The CBE Scroll

Comment by PS

July 23, 2007 @ 4:46 pm

My children, ages 20-27, have more friendships and comfortable relationships with the ‘opposite sex’ than people my generation ever thought to have. We were apart; these kids sought friendships, not necessarily romantic relationships. I think it is mostly healthy. Makes me wonder how this will play out in later years and in marriages.

Comment by Liz

July 23, 2007 @ 8:51 pm

In answer to the title question, I would use the common word ‘absolutely!’

After thirty-five years in pastoral ministry we can strongly say that the ‘headship’ teaching for home life has done more to promote violence than anything else. It gives occasion for people to act in ways that are most un-natural, thereby causing huge frustration in both parties. It also encourages men to see violence as their only means of taking authority in spite of teaching from patriarchal sources to the contrary. We have encountered couples who got on very well until they were taught about roles in marriage and it wrecked their relationship as they tried to live that out. Instead of seeing each other as Christians doing life together, people try to be the ‘ideal’ wife or husband and in the process lose their true identity as individuals and as children of God. What a shame!

Comment by leigh

July 23, 2007 @ 9:45 pm

I really recognize the situation you mention as far as the type of behavior that is all too often a focus of Christian culture and even practice today. I am both saddened and frustrated that many Christians are focusing on ‘masculine’ and ‘feminine’ behavior, rather than Christ-like behavior.

What happened to Christ as the standard for all believers?

He is our Lord and Savior, yes, but we should not forget that we are also to learn - in the here and now - from the way that Christ lived.

And I wonder how the people who promote such gender polarization miss the promotion of this type of behavior (sometimes even making a fetish of it) in the wider culture, particularly in the mass media. Romantic comedies and sitcoms and even advertisements are based on these stereotypes, filled with one-dimensional characters and cheap laughs or ‘thrills.’

Comment by Terri

July 24, 2007 @ 9:30 am

I believe that strict gender roles can produce an environment that will tolerate violence. For some, gender roles and morality are so intertwined that to try to separate them is to commit sin. So, therefore, the enforcement of these strict gender roles is considered vital to the health of the family and community at large. Just consider the rhetoric used by conservatives of our day - any deviation from proscribed gender roles is just a slippery slope into liberal feminism and sin. This is how individuality for women is presented in most conservative camps, i.e. as sin. That is why dress codes and strict conformity to proscribed behavior for women is so very important to conservatives and fundamentalists. Violence is being used in our day, not as a last resort for men to get their way, but as the remedy for women that deviate from what men consider ‘the norm.’

For example, because most men have problems with lust, the solution is ‘passing the buck’ which allows men to transfer their lust/sin onto the female body. Therefore, rules and dress codes and even segregation must be enacted to insure that the female body can no longer tempt the unassuming, unsuspecting male. A woman who reveals to much of her body or who walks where she should not is interpreted as ‘asking for it.’ The male psyche is all tied up in knots because of its attraction to women and so the resulting frustration and anger is followed by restrictions for women. It is obvious that this is not fair - women are not to blame for men’s lust (‘Each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust’ (James 1:14, NASB)) but the same scenario that we find in the Garden of Eden (‘The woman whom You gave to be with me…’ (Genesis 3:12, NASB)) continues even today.

We know just by observations that gender role practices are learned at a very young age. It begins at birth in the swaddling blanket that we are sent home in (pink or blue) and continues on into adulthood. The conservative right will tell us that all women (naturally) want to be wives and mothers but we know women who prefer to stay single and childless… so are these women going against nature?

All I know is that sex is what we are born with, but gender is a product of what we are taught.

Comment by Diane

July 24, 2007 @ 11:09 am

Men are definitely responsible for the lust in their hearts and their outward behavior, but women are equally sinful for provoking that lust through immodest clothing. Christ says that adultery starts in the heart, therefore women will not be able to justify this offense.

