding the poor. I usually do that on my morning and afternoon shifts. At the moment I am rostered on night shift at the homeless shelter where I work, so instead I'm handing out blankets.
Marla, I am interested to know why you think that "just looking at Jesus" will give someone an "imbalanced perspective", after all isn't "He" perfection personified? Also do we need more examples other than the ones Jesus gave?
I hear what you are saying JH. Let me ask a question though, what drives us to making the distinction between and the small and big things? Or is that purely a perception of the mind? Is it right to make a distinction? Or do we need to ignor the possibility of fear, rejection, failure and pain to do things for our brothers and sisters. Help to others is a luxury that we cannot afford to withhold to those in need of help, even is our minds struggle with the "perception" of "big and small" issues. Here's a thought, who said that buying lunch for someone at school is a small thing? The Good Samaratian only helped the one injured man. Maybe there are others at your school like your friend, you could possibly encourage others at your school to follow your example and help those less fortunate. Let me share something with you.
"There once was a rich man, expensively dressed in the latest fashions, wasting his days in conspicuous consumption. A poor man named Lazarus, covered with sores, had been dumped on his doorstep. All he lived for was to get a meal from scraps off the rich man's table. His best friends were the dogs who came and licked his sores.
"Then he died, this poor man, and was taken up by the angels to the lap of Abraham. The rich man also died and was buried. In hell and in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham in the distance and Lazarus in his lap. He called out, "Father Abraham, mercy! Have mercy! Send Lazarus to dip his finger in water to cool my tongue. I'm in agony in this fire.'
"But Abraham said, "Child, remember that in your lifetime you got the good things and Lazarus the bad things. It's not like that here. Here he's consoled and you're tormented. Besides, in all these matters there is a huge chasm set between us so that no one can go from us to you even if he wanted to, nor can anyone cross over from you to us.'
"The rich man said, "Then let me ask you, Father: Send him to the house of my father where I have five brothers, so he can tell them the score and warn them so they won't end up here in this place of torment.'
"Abraham answered, "They have Moses and the Prophets to tell them the score. Let them listen to them.'
""I know, Father Abraham,' he said, "but they're not listening. If someone came back to them from the dead, they would change their ways.'
"Abraham replied, "If they won't listen to Moses and the Prophets, they're not going to be convinced by someone who rises from the dead."
(Luke 16:19-31)
Food for tought: Most people (even poor Westerners) in Western countries make up the 8% of the worlds most richest people.
I think you were correct in saying "If your heart is right, it may lead you to have certain "rules" about hem-lines, but rules about hem-lines aren't the point.".
Mark, Jesus himself supported the authority of the Old Testament. And he's in the OT as much as the NT. As I once heard it put, "The Old Testament is Jesus concealed; The New Testament is Jesus revealed." To isolate the gospels from the rest of the Bible is to disobey Christ's teachings. Fix our eyes on Jesus, yes. Throw out his Word, no. And like I said earlier, he himself preached against lust and sexual immorality.
I think you've hit on a good topic but I suggest starting a blog to channel your passion, because it would be much more effective than trying to connect it with what I've posted here. Also, there are many Christian blogs that do address poverty and starvation--it might even come up here from a philosophical angle, but we've just gotten started blogging, so this isn't the best place to gauge "the church's" attitude and/or actions pertaining to the poor.
Btw, I'm well aware of the stats you present, because my church does in fact support missionaries in third world countries who are helping the poor both materially and spiritually, which is where some of my tithe ends up going. They regularly come and speak to us on what's happening in those places. Where I live (Marin County) there are less poor people than in most places, and unfortunately, most of them have just migrated here for handouts and social programs because this county is so liberal, not because it's producing people in need. It's a strange irony that one of the richest counties in the country (and the richest in the state of CA) leans so far left yet lives in so much luxury (not my family of course, though relative to third world countries, yes).
Mark,
To answer your question . . . I'm not totally sure why we make the distinction between big & small things.
My point, which I guess I didn't articulate too well, was that we shouldn't.
If you're a Christian, you're united to Christ. As such, you're called to reflect Christ. We do that wherever we are. It may look like what we're doing matters (feeding the poor), it may not (being modest). But that doesn't matter - we're called to reflect Christ to others.
