I'd like to point you to a blog post: Walking Billboards. From the blog Your Sacred Calling, in this post blog author Stacy McDonald deals with the issue of "modesty."
In my estimation, Mrs. Stacy McDonald is way off-base in her thoughts about dress. If you follow the comments at her blog post, you will come across further comments that make me think that she is also incredibly off-base regarding how we should teach our children about sex. And if you factor in her consistent misuse of scripture, you end up with some pretty serious problems that actually become the perfect example of the I'm-better-than-you blogs I mentioned in my recent post, "I'm better than you are..."
Further discussion of this topic (modesty and Christians' use of scripture) has followed, both through various blogs and in personal conversations with fellow church members and friends. And this has made me think that I should address this topic here on my blog. That way folks may interact with me directly if they would like to agree or disagree and, perhaps, we can further the discussion.
As time allows, I will make a few posts regarding the individual topics and my thoughts on them. I will try to make my comments biblical. If you disagree, please comment and show me how I have misinterpreted scripture. I promise not to delete your comment whether you agree or disagree. But I do ask that you refrain from using profanity. I will try to write my posts on these topics as soon as possible, but wanted to post this right now to open up a line of communication for those who would like to discuss this issue.
A few primary comments to lay the foundation for the discussion. Because I am disagreeing with folks who I believe are presenting the topic of dress inappropriately, I may seem to be encouraging immodesty or even public nudity. I am not encouraging that at all. I am encouraging Christians to follow scriptural teaching on this and every other topic and not to think that we must help God because he just didn't get it quite right.
"A few primary comments to lay the foundation for the discussion. Because I am disagreeing with folks who I believe are presenting the topic of dress inappropriately, I may seem to be encouraging immodesty or even public nudity. I am not encouraging that at all. I am encouraging Christians to follow scriptural teaching on this and every other topic and not to think that we must help God because he just didn't get it quite right."
ReplyDeleteRichard,
I am glad that you have taken this subject on. Of course you are not encouraging immodesty and it is sad that you even have to say so. But, I have taken on this same subject and I can't even count how many times I have been accused of encouraging immodesty or of wanting to make other women's husbands lust after me since I don't think pants on women are immodest.
There are too many teachings on this subject that do not go to the heart of the issue and they only deal with the outside. We can be very proud of our virtous dress. We need to remember that God has given us great freedom and has given us very few guidelines. Also, modesty in the passage has more to do with making one's self the center of attention than it does with sleezy clothing. I think if we are drawing people's gaze to look at us even if it is because of our modest clothing, we are guilty of violating this scripture.
I truly hope that more people will speak up and start teaching what scripture says and allow for the fact that God has given us great liberty and a few guiding principles.
If we are obeying the "one anothers" in scripture, we will not dress in such a way to entice others to lust. But, since lust is such a complex issue, a man can very well be lusting after women who are more than adequately dressed. That is why Jesus aimed at the HEART, the inside, and He did not concentrate on the outside.
We are to possess our OWN vessel in sanctification. From what I have read, the immodesty in Paul's day was MUCH worse than it is now.
I also think if we would impress upon our young men that they are to treat females as their sisters instead of potential sexual partners, we might just be training them in a way where they are able to have self-control even in the face of immodesty.
Corrie - Thank you for your encouraging comments. This topic is one of many that seems to have become idols for some people.
ReplyDeleteYou made an interesting point when you said, "I think if we are drawing people's gaze to look at us even if it is because of our modest clothing, we are guilty of violating this scripture." I found this interesting because I made this very same point to a friend from my church about a year ago. She had posted an article on her blog about "modesty," and I disagreed with her definition of modesty and told her so at our church picnic. She encouraged me to post my thoughts to her blog. I declined because I did not want to start a firestorm.
The context to this conversation is this: This friend loves the Victorian era. She enjoys dressing in Victorian clothing including Victorian hats and such. She even dresses this way for our bi-weekly church picnics during the summer. She looks great that way, and I have no problem at all with her doing this.
But I pointed out to her that if her reason for dressing this way is to be noticed as a particularly modest member of the church, she is actually being immodest according to 1 Timothy 2:9, which says, "that the women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with propriety and moderation." Victorian outfits in today's world, especially at an outdoor picnic of hotdogs and hamburgers and volleyball is not "propriety and moderation."
So when she highlighted Stacy McDonald's "Walking Billboards" on her blog recently, I decided that it was finally time for me to comment. As soon as I had left my comment, my friend shut down the comments on that blog post, not allowing any more, but leaving what was already there. I checked today and found that the entire block of comments on that post had been removed.
This says to me that Stacy McDonald and probably my friend, to some degree, idolize their view of modesty. I say this of Stacy McDonald because of what I read in her article. I say it of my friend because if conversation is eliminated, it can only be because the position being propounded cannot withstand questionning. In other words, they cannot defend their position.
I'm sorry that you have been the brunt of the nasty comments that you mentioned. I'm sure some people have said the same of me (and my wife), although we have not heard or read any of these comments about us.
I think your closing paragraph gets to the heart of how we should attack the idea of lust. We must teach our young men to view the ladies in the church as their sisters in Christ. And at the same time we should teach the young ladies that they should present themselves as sisters in Christ. We must teach both groups that their primary focus should be on Christ and on growing closer to Him.
But we should not indicate that any form of dress indicates that the person is unsaved. I have seen highly sensual photos of Middle Eastern women who were covered head to toe with nothing more than their eyes showing, but the sensuality was palpable. And I have seen a women in clothing that I know would be bothersome to Mrs. McDonald, but who nevertheless did not give an air that invited flirtation. (That last person would be my wife, who handles this balance extremely well.)
Richard -
ReplyDeleteI have nothing constructive, theologically speaking, to add to the conversation here. All I know is that I remember how I found your blog as well as your wife's; I found it through the friend's blog you speak of.
I'd noticed an increasingly worrisome fascination, so to speak, with modesty, homemaking, etc., on this blog. Not necessarily a bad thing!! I love being a woman! I love pretty things, I love having a comfortable, pretty home that family and friends feel welcome at. I glory in my role of unexpected motherhood (I was not planning on having children!), and I love that being at home has allowed me to also pursue a double Master's degree in literature and Library Science. What I don't love is the 'splinter theological teaching' that is being spouted, or the relationships, the harm, that 'Philipsism' and "McDonaldism" has created.
Modesty, feminine issues, and homemaking HAVE become idols to some blog writers; I feel your friend has succumbed to this as well. I continue to enjoy her homemaking articles, recipes, and home tips. But the theological stuff? Nah...I just pass it over. As a Catholic, I'm already an apostate to most of those folks anyway, so I doubt they mind if I just pray for them but hate the vile filth they spew.
Keep on!!
And btw...I am SO jealous that you live so darn close to DC. I mean that with all sincerity!
Andrea - It's nice to meet you. I'm glad you left a comment. I agree with what you've said. All except the "so darn close to DC thing."
ReplyDeleteWell - I guess I have to like DC since I actually work there. But I was so glad to move away from the DC metro area a couple years ago. Growing up there made me thoroughly appreciate the history, the beauty, and the elegance of Washington, but working there taught me to really dislike the traffic, the attitudes of the people, and the high cost of living.
I still love the city though. It really is an awesome place.