I believe that once a man fully embraces the belief that ‘he has the final word’ in a matter, and a woman holds to a different view of the same matter, it can escalate into violence. This is just one of many reasons to point others to Jesus Christ himself and what he taught – ‘You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it: you shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ (Matthew 22:36-39, NKJV)

Comment by cokhavim

July 25, 2007 @ 10:39 am

Jesus put the blame for men’s lust squarely on the men: ‘Every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already adulterated her [‘She’ is the direct object in Greek.] in his heart.’ (Matthew 5:28, ?) Notice that he did not give any exception for women dressed immodestly - i.e. he didn’t say anything like, ‘If she was scantily dressed, then you’re off the hook.’ Nope. If you lust, you sin.

It is true that other passages in the New Testament teach women to dress modestly, but notice that the rationale was often to give a good witness to non-Christians. Not once does the Bible state men’s propensity for lust as the reason why women should dress modestly. Yes, women should dress modestly, but for Christ’s name, not for men (who are responsible for their own lust). The rationale for modesty is very important in shaping women’s perception of themselves. If women are taught modesty for the sake of the men, this implies that women’s bodies cause men to sin, which degrades women’s bodies. It also means that men have to dictate to women what they can wear, and what’s too sexy for them. However, kingdom witness as the rationale for women’s modesty is much more dignifying to women because it encourages discernment on their own part about what kind of dress is a bad witness (which will vary from culture to culture).

Going back to the original post: Chrissy, could you please post the exact reference to Kimmel’s study that you mentioned? I’m very interested in reading it.

Comment by Administrator

July 25, 2007 @ 12:34 pm

Kimmel, Michael S. The Gendered Society. New York: Oxford University Press. 2000.

Comment by Charlotte

July 25, 2007 @ 2:23 pm

If people were to literally see men as the head of the household, and women are the church, then how can the church out-serve someone who is like Jesus? But, there are too many people who think that a man glued to a computer or television is Christ-like. From what I read about Christ, he outworked his disciples and his people in healing, teaching, and serving - not much like the stereotypical head of most households.

Jesus wasn’t violent, except with the money changers, and I doubt there were any men in that group.

For people who literally see men in the position of heading the family spiritually, maybe the men need to be released from their view of leadership and study Jesus. This might mean celibacy, since many fundamentalists believe Jesus never married, and kindness, since Jesus showed kindness over and over again.

I believe Jesus came to liberate men as well as women. If men are liberated from violence, they will suffer less and have more joy.

Comment by Charlotte

July 25, 2007 @ 2:31 pm

My point above (low blood sugar, sorry) is that Jesus is a great example and liberator. Most men aren’t like Jesus but could be more like Jesus. Jesus never was a potentate, and the Holy Spirit has never been a potentate, but God works and serves humanity more than we can ever work or serve God in any form.

I also meant to say that the money changers were probably all male. Jesus never told a woman to stop talking, but he did tell Peter, the Rock, to be silent.

For Sunday after Sunday to go by and to hear nothing of the real issues of life but only football or sports analogies week after week when domestic violence is not improving can change if we start requesting sermons and services to make a difference in this area.

Comment by PS

July 25, 2007 @ 2:45 pm

There are two sides to being provocative. We are responsible for ourselves, for sure, but don’t do something that can cause another to stumble. For example, would you leave a wallet with some green ‘paper’ sticking out on your dashboard? Not usually - not unless you are stupid or trying to trap somebody.

That doesn’t take a thief off the hook for their own sin, however. Do you lock your house when you leave, or do you say, ‘Well it isn’t my sin to leave the house open.’

The clothing sold to young girls and young women these days emphasizes the body’s curves. They think of it as ‘normal’ clothing. People in some cultures would have other associations. And, look at the women news and weather forecasters on some stations. The styles these days say ‘If you’ve got it, flaunt it.’ Ditto, that some women want breast implants. It is designed to catch people’s eyes.

Clothing can send a message. On What Not to Wear (a television show) the hosts often try to get women to dress ‘more professionally’ which can mean less overtly sexy.

Comment by Diane

July 25, 2007 @ 8:47 pm

A woman dresses modestly for many very good reasons:

1. Because our loving Father is holy and commands us to be.

2. Because she undermines her own dignity and worth by submitting to another spirit, which will ultimately bring God’s displeasure and her shame.

3. Because she willfully entices sexual thoughts in the hearts of men. Even if this man does not act out these sexual desires with that woman, he may struggle to remove these unclean thoughts from his heart or he may act these thoughts out in some evil way.

