I hold the same view on head coverings. Good men hold to different positions, but a woman who wears the covering in obligation but herself has an unsubmissive spirit is not tricking the Lord, the angels, nor her husband.
As a teacher in the classical tradition, I’ve often though that we do a lot of warning against lust and preach resisting the siren song, a charge that is typically aimed at men, while rarely (never?) publicly teaching the girls to not be sirens.
We should remember that God made a gendered world and teach virtue accordingly.
Not in the classroom. The home. The classroom is disconnected from relationship and generational wisdom from mothers and grandmother, extended family. The classroom is a sterile environment where resistance and pushback are often viewed as healthy and maybe even "better " than the content of the teacher's lecture. Concepts of virtue, sexuality (modesty) and family relationships are to be constructed in the home. Nonetheless, I had one Bible college professor who did teach a class on the birds and bees to mixed classes because many students had not been adequately taught at home. He had students lay their heads down on their desks for the duration of the 45min-1hr class to keep awkwardness to a minimum. I get it. What is not taught at home must be caught up to speed in some other venue. But the classroom is less effective than the home. We need to use the classroom to offer tools for communication to the students who will be parents. Good theology and enormous exposure to Scripture itself are 2 such tools. And just being able to talk about things!!
Great point, Lucy. It just isn't good to think about lust a lot, your own or others. It's much better to think of modesty. Plus, then the girl is doing something for herself, not something for the sake of boys. I suppose a girl could be constantly thinking of boys i two ways : 1. to reduce their lulst or 2, t increase their lust.
Hi Lucy, I am young yet also aware of the “purity culture” contention. I don’t think men are blameless for their lust, and women are certainly not to blame for men’s sins. We are accountable to God. They are however accountable for immodesty, which is what I was referring to in my original comment. When you look at our culture today, do you see a problem with a lack of emphasis on modesty and chastity, or the inverse?
Hi Lucy, I am young yet also aware of the “purity culture” contention. I don’t think men are blameless for their lust, and women are certainly not to blame for men’s sins. We are accountable to God. They are however accountable for immodesty, which is what I was referring to in my original comment. When you look at our culture today, do you see a problem with a lack of emphasis on modesty and chastity, or the inverse?
I think modesty is more about not drawing attention to yourself, rather than just covering up. If long flowing hair and dresses elicit stares, then you missed the entire point.
I agree that this woman was immodest, but only due to her attitude. Her immodesty has nothing to do with images she presents, either in real-life or on-line.
Looking up what modesty is ALL about in the Bible, it is entirely about an attitude. The Bible never presents modesty as what parts of our body are visible or accentuated. It's all about presenting ourselves as better than others. Read the verses about modesty from Paul and Peter. In them, both the context and the original meanings of the ancient Greek words used, Peter, Paul, (and not Mary) were never talking about skin coverage. That was never even alluded to. However, since we've been "blessed" with a Victorian meaning of modesty to include skin coverage, these verses are now being used to claim that women have to have certain parts of their bodies covered to be modest.
C.S. Lewis put it well here:
"A girl in the Pacific islands wearing hardly any clothes and a Victorian lady completely covered in clothes might both be equally 'modest', proper, or decent, according to the standards of their own societies: and both, for all we could tell by their dress, might be equally chaste (or equally unchaste)."
I am concerned that you bring up her clothing choices and the photos she puts on her social media as reasons why she is immodest. God has never claimed either of those things are immodest. However, you have chosen to put a burden upon her that God has never claimed she must comply with.
I hope you ask her for forgiveness and tell her that you were reacting to her with your cultural view of modesty, and not God's view of modesty.
If you struggle with seeing the errors of your judgement, please find where in the Bible it says what particular parts of our bodies must always be covered, and what exceptions can be made for people like spouses, doctors, police officers, care-givers, firemen, or other plain-clothed rescue workers who encounter "immodesty".
It sounds to me like her originally stated position on modesty was not her own, but that she was being pressured into it by someone within her family or the church. Women, particularly if they are raised conservatively, are usually oblivious to men’s sexual response to women. I would bet her change in style choice has absolutely nothing to do with modesty itself and everything to do with rejecting coercion as visibly as possible.
I'm trying to find an audience and I was hoping that I could work with you somehow because this is the biggest moment in civilization's history when we finally get scientific evidence of God. Try reading my article titled: have the monks given us scientific proof of God.
I'm trying to save Civilization by drawing attention to an extraordinary moment that's trying to happen. The monks Theory of Everything is explaining mystery after mystery after mystery while our scientists are saying crazy things and admitting that they can't make sense of any of the crazy things they are saying and now cannot understand 95% of the universe.
We need to quickly start solving our problems which this allows us to do otherwise we will resort to violence to solve our problems. I was hoping that you would help me avoid that by letting me somehow talk to your audience or maybe write an article with you to your audience about this exciting moment and get some attention that it deserves?
Thank you. But for your own happiness you should try reading: the extraordinarily deep roots of this ancient Paradigm of the monks, and guess what just happened. Science can only explain so much of the world around us and the monks are claiming to explain much more through this interesting divine intervention.
I'd love to hear your thoughts on my recent essay "The Submissive Wife" because I wrote it from inside a heart being oriented to Christ through marriage and service.
I don't wear pants these days, not for any other reason than they don't feel right on me anymore.
Last paragraph is well put.
I hold the same view on head coverings. Good men hold to different positions, but a woman who wears the covering in obligation but herself has an unsubmissive spirit is not tricking the Lord, the angels, nor her husband.