And to take a tangent away from where this thread is going, but kind of back to where it started:
Probably the biggest thing that has helped me, as a female college student, to have a good attitude about dressing modestly, was a comment a brother made to me. He mentioned that the way a lot of people dressed was difficult for him - described it as "poison" - and then made a comment about me not being poison. That's when I realized that the way I dress does matter.
And guys - saying something to a girl isn't necessarily a bad idea. It can be a huge encouragement, and some of us do want to know if that new skirt we're wearing isn't such a good idea. (I realize that a lot of times, for you to say something to her might not be such a great idea. But, if you're comfortable with it, and have enough of a relationship with the person to say something - please do).
in another century (not long ago, in the grand scheme of things) even tables wore long skirts, as to not enrage the lust of men, when they saw "legs".
I think that the issue you're discussing is an important one - but equally important is the flip-side.
Many women find the sexual struggles of men an easy target (and I know that you're talking about preventing a fall, not blaming the men)...but....
Women have their own struggles in the sexual arena, and they may be very different than men's.
How many women do you know that read "romance novels" - and criticize their husbands for being "romance impaired"? I know a few - and I used to be one.
How many women use sex as a weapon - or a reward for jumping through hoops? I would submit that a wife who does that is just as guilty of causing her husband to be tempted as a girl who parades her "stuff" in front of him.
There's more than one way to be a stumbling block, I'm becoming more aware of lots of them...
(btw - the heat index was over 100 here today - I wore a sleeveless shirt and mid-thigh shorts today. And I don't anticipate that tomorrow will be any different - given my job, a skirt has the potential to be much more immodest than shorts )
;-) Ellen
There have been so many excellent comments here (in addition to much less impressive ones) that I could never make time to read them all. So forgive me if I go straight to putting in my bit without explicit references to previous posts.
Practically everyone echoes the declaration that being able to see a woman's shape and skin is automatically bad, because everyone thinks that everyone else expects them to say so. Over and over I hear expressions like "Eye-gate!" used as if merely repeating them were proving something. It makes me wonder whether my very different experience is in fact entirely unique--or whether others have similar experience but have been intimidated out of mentioning it.
I was married for 25 years to a saintly wife, until God called her home to Heaven last year. In all of that time, I never had an affair with another woman. However, you need to know something crucial about the temptations I did undergo. There were two times when I was strongly tempted to be unfaithful, though I did ultimately resist successfully...and here's the point which I cannot emphasize too strongly. THE WOMEN IN THOSE TWO INSTANCES NOT ONLY WERE _NEVER_ DRESSED VERY REVEALINGLY IN MY PRESENCE, THEY WERE NOT EVEN ATTRACTIVE IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!!!!!!! Meanwhile, I saw COUNTLESS nearly-naked sexy women during those same years, WITHOUT being even SLIGHTLY tempted. Goodness, could it be that something ELSE besides shapeliness and the exposure of skin played a role here? So it did. It was the BEHAVIOR of those two women that made them alluring--attentiveness to me, eye contact, touching, and things they said.
Each of those women behaved as if she really liked me and found me attractive. Good grief, there is so much talk about self-esteem in our society, shouldn't it be obvious that a man could be aroused by a woman who makes him feel good about himself? Those two women both expressed admiration of me, and it came as close as anything ever did to making me unfaithful to my wife; the sexiest woman (visually) who was ever born could never hope to produce the same effect on me by her strutting which demands MY admiration for HER.
Even if no one you know has had my type of experience concerning what is and isn't seriously tempting--just study history! Women in medieval Japan kept themselves almost as heavily muffled in fabric as Afghan women under the Taliban, apart from being allowed to leave their heads exposed.
But this did NOTHING to prevent the Japanese samurai from being constantly sexually active--and with prostitutes, not only their wives.
I give you my word before God--may He rebuke me if I am lying--that I can look at a gorgeous woman who is stark naked, say to myself, "Yep, she looks great," and cease to give her any more thought within a minute after she is out of sight. On the other hand, an average-looking woman, clothed from chin to heels, could stir me up by BEHAVING as if she specially liked me.