4. A woman cannot truly walk with Christ until she calls this behavior sin and denounces from her heart these evils.

How can women complain about inequality when they won’t take responsibility for sinning against God, their brothers, and themselves?

Comment by Mary

July 26, 2007 @ 6:16 pm

Diane (see comment 62224), what women are both complaining about inequality and refusing to take responsibility for their sin? No one who’s written or responded here has done any such thing.

I am the first to agree that a large percentage of women’s clothing sold in the United States does not meet my standard of modesty, for me. Guess what? I don’t buy it or wear it! My obligation as a follower of Jesus Christ is to live my life in such a way as to honor my Lord. My task is not to constantly second-guess what I choose to wear based on whether there might be a man who would ‘stumble’ because I wear well-fitting (i.e. not tight) trousers instead of whatever Victorian get-up he thinks will keep him from lusting. My focus should be on the Savior, not on the potential sin of men. Some of the most lust-obsessed men in the world are reportedly the men in countries which force women to be covered completely, from head to foot. Women get beaten for an ankle or a wrist being exposed. That’s the way of sin. It consumes the sinner, who rationalizes it by blaming it on and taking it out on someone other than himself.

Christian brothers who make a test of faith for their sisters out of what they wear may be deflecting attention away from their own sin. It’s always easier to point fingers at others than to do the hard work of cooperating with the Holy Spirit of God to transform our own lives. Besides, if you’re hard at work becoming holy, you can’t complain about other people. Complaining is very religiously correct these days! Why, a good half of sermon fodder would suddenly evaporate if people were challenged to deal with their own sin, instead of their sisters’ (or brothers’).

One more thought: If inequality is observed, why is that observation mischaracterized as ‘complaining,’ and why are such people wrongly accused of not accepting responsibility for their own sins? Is it really a complaint to tell the truth about injustice? If someone’s human rights are being abridged because she’s female, pointing it out is not a complaint. I suppose the tellers of unpopular truths frequently do get branded as trouble-makers or complainers, and accused of all kinds of things that aren’t so. Jesus said we should expect it when we follow him.

Comment by Terri

July 27, 2007 @ 7:24 am

It cannot not be denied that even in the writings of the early church fathers women were considered (directly) responsible for men’s sexuality. That same notion was prevalent then and still persists today. Do not get me wrong - I am not excusing women that dress to entice men to sin. They need to repent but likewise the man who travels down dark streets searching for a sex partner, the man who needs a fix of pornography every day, etc. The fact is that women are objectified whether it be in the church or in the world. Women are taught that sex is the man’s top priority (listen to John Hagee (a prominent evangelical) Family Seminars), so therefore, it is your job to meet these needs no matter what. This is the only area where submission doesn’t matter and women are given a green light and encouraged to be uninhibited and even sleazy (if that’s what he likes).

It’s a double-bind for women only.

Comment by JLP

July 27, 2007 @ 1:32 pm

Women and girls need to see their value not as being in a collection of body parts that bring pleasure to men, but rather as human beings whose value is in what is on the inside, rather than on the outside.

Our culture teaches women that their value is in their shape of their body, rather than in their personhood. I wish there was a way churches could communicate to women that this valuation is false and is harmful to them.

If women really understood this, they would dress in a manner that is less suggestive and more in line with a valuation of themselves that shows true self respect. This would also have the effect of helping men who are trying to control their lust. Men who are working at self-control appreciate women who don’t dress in a suggestive manner.

Comment by JLP

July 27, 2007 @ 2:25 pm

I wonder if our culture’s teaching that a woman’s value is in the shape of her body parts doesn’t at least partially contribute to men’s lust.

Comment by Can Dance

July 27, 2007 @ 5:47 pm

The thing is this, Diane (see comment 62224). Though I appreciate your passion, it is still not ultimately the male’s problem to correct something that they see as ‘stumble-worthy.’ For example, I was shocked when a Christian magazine cover with a young woman wearing a wide collar evoked a response from its readership saying that it would incite lust in men. I showed the cover to my husband, who said ‘if men were complaining over that (actually it was mostly women that wrote in – it seems that women like to be catty with one another), then he needs to get laid more.’ Perhaps that saying is a bit frank, but I think it holds a ring of truth.

