I died...due to essays, but I have again returned. And I have read a book that I LOVED in the meanwhile.
This post is really long, so I am only posting the first half. .
Recently I have been reading a book called Worldliness: Resisting the Seduction of a Fallen World(Ed. C.J. Mahaney). Mark Dever praised this book for being “specific enough to be helpful, grace-filled enough to be really helpful.” It is laced with questions and thoughts concerning our heart on matters relating to how we engage in the world, whether it media, music, clothes or possessions in general. Rather than stating rules to be followed in the interactions of a Christian, the authors urge the use of discernment concerning our intentions.
There are two Appendixes relating to modesty. One of them I have found particularly challenging, despite not being pertinent to me at this time, called "Modesty Concerning Your Wedding Day." It starts off acknowledging couple’s desire to have their wedding bring glory to God. In turn three questions are raised about whether the bride’s dress actually brings glory to God (which are paraphrased below).
1) Does this dress reflect the fact that my wedding ceremony is a holy time of worship?
2) Can I picture wearing this dress around my pastor for an extended period of time while he has his Bible open?
3) Would I wear clothing that is this revealing to a normal church service?
After reading this I got excited. It made so much sense that modesty “rules” that apply to church should also be adhered to at weddings, as they are a worship service, a truly magnificent one at that.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
About Me
Blog Archive
Favourites
- Courses: Equality and Discrimination Law, Dr. Curle's Human Rights classes, Issues in Theoretical Philosophy, and Canadian Lit. by Dr. Brush.
- Books: Fiction involving magical powers/fantasy, Ann Rynd novels, Piper books, serious short stories with interesting characters that occur in interesting places not requiring too much plot. Red is Best.
- Food: mushrooms, cherries and grilled cheese. Farmer's Market mini-coffee cakes, strawberry flavoured.
- Ideas: The concept of public transport and those beds that flip up to the wall.
- Locations: Small Cities over towns, particularly London
- Transportation: Walking, Bicycling, Boating
- Movies: Wes Anderson Films, Lost in Translation, Garden State, Stranger Than Fiction,Will Ferrell movies
- Colours: Light Purple, Unicorn (Sparkly White) and Rainbow
- Beverages: Starbucks, specifically the girly drinks. Water. Teas. Chocolate milk.
- Bible books: Romans, Ruth, 2 Timothy.
16 comments:
Thanks for coming back to blogging. This was one of your best posts. I like it when you stick to one subject in your posts.
I don't think about the modesty issue only for the bride, but also for the bridesmaids. Maybe it's too late, but it could bear on your current role.
This is a dangerous statement to make with so many people reading your blog who might take this personally, but I typically find myself thinking that the bridesmaids aren't being modest enough. Maybe I'm too conservative. But I'd like to think I'm being faithfully protective of myself and my brothers in Christ.
Looking forward to part two!
Oops... that was me. i had originally written something but then changed my mind as it was a stupid and unnecessary comment. i'll explain later, i'm at work right now.
I agree and disagree.
I think that the definition of modest dressing is totally dependent on the situation. It's okay to wear a bathing suit to a pool or a beach, but totally not to church or generally in other situations. Just as I do not think it is an issue to wear something that you would not normally wear to church to a special occasion - like prom, or a banquet, or a wedding. (Things like this are also dependent on your body shape and personality. Someone who's a flirt will look inappropriate in whatever she wears... someone with a different body shape will or will not look sketchy in a specific shape of clothing...)
I totally agree that a wedding is an awesome and holy time of worship. Marriage points to the relationship in the Trinity, as well as Christ's covenant love for the Church. It is also a special occasion and time of celebration. I can't picture myself wearing my wedding dress to church or in front of my Pastor with his Bible open... but I also wouldn't wear a big white dress to those occasions either because it's a different context.
The issue of modesty has grown in importance to me as my faith has grown. One thing I've learned is that as much as girls need to take responsibility and guard the eyes and hearts of their brothers in Christ, guys also need to step up and take control of their thoughts and eyes for the sake of Christ. I refuse to wear a baggy t-shirt on my wedding day out of fear of a brother stumbling if i were to wear a dress. (That places and unfair onus on me, and completely removes the onus on the guy.)
PS: Peds, yes, it is too late - the bridesmaids dresses are already purchased. But I generally don't make my friends and future in-laws dress like skanks.
Is "skank" a cuss word? Why'd you delete your first comment, Andrea, if you said skank in your long comment anyway? Either way, I don't think your original comment was inappropriate.
When I posted my comment I was worried that it would seem as though I was taking responsibility away from guys and putting it completely on women (like Adam in the garden). That's not what I meant. (And I trust, Andrea, that you knew what I meant, don't worry.) I only meant that I've been to weddings with sketch bridesmaid dresses.
Umm...I don't think 'skank' is a cuss word. At least, I hope it isn't. I think I've said it at least twice today (verbally), and now three times in writing.
Yeah, I don't know why I deleted it, since i wrote the same thing again. (today was a weird day at work)
PS: If you are thinking of weddings of our friends, I have noooooooooo idea what you're talking about.
hmm...I have been thinking about it and I don't think that the immediate result of dressing too revealing is immediately dressing like a skank. I think that this is obvious based on the GIANT differences in what guys (and girls) deem appropriate. So what Pete might not see as being super appropriate doesn't result in you dressing us like skanks. (not to say that Pete would think what we are wearing is innappropriate).