Having gone more than a year since the departure into glory of my dear wife, whom I will always love, I am soon going to marry another fine Christian woman--one, in fact, who was a friend to both my first wife and me. This new love understands that my love for her is not based on how she looks (although she looks like Carrie Fisher, and that sure doesn't hurt). Therefore, she understands that my enjoying the sight of an attractive younger woman--EVEN one who is not dressed like a nun--does NOT mean that I'm wishing to be with that other woman instead. Certainly, I don't stare protractedly; but my taking a reasonable glance does not make my fiancee feel threatened at all.
Copperfox, you had me until that last paragraph, especially the closing sentence. But even if I put aside my misgivings about your final remarks, it still doesn't change the Bible's directive to women to dress modestly. Why did God include such verses in His Word if women's bodies have no effect on men (except their husbands)?
MARLA:
Thank you for even reading that far. Too many people would just plug their ears and chant "Eye-gate! Eye-gate!" I will try to answer you clearly.
Those who know me, know that I am not a liberal theologian who uses a "trend-mentality" to dismiss eternal truths in God's Word. But frankly it IS true that SOME things in Scripture were "local"--that is, applying more to the time when they were written. Just consider the advice to slaves and slaveowners! No one would seriously argue that those passages mean we still have slaves now, or should have them now.
The Bible was written in centuries when women were basically PROPERTY--when marrying a wife was like buying a horse. Of course love did sometimes occur, but this was no thanks to the system. Women as a rule were not looked upon as equal persons with whom a man could have an equal relationship; so, to look at a woman WAS to look at what was commonly regarded as merchandise. Romantic love did not become a norm until Christianity had been around for awhile.
Now, even some immoral men at least do regard women as persons, not ONLY pieces of meat. In fact, some of the most despicable adulteries occur for reasons that have nothing, repeat NOTHING to do with the physical appearance of either party. I refer you back to what I reported about my own temptation experiences. What I describe there is what happened in actual fact: NOT EVEN IN THE VERY SLIGHTEST DEGREE was it about the way those women looked or dressed.
Now, please understand that this next part is not aimed at you personally. We so often hear that men respond to sight, and women respond to personality. Then we hear that a married man taking any pleasure at all in the sight of some other woman is automatically treating his own wife as if she is inadequate. But what DON'T we ever seem to hear? We don't hear it being said that a WIFE is making her HUSBAND feel inadequate when she likes something about some other man's personality.
Now that I've gone this far in a non-p.c. stand against male-bashing, I might as well be hanged for a sheep as a lamb. Rigid-minded women who want to police other women's wardrobes would shriek bloody murder if I said that they were jealous of more attractive women; but there is more than one FORM of jealousy. The rigid-minded women, if I accused them of jealousy, would choose to believe that I meant they wanted to BE the same kind of tramps they accuse the attractive women of being. But they would be missing my point. I _know_ that the rigid-minded women don't want to be brazen tarts...but there IS something they DO want. What they do want is to have SOCIAL INFLUENCE over other people; and they resent someone else having a tool for influence which they don't have. Since a sexy woman has an obvious power to influence the behavior of men, the wardrobe-policewomen hate them for having an "unfair" advantage, even though the RESULTS
they want to achieve through influence are not the same as the results the sexy women are presumed to be seeking.
Again, this does not reflect any opinion of you individually. I don't pretend to know your heart. You can't see my heart, either--so I can only give you my word that I was NOT lying, NOR failing to understand my own personality, when I stated the FACT that it is BEHAVIOR, NOT SKIN, that arouses me. Do you think that my seeing a steak on someone else's plate automatically makes me want to grab it and eat it myself? I will sooner eat a mere hot dog WHICH IS DEFINITELY OFFERED TO ME, than the world's best steak lying on a plate and clearly belonging to someone else.
I have now answered you thoroughly. By the way, my first wife--who would NEVER have forgiven infidelity on my part--was not bothered the least bit by my liking the looks of some movie actresses, and she knew that I wasn't bothered the least bit by her openly-stated admiration of the attractiveness of some male actors.
Copperfox, thank you for your insights. I agree with a lot of what you're saying. I just still think that lust is a real issue, that not all men are as spiritually mature as you, and that we women should do our part to help them not to stumble. Did you read the comment about the teenage boy and the pastor's daughter's provocative dressing? Men just coming of age are particularly susceptible since they don't know mature love yet. And what about the huge problem (which includes the church) with pornography?