Yes, I do believe women are responsible for themselves and what they wear. I, however, cannot control, nor do I wish to control, what men think of me when I wear a particular garment. Am I out seeking male attention? Not really. If anything, I am happy to find something clean, minus handprints and face prints full of food. I wear what I feel comfortable in. I think that I am moderately attractive. Do I think about ‘causing my brother to stumble’ every time I wear something? Not really. I don’t consider my wardrobe to be immodest. I don’t believe that I have to cover my beauty up just to make someone else ‘not stumble.’

Women are human beings, and if someone is striving to be ‘Christ-like,’ then they should have the maturity to view women first and foremost as persons, not as objects, not as persons whose clothing may or may not communicate their sexual availability. Isn’t that what it comes down to anyway? If a guy thinks some clothes are ‘lust-worthy,’ it’s really about him and what he wants. At its heart it’s about selfishness and not seeing women as sisters (even if they may make it difficult).

I will own my clothes and what I wear and how I dress happily. I will not, however, be held responsible for how a man chooses to respond to my attire, which changes from man to man and situation to situation. Frankly, it begins to frighten me when Christians are blaming the whole archetype of womanhood for a man’s sins.

Comment by Can Dance

July 29, 2007 @ 12:59 pm

Just another thought. ‘If women want to be treated equally, then they need to stop sinning against God and everyone else’ paraphrases the way that I have heard it.

I just have to say that I am really glad that I didn’t have to earn the right of grace. I am so thankful that Jesus in his wisdom and mercy still chose to extend me grace, in spite of my many shortcomings. I am really thankful that God didn’t demand perfection and modesty of me before he rescued me. That is the amazing thing about grace, which I think is quite applicable here - my equality before God and before my brothers in Christ might be unmerited, but it is a gift that I will always cherish.

Just another thought. ‘If women want to be treated equally, then they need to stop sinning against God and everyone else’ paraphrases the way that I have heard it.

I just have to say that I am really glad that I didn’t have to earn the right of grace. I am so thankful that Jesus in his wisdom and mercy still chose to extend me grace, in spite of my many shortcomings. I am really thankful that God didn’t demand perfection and modesty of me before he rescued me. That is the amazing thing about grace, which I think is quite applicable here - my equality before God and before my brothers in Christ might be unmerited, but it is a gift that I will always cherish.

It’s also really nice to see legalism so clearly laid out for, I hope, all to see - which is why I will never be a patriarchalist again!

Comment by JLP

July 30, 2007 @ 3:51 pm

The Lord didn’t require modesty of me in order to save me, but I like being modest because when I am I know I am helping my Christian brothers who struggle with lust. I know I am not responsible for their lust, only they can be responsible for that. But I enjoy knowing that I’m helping them. I feel I’m showing them love.

I also like being modest because it shows that I don’t value myself based on my outer attributes, but instead on my inner attributes. And it’s those inner attributes, not the outer ones, that matter to Christ.

Comment by HistoryLoverAlways

July 30, 2007 @ 5:41 pm

The Christian community needs to encourage men to take more responsibility for sexual purity. Women can help by dressing modestly, but men need to commit themselves to purity whether or not women dress modestly. This honors the Lord.

Sex is not the dominant force in a man’s life. If men are reduced down to their sexual drive it invalidates all the other good things in life that should have a higher priority like loving his wife and children and living a Godly life.

Some parts of the Christian community don’t seem to think it’s possible for a man to really put the Lord and his family above his desire for sex. But, it is possible, and men have done it.

Comment by Mary

July 30, 2007 @ 9:51 pm

See comment 62346.

Our culture teaches women that their value is in their shape of their body, rather than in their personhood. I wish there was a way churches could communicate to women that this valuation is false and is harmful to them.