As a teacher in the classical tradition, I’ve often though that we do a lot of warning against lust and preach resisting the siren song, a charge that is typically aimed at men, while rarely (never?) publicly teaching the girls to not be sirens.
We should remember that God made a gendered world and teach virtue accordingly.
I've been writing on it for years.
That’s great, I appreciate that brother. We need that in the classroom as well
Not in the classroom. The home. The classroom is disconnected from relationship and generational wisdom from mothers and grandmother, extended family. The classroom is a sterile environment where resistance and pushback are often viewed as healthy and maybe even "better " than the content of the teacher's lecture. Concepts of virtue, sexuality (modesty) and family relationships are to be constructed in the home. Nonetheless, I had one Bible college professor who did teach a class on the birds and bees to mixed classes because many students had not been adequately taught at home. He had students lay their heads down on their desks for the duration of the 45min-1hr class to keep awkwardness to a minimum. I get it. What is not taught at home must be caught up to speed in some other venue. But the classroom is less effective than the home. We need to use the classroom to offer tools for communication to the students who will be parents. Good theology and enormous exposure to Scripture itself are 2 such tools. And just being able to talk about things!!
Great point, Lucy. It just isn't good to think about lust a lot, your own or others. It's much better to think of modesty. Plus, then the girl is doing something for herself, not something for the sake of boys. I suppose a girl could be constantly thinking of boys i two ways : 1. to reduce their lulst or 2, t increase their lust.
Hi Lucy, I am young yet also aware of the “purity culture” contention. I don’t think men are blameless for their lust, and women are certainly not to blame for men’s sins. We are accountable to God. They are however accountable for immodesty, which is what I was referring to in my original comment. When you look at our culture today, do you see a problem with a lack of emphasis on modesty and chastity, or the inverse?
Hi Lucy, I am young yet also aware of the “purity culture” contention. I don’t think men are blameless for their lust, and women are certainly not to blame for men’s sins. We are accountable to God. They are however accountable for immodesty, which is what I was referring to in my original comment. When you look at our culture today, do you see a problem with a lack of emphasis on modesty and chastity, or the inverse?
I think modesty is more about not drawing attention to yourself, rather than just covering up. If long flowing hair and dresses elicit stares, then you missed the entire point.
It's really hard to find a Christian writer who uses "modest" regarding apparel in the way that Paul used it.
I agree that this woman was immodest, but only due to her attitude. Her immodesty has nothing to do with images she presents, either in real-life or on-line.
Looking up what modesty is ALL about in the Bible, it is entirely about an attitude. The Bible never presents modesty as what parts of our body are visible or accentuated. It's all about presenting ourselves as better than others. Read the verses about modesty from Paul and Peter. In them, both the context and the original meanings of the ancient Greek words used, Peter, Paul, (and not Mary) were never talking about skin coverage. That was never even alluded to. However, since we've been "blessed" with a Victorian meaning of modesty to include skin coverage, these verses are now being used to claim that women have to have certain parts of their bodies covered to be modest.
C.S. Lewis put it well here:
"A girl in the Pacific islands wearing hardly any clothes and a Victorian lady completely covered in clothes might both be equally 'modest', proper, or decent, according to the standards of their own societies: and both, for all we could tell by their dress, might be equally chaste (or equally unchaste)."
I am concerned that you bring up her clothing choices and the photos she puts on her social media as reasons why she is immodest. God has never claimed either of those things are immodest. However, you have chosen to put a burden upon her that God has never claimed she must comply with.
I hope you ask her for forgiveness and tell her that you were reacting to her with your cultural view of modesty, and not God's view of modesty.
If you struggle with seeing the errors of your judgement, please find where in the Bible it says what particular parts of our bodies must always be covered, and what exceptions can be made for people like spouses, doctors, police officers, care-givers, firemen, or other plain-clothed rescue workers who encounter "immodesty".
https://baremarriage.substack.com/p/new-research-modesty-messages-groom?r=7qflbz&utm_medium=ios
It sounds to me like her originally stated position on modesty was not her own, but that she was being pressured into it by someone within her family or the church. Women, particularly if they are raised conservatively, are usually oblivious to men’s sexual response to women. I would bet her change in style choice has absolutely nothing to do with modesty itself and everything to do with rejecting coercion as visibly as possible.
No, it was her own. She was doing "trad wife aesthetic" thing long before it became popular.
I'm trying to find an audience and I was hoping that I could work with you somehow because this is the biggest moment in civilization's history when we finally get scientific evidence of God. Try reading my article titled: have the monks given us scientific proof of God.
I'm trying to save Civilization by drawing attention to an extraordinary moment that's trying to happen. The monks Theory of Everything is explaining mystery after mystery after mystery while our scientists are saying crazy things and admitting that they can't make sense of any of the crazy things they are saying and now cannot understand 95% of the universe.
We need to quickly start solving our problems which this allows us to do otherwise we will resort to violence to solve our problems. I was hoping that you would help me avoid that by letting me somehow talk to your audience or maybe write an article with you to your audience about this exciting moment and get some attention that it deserves?
I'm not your guy.
Thank you. But for your own happiness you should try reading: the extraordinarily deep roots of this ancient Paradigm of the monks, and guess what just happened. Science can only explain so much of the world around us and the monks are claiming to explain much more through this interesting divine intervention.
I'd love to hear your thoughts on my recent essay "The Submissive Wife" because I wrote it from inside a heart being oriented to Christ through marriage and service.
I don't wear pants these days, not for any other reason than they don't feel right on me anymore.