My point is that aside from the modesty and stumbling block issues (which I think are still valid today though you make a good point about cultural context), clearly it is wrong for women to dress with the intent of getting men to notice her assets. Unless it's just one man--her husband. Otherwise she is not getting her worth in the Lord but in her sexuality (or social influence as you mentioned).
As for the jealousy thing, women are highly competitive, so I definitely see the truth in your statement. Not to boast, but until the recent birth of my two children (and my husband says I'm still a hottie even though I'm not skinny like I used to be), I knew that I could be socially influential because of my looks, but I was very cautious about that. Of course I made some blunders too, but after I got married, I was more clued in to how men think, so I felt all the more need to dress modestly. Not in frumpy clothes, but not in clothes where I felt "a check." If I was unsure (maybe it was a little tight or a little short), I put it back on the rack.
But just to show you I'm not a total legalist...Now that I've got more meat on me, most of my clothes fit more tightly, which my husband likes (I don't), so because I'm such a tightwad, I'd rather compromise on the modesty a little to not have to buy a whole new wardrobe. But I'm slowly replacing stuff with finds at thrift stores and such, and hoping to shed the weight when my daughter weans herself.
Anyway, I will also admit that the women in church whom I've had the most struggle with dressing inappropriately are the ones I've felt the most threatened by in terms of attractiveness. On the other hand, one woman that I felt that way about, I got to know a bit, and my insecurity dissolved. But the women who also appear phony or flirtatious to me are the ones where I have trouble feeling compassion. If someone will let me get to know them, then I tend to see past the surface sin though I still don't agree with their discernment in that area. And very beautiful women who have a modest spirit/vibe about them don't stir up that insecurity in me. I'm quick to distrust by intuition but even quicker to trust once I interact with someone on a deeper level.
Is that my heart I see on my long sleeve? ;)
Well, Marla, I commend you for being so candid on insecurity issues. (It's only fair for me to confess that I feel occasional resentment toward naturally athletic men who seem to be able to add an inch of muscle to their biceps every time they lift a hand to scratch their heads.) The only thing I will add along my own line of reasoning is the fact that Islamist societies, enforcing the most rigid female dress code ever seen on Earth, do NOT thereby give ANY protection or dignity to women, and I mean NOT ANY AT ALL. The Muslim woman waddling around in her stifling abaya, burka or chador (the ABC's of radical Islam) can be sold like a camel to a man she never met before; then she can be divorced at that man's selfish whim, and treated as if the divorce were her fault!
But if it's any consolation, I do like long dresses on women, in fact FULL-length dresses. Mid-calf hems have a neither-here-nor-there look, NEITHER sexy NOR elegant; so I'd rather see women in pseudo-medieval quasi-Celtic dresses, hiding their bodies yet still suggesting female grace, than the boring 1950 look.
Although I agree with your point about men lusting even if the woman is wearing 5 layers of clothing, I think the muslim treatment of women is a whole separate issue which has nothing to do with lust/modesty but with inequality and legalism. My post was directed at Christians in American culture (not that we don't problems with inequality and legalism also, but I don't connect that with the modesty/lust issues).
I like long dresses too--classy ones. And my husband isn't muscular (our biceps are probably equal in size--mine might even be bigger from lifting the babies) but he's as handsome as they get in my eyes :)
Forgive me if this looks like fighting for the last word; but the legalism issue IS connected to the modesty issue--because it is so easy to imagine that we've solved the chastity problem through purely external measures, which (as the Muslim illustration proves) are completely useless without a heart transformation.
The shallow, ineffectual Christian high school my daughter attended had lots of superficial gestures of propriety. They wouldn't even have school dances; a "Spring Banquet" took the place of a prom for them. But all of these external "purifications" did nothing, and LESS THAN nothing, to produce moral conduct in the kids. With inadequate attention paid to inward character, the outward legalism ONLY gave bad kids one more thing to mock and feel superior to.
I agree--it has to be both inward and outward. Ideally, the order is inward first and outward as a result, but sometimes it might have to go the other way around. Kind of like how sometimes people have to give up or quit doing something cold turkey in order to get the inside straightened out. But yeah, if they only change the outside because of external pressure and don't get to the root issues, it won't do any good and it might even be harmful. Then again, it might also keep others from stumbling--there is a bit of slippery slope... (wow, I didn't even mean to make that pun!).