Sadly, a lot of Christian leaders also teach women that their value is primarily about their bodies. Just think of all those who claim that a woman’s highest calling is not to follow Jesus Christ, but to marry and bear children. This is not to say that marriage and motherhood are not blessings - they certainly are - but just as marriage and fatherhood are not a man’s highest calling as a Christian, neither are marriage and motherhood for women. If we’re serious about loving God completely and loving neighbor as self (which Christ taught us sums up all the Law), we need to love God more than mother, or father, or family - not love family less, but love God even more. That is, not to idolize procreation, but to see it as one particularly beautiful and fulfilling aspect of a lifetime of following our Lord and Master, Jesus Christ.

It’s worth remembering that some of us are not called to marriage, and even some who are married are not called to parenthood. It’s incredible to an already skeptical world to hear the church trumpeting the ‘women must be wives and mothers’ message, as though that sums up the gospel for women. It’s yet another way of telling women that their value lies in their reproductive capacity. To them, it’s merely a ‘baptism’of the worlds ‘be sexy’ message. Marriage (holy sex) plus babies equals the pinnacle of Christian womanhood. By contrast, the religiously popular message for men is to be strong in faith, leading others, being like Jesus.

Whatever happened to Christians considering our highest calling - for all of us - to becoming more like Christ?

‘While he was saying this, a woman in the crowd raised her voice and said to him, “Blessed is the womb that bore you and the breasts that nursed you!” But he said, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it.”’ (Luke 11:27-28, NRSV)

Comment by Diane

July 31, 2007 @ 8:34 pm

Mary (see comment 62295), my comment about women complaining and not taking responsibility was in response to Terri’s comment (see comment 62101) about ‘most men having a problem with lust.’ I didn’t hear from her first post the other side of the problem (but Terri wrote later (see comment 62327), and clarified, which I appreciate). I definitely agree that injustice has to be addressed and opposed. I never implied anyone had to dress Victorian, but modesty is the fruit of one who loves God and neighbor as oneself. I haven’t mischaracterized anyone honoring Christ; perhaps you could point out to me in my post where I have. I will also review it again.

Terri (see comment 62327), thank you so much for writing again to clarify your view. I completely agree with you about the emphasis being placed on women to satisfy men’s sexual desires, instead of mutually meeting each others’ needs in marriage. I heard the same preacher calling women names who didn’t respond with compliance. It is a very disturbing trend.

Can Dance (see comment 62481), a woman knowingly dressing in a way that gives rise to sexual thoughts in men is guilty of sexual immorality. Please read the words of Jesus in Matthew 5:27-28; 15:19-20. This is not a paraphrase, but Christ is getting to the source of sin. These thoughts defile us and others. Satan’s goal is to tempt you to defile yourself by believing a lie. Sin is the source of inequality. Christ was not legalistic, but he certainly said to the woman caught in adultery to ‘go and sin no more.’

Freedom from the power of these lusts is the result of God’s grace.

Comment by Diane

July 31, 2007 @ 10:02 pm

Can Dance (see comment 62368), I never said ‘males have to correct something they see as “stumble-worthy”’

I’m definitely speaking to the problem of sensuality in women professing to be followers of Jesus and worshipping our holy Father in spirit and truth. I’ve expressed that men are responsible for their sinful thoughts and behavior.

I know that we can have misunderstandings in forums, but I am left wondering if you are responding to my post or to an experience you have had with someone else.

If you would lovingly show where in my post I have dishonored or offended you, please let me know. I think we agree on certain things - I respect your free will to choose to believe what does and does not honor God. But, addressing me with things I didn’t say throughout your post and implications that a call for personal repentance and responsibility before God is labeled ‘legalistic’ and not required in order to follow Christ - Christ does indeed love men and women and he cares how we influence each other and he cares how we discuss these matters.

Comment by Gwen

August 1, 2007 @ 10:30 pm

A while back the senior pastor had me remove a painting because ‘two people complained. One saw breasts and the other saw tears.’ I told him it was more about their hearts than my art. Well, as it turned out it was two elders, so I had ‘dishonored’ the elders and was told I would no longer be hearing from God for this church any more. (sigh)

Several of my artist friends (male and female) commented, ‘So, what is wrong with breasts?’