Yeah, maybe. But I wouldn't be so quick to judge modesty based on a guy's opinion. If so, we'd end up wearing loose turtlenecks and baggy sweatpants for the rest of our lives due to Mr. Y's fetish for necks and ankles.
I'm sorry for being so blunt on this sensitive issue. I won't say anymore.
Pete, I don't think you not saying anything any more is helpful. In fact, women dealing with modesty require men's feedback, even if it is hurtful. Otherwise women are left with immodest girls dressing the way they want, as the only people telling them not to is women, whose advice is not respected as they don't view it as credible. These girls are left with misconceptions about how they should dress. This year the women in our ministry who dressed the most inappropriately were girls who believed as they didn't have huge boobs, they didn't need to worry about their neckline. They were mistaken. A low neckline is still low, no matter what size you are. Sabrina would have had much more peaceful relationships with the women in the ministry a couple ago if the guys who had problems with the way girls dresssed backed her up on it, rather than simply informing her in private.
oh. i think this was clear, but the purpose of me bringing up girls in the min, was that if they actually had guys feedback rather than their personal speculation, they might have made different choices.
Hey Peds,
I hope that you change your mind. I was really looking forward to reading your comments. Like Meredith said, girls don't often hear directly and specifically anything from guys about the issue of modesty. This has left me in the past feeling guilty and confused, and also frustrated because while I'm being told that "sometimes some of my clothes" is bothersome for a brother in Christ, I'm never told what (and I'm confident that not everything I wear is sketch.... it would have been really helpful to know exactly what it is so that I could have stopped doing it (as long as the request is reasonable))
This is the comment that I deleted above:
"I think you give guys too much credit, Andrea. If it were up to a guy's determination of what modesty was, you girls'd be in burkas. Look at Saudi Arabia.
Also, Andrea, you and I have never been at a wedding together. So I'm confident that you don't know which dresses I have in mind.
I'd say the same thing, though, of some of the female attire at the C4C banquets we've been to that we've both attended.
Modesty is a tough issue. There's an objective side to it and a subjective side. I think that we can agree that men's and women's sexual parts should never be visible in public. But then the subjective part says it's not enough to state the bare minimum. For example, subjectively, I think two-piece bathing suits which expose the midriff are immodest (even assuming it doesn't show excessive amounts of cleavage). But in general, I think the majority of a woman's body, her torso in particular, should be covered. (I realize that still leaves tightness of clothing in the mix.)
I need some time to work up on my argument for why I say that, so I'll write it tonight and post it here tomorrow. It's taking longer than I expected to put my thoughts on this issue into words."
So, I said that I had an argument for why I think that the majority of a woman's body should be covered. As I was writing it up, I noticed two fallacies in it. I'll post what I'd written up, though:
At the outset, I want to be crystal clear that I'm not trying to establish one standard for women and another for men. I am arguing for female modesty. Please do not interpret that I am communicating that men may be immodest by not addressing this argument towards my own sex.
My argument is not up front a biblical one. I think that it leans in the direction the Bible leans, but I can't point to one or many verses.
I can make the argument succinctly, so I shall: I think that familiarity with the female body breeds disinterest.
--Graphic language about to be employed--
(I'm speaking hypothetically, and I don't have any real case studies to base this on, as I don't know any former or current porn addicts. It's pretty easy, at least if you're male, to imagine how it would happen.) Consider the porn addict. He starts with Playboy and tires of it. He switches to video. And then it gets worse and worse. It reminds me of stories I've heard of drug addicts, starting with marajuana, then ending up doing ecstacy and acid. As stated above, the point here that I make in reference to the addict is that when the person became familiar, he becomes disinterested.
I think we're all familiar with this. For example, watching a favourite movie a dozen times within the span of a month probably removes much of the original charm that attracted you in the first place. That said, I think that the unique intricacies of each female body should be largely reserved for her husband to discover.
So, let's say that society became comfortable (as it seems to be in North America) with exposing the midriff, I think that men would grow dull to the appeal that a woman's navel and abdomen could have, just as Solomon delights in his bride's features:
"Your navel is a rounded bowl that never lacks mixed wine. Your belly is a heap of wheat, encircled with lilies." (So. 7:2)
Thus, I think that modesty, for the sake marriage bed, is important.
Wow, I had a comment a while ago and forgot to post it. And now... it seems like I missed the bulk of the discussion. I will conclude and say that to avoid all this grey area of modesty, it is sometimes easier to just join a nunnery, thus making clothing choices much simpler.
My first comment is a brief one, and not entirely related to the discussion above.
As sisters, you should be aware of two lines. There is the stumbling line, but there is also the uncomfortable line. Some clothing makes us not want to look in your direction, even if it won't directly cause us to sin.
My second comment is that I agree with Andrea (and Peddy, who kinda implied it in a different way) that guys have different standards as to what is immodest, and the goal should not be to cater to every man's weaknesses, but to cater to a reasonable standard where most men will not be stumbling.
That doesn't help on specifics though. I think to some extent it's cultural/taste-related and to some extent it's objective.
Post a Comment