Good question! So, I asked God. At forty-six, with twelve years of nursing behind me, I have come to a new relationship with my breasts. They are part of who I am as a woman created in the image of God (El Shaddai) and I am really beginning to enjoy them. I am not hiding them any more. Gone are the years of frumpy calling itself modesty. They are not hanging out, but I am no longer pretending they are not there nor am I allowing anyone to put that on me or my children any more. We visited a private school to look into some of my older children taking some of their high school credits there. The requirements for my six foot tall daughter were a sailor top, plaid skirt, knee socks, and Mary-Jane shoes! They wanted my daughter, a young woman, to dress like a little girl! I just could not require her to dress like that and I did not want my sons indoctrinated into that sort of mindset. There seems to be a lot of this with home schoolers (and I have been home schooling for 13 years) - dressing females like little girls with jumpers and bows and oversized t-shirts - almost a Little House on the Prairie theme going. It does make us a peculiar people but not the kind of peculiar that I think God had in mind for us.

I am losing focus - it is very late. I just wanted to say I have come to a place here in mid-life where I am okay with being a woman with breasts, and God is okay with it too! My daughter told me about a website called Modest is the Hottest. I thought she was joking, but she showed it to me. Oh my goodness! Modesty as a turn-on! ‘Hottest’ is not a healthy goal! There is no winning this game. All we can do is come to the place where we are comfortable being who we are and realize that modesty, like everything else, is about the heart. We all need to examine our own hearts, and do it often. Me - I am in a place where I just don’t think frumpy honors God nor attracts anybody to Christ.

I’d better stop. Maybe this is one of those posts where you get to use your gift of interpretation to figure out what I was really trying to say! Goodnight.

Comment by Mary

August 2, 2007 @ 6:56 am

Here is a brief answer, Diane (see comment 62601), with perhaps a more complete one to follow when I have more time.

You said (see comment 62224),

How can women complain about inequality when they won’t take responsibility for sinning against God, their brothers, and themselves?

No one here was doing any such thing. Your question, reasonably read, appears to be a two-part accusation: that women who speak out against inequality are ‘complaining,’ and that such women are refusing to take responsibility for their sin. It’s both an untrue and an illogical thing to have said, in my opinion. It’s a very common set of accusations, unfortunately, among those who style themselves ‘complementarian,’ however one which far too many people believe despite its patent falseness.

The truth: women (and men) who speak out against inequality are not ‘complainers.’ Women (and men) who embrace biblical equality advocate responsibility in the exercise of freedom; a woman’s chosen mode of attire is about her self and her relationship with God and should not be judged primarily on how some man might be tempted to sin by seeing her. I say again, some men castigate women who dress very modestly, for it not being long enough or full-skirted enough or whatever enough to ‘prevent’ their temptation. That’s his issue, not hers. Even women who do dress in ways that Christian consensus (difficult to come to!) agrees is too revealing, cannot be automatically judged to be doing so ‘willfully’ in order to tempt men. God and the woman know her heart. It is not up to other women or men to attribute to her motives that may well be false.

‘The woman you gave to be with me…’ is far too alive and unwell in the church; it’s clear.

Comment by Diane

August 2, 2007 @ 4:17 pm

Mary (see comment 62684), thanks for responding. My explanation to your original response hasn’t seemed to clarify why I wrote or bridge an understanding between us. We are sisters, and I care that we grow in our understanding and relationship with Christ. I hope that is your heart towards me. The ‘desire’ to dress in a way that fills men’s heart with impure thoughts, is in essence a replay of Eve in the garden. I agree, men are without excuse, but do you acknowledge the truth that saying ‘I was deceived’ doesn’t prevent the horrible consequences of sin?

May the words of our Savior challenge us daily to follow him.

Comment by Terri Tippins

August 3, 2007 @ 9:00 am

I think everyone one here could honestly state that you cannot legislate decency, morality, and justice. You cannot pass a law saying, ‘everyone that hates women must stop now’ and expect woman haters everywhere to comply. We have passed laws prohibiting slavery and human trafficking, but, guess what, it still continues to this day. We have passed laws saying you can’t discriminate against people that are of another race or sex, but, guess what, it still goes on.

If you go back and read post 62179 you will see exactly what I am talking about. God aims for the heart while men aim for the head. God gave commands in the Old Testament that people wanted to keep, but couldn’t. Paul tells us in Romans 7 that the law was holy, just, and good and that the law was spiritual but that he was carnal and sold under sin and because of this, that which I do I allow (understand) not; for what I would (want to do) that do I not; but what I hate, that I do. Paul said ‘I knew what was right and I tried to do what was right, but I couldn’t.’

Romans 8 tells us how he was able to overcome the fight against his mind and the flesh - it was through conversion and the Spirit walk. He tells us that the carnal mind is enmity against God, but a true conversion and being led by the Spirit can cure that. So, we see that it is a heart responding to God that causes us to change. Only then will people be able to meet the requirements of the Lord. ‘To do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.’ (Micah 6:8, NIV)

Comment by Mary

August 3, 2007 @ 10:47 pm

You’re correct, Diane (see comment 62704), that your explanation did not address what I asked you, namely, who was implied in your original two-part statement regarding women ‘complaining’ about inequality while not accepting responsibility for their sin in choice of dress.

Now you’re asking that I ‘acknowledge the truth that saying “I was deceived” doesn’t prevent the horrible consequences of sin?’ God has every right to hold me and each of us responsible when and if we do such a thing. However, I must ask, since I’ve done no such thing nor has anyone else I’ve read here: whom are you directing this towards? This is the first time you’ve brought up the idea of excusing sin with ‘I was deceived.’

If a woman truly does choose her attire with the goal of enticing a man to lust, she is sinning. No one is disputing that. I do dispute that it’s in any way a ‘replay’ of ‘Eve in the garden.’ Adam and Eve were together in the garden. They sinned together. I will not read into the text a desire on Eve’s part to tempt Adam. The true tempter in the story was not a human being.

Here’s what I’ll try to convey again: No matter how modestly a Christian woman dresses, there will be men, some of them Christian men, who will choose not to control their lust at how she looks in what she wears. That cannot reasonably or charitably be said to be her sin in any way, unless she chooses her attire deliberately to be sexually provocative. That is why ‘will it cause a man to sin’ should not be the rule by which a woman chooses her attire, just as ‘will it cause a woman to sin’ is a ridiculous rule for men’s clothing choices. No, any Christian’s primary concern ought to be personal integrity: is that person’s choice in attire, conversation, attitudes, actions (i.e. all aspects of his or her living) a good reflection of the image of God in which he or she was created? If the focus is on men rather than on God, a woman is dangerously close to idolizing men rather than loving God completely and whole-heartedly. And if she is loving God completely and whole-heartedly, her attire is going to be one of many aspects of that love. What her Christian brothers do with how she looks is entirely their own issue. Yes, we’re all flawed in some ways and all (as John Wesley put it) ‘going on to perfection’ - that is, we’re most of us not there yet. However, I believe this ought to be our standard, rather than a slippery, shifting standard of what might make some man somewhere sin. As I’ve said a couple of times now, that can be an ankle, a finger, or an eye if he’s not focusing sufficiently on God instead of how his sister is dressed.

Comment by Jadon

August 6, 2007 @ 8:12 am

Diane (see comment 62109), the problem with your posts seems to stem from what they don’t say. As a guy, perhaps I can explain.

1. Why no modesty for men?

You’ve mentioned modesty for women, but not for men. This can come across as a double-standard that benefits us. Even considering men honoring women, it undercuts the mutual respect and due consideration between the sexes.

2. Why no positive acknowledgment of women’s bodies?

For example, you mention (see comment 62704) that

‘[D]esire’ to dress in a way that fills men’s heart with impure thoughts is in essence a replay of Eve in the garden.

This tends to suggest that women’s sexual features are always tempting and never beautiful. Other aspects of women are certainly lovely, but they represent only a part of themselves. Men are put into a bind sometimes when sexual appeal cannot be a legitimate form of appreciation.

3. Why no full portrayals of women?

Your comments do not indicate how women can express their whole identity. They seem to imply that sexuality is the sole factor that is a problem, especially for men. Yet, I’ve seen women compensate for their insecurities by covering up or being revealing. That can be more distracting! As a guy, proper confidence that enhances a woman’s presence is more relevant than an improper fit.

As a result, your approach can appear (1.) biased, (2.) negative, and (3.) incomplete.