---------------------
Here is a glaring example of a lack of critical thinking skills. In addition, this article drips with pop culture superficiality and feminist ideology.
------------------------
(...)
One of the chief commonalities was this theme of modesty. Side note: in case it’s not already obvious — it really only ever applied to females. So… really, female “modesty.” Or, in other words, cover up your sexy parts, ladies, (The author implies that there is a double standard about this, which of course it a feminist argument. Feminists don't like people telling them what to do. That's one reason why there is a push for women to be able to go topless.
So we might ask the author why it's wrong for the church to ask for women to be modest, but it's okay to force a woman wear a top.)
Modest Is Hottest.
(Yes, this was actually a slogan, printed on t-shirts, and became an entire movement, with events and conferences behind it.)
Usually the idea of modesty was presented innocuously enough, often at big concerts and conferences led by attractive young artists and writers like Joshua Harris and Rebecca St. James (whom I most certainly had an adolescent crush on), and, I would venture to assume, with [largely] good intentions. The idea (or so I gathered as a teenage male) was that young ladies ought to respect themselves enough that they don’t have to wear “scanty” clothing (whatever that means) to attract the lustful attention of men/boys. Furthermore, our good men and boys who are trying so hard to fight the onslaught of increasingly sexual images against their virgin eyes are having a hard enough time because of the wicked times in which we live, so let’s act charitably and not “cause our brothers to stumble” with how we dress. After all, church/youth group should be a safe place, no?
Harmless, right?
While I agree wholeheartedly that we all have a responsibility to each other to love one another and not lead one another down destructive or unhealthy paths, there’s at least three glaring problems with this line of teaching/thinking:
1. No one really knows what “immodest” means. (Yes we do.)
I’m dead serious. (Even the author knows how preposterous his thesis is.)
Every man is different with what turns them on. According to Granny Clampett in The Beverly Hillbillies, Ellie Mae’s search for a husband ought to include the occasional flash of her ankles to attract a man’s attention… (I guess men in rural Tennessee have a thing for a little Achilles action?) Just listen to a couple hip-hop songs, and you’ll quickly discover that some dudes are really into butts, while others are boob guys, and for some strange reason lost on this blogger, some dudes are into neither. Moral of the story — what might seem “modest” to one person/tradition/culture might seem immodest to another. There’s no universal agreed-upon standard for what turns men on. It’s a self-defeating exercise from the outset. (Um, yeah. Since modesty is a personal opinion, we apparently have no way of determining what is and isn't immodest. Thus the author requires us, and himself, to step out of the argument.
Can you imagine? Because we can't agree on a universal standard, we are supposedly at an impasse. I wonder what the author's standards would be over other things where there is "no universal agreed-upon standard," like drug use, sex before marriage, abortion, salvation, or the metric system?)
2. It puts the responsibility for a man’s lust and fantasies squarely on the shoulders of women. (No it doesn't.)
Many conferences and books have even gone so far as to name women the “gatekeepers” of sexuality. He will go as far as you let him, the narrative goes. This a staggeringly unhealthy narrative to promote to our children about the way sexuality works, (Is this a universal standard you're advocating, sir?)
and plays directly into the hands of a rape culture (More feminist agitprop.)
such as the one in which we live: if you are a female and ever get catcalled, abused, molested, raped, or any number of other advances, you are probably at least partially to blame. (Feminist rhetoric rolls off his tongue with ease.
So the author seems to be suggesting that a woman is never "at least partially to blame." Translation: It's never the woman's fault, no matter what. There is never a scenario that her actions, dress, or words are provocative, immoral, reckless, or foolish. She should be able to walk down a street in completely naked and not experience so much as a peep from any person.
In other words, women have no responsibility at all in any social interactions they participate in.)
What were you wearing? What did you say to him? Did you bend over to pick something up? Was your perfume too sensual? How is this a complex we want to instill in either our girls or boys? (We can only conclude that the author, like feminists, want the ability to dress and behave in any manner without any responsibility for their own actions. Again, feminist rhetoric.)
Aside from the profound shame this places on the shoulders of girls and women when they are violated, (Why is shame for bad behavior a bad thing?)
think about what this narrative is teaching boys: you don’t have control over your own body and urges; if you “stumble” sexually, it’s because some slutty woman influenced you to it, or wasn’t sufficiently careful to “guard your heart” and eyes from the sensuality she exudes. (Who teaches boys these things? Just the opposite happens in most homes. Boys have historically been taught self-control, chivalrousness, and courtesy.)
This thinking only exacerbates what seems more and more a cultural epidemic of men objectifying and abusing women as sexual playthings. (As if this was something new. Where has the author been, under a rock? Has he never read about the middle ages? The ancient middle east? The old west? Has he never read his Bible?)
It grants men and boys amnesty from the responsibility of their own sexual choices. (With a flourish, the author puts the bow on top of his straw man.)
Not only is this insulting to men, as though we are merely creatures of instinct, like dogs that can’t control their incessant need to hump everything in sight, but I would argue that it conditions boys and young men for the “struggle!” I have a 3 year old boy, and one on the way, and I don’t want them to grow up thinking that they are incapable of controlling their sexuality. (Wait. So boys AREN'T taught to objectify women?)
Of course they are going to “struggle” in the sense that they are males with a sex drive, and they will notice beautiful women and be attracted to them, but there’s no need to condition my little boys to notice every time a woman is dressed “immodestly,” as I was as a child, pointing out “inappropriately dressed” women at the beach in bikinis, or drawing attention to every hint of cleavage, bare midriffs, or even tight pants. This only conditions a child’s mind to notice these things and view them as forbidden, rather than training them for self-control through the simple acknowledgement that humans are by nature sexual beings, and that the female form is beautiful, something to be appreciated and not objectified. (Now there's a subtle distinction any boy will easily assimilate...)
This is the legacy I want to leave with my sons. They, as well as you and I, can notice beauty and curves without immediately letting our minds go to sinful places. Anything less than this dishonors both the character of men as well as the women and girls we are hoping to protect.
But perhaps the most profound problem with the “modest is hottest” teaching is that
3. The Bible does not breathe a word of such nonsense. (Yes it does.)
There is one verse in all of Holy Scripture in which the word modesty is used — the Greek word aidos, and it’s the one verse perennially pulled out in defense of the MiH argument by its perpetrators. The verse literally says, “I also want the women to dress modestly [respectably, decorous], with decency and propriety, adorning themselves, not with elaborate hairstyles or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, appropriate for women who profess to worship God” (I Timothy 2:9, NIV). (Hmm. The author claims the Bible is silent, the quotes a verse that applies.
Men tend to be very visually oriented. It's really no surprise that women should be modest. And contrary to the author's narrative, we have already noted that men have objectified women since time immemorial.
But more to the point, when we read verses like
Ju. 16:1 One day Samson went to Gaza, where he saw a prostitute. He went in to spend the night with her.How did Samson know she was a prostitute? By the way she looked!
A woman can dress in such a way as to suggest who she is:
Pr. 7:10 Then out came a woman to meet him, dressed like a prostitute and with crafty intent.We know that the author is barking up the wrong tree we we read stuff like this:
Pr. 6:24 keeping you from the immoral woman, from the smooth tongue of the wayward wife. 25 Do not lust in your heart after her beauty or let her captivate you with her eyes...The Bible is clear that men can be beguiled by a woman's appearance, and a woman's appearance is designed by the woman to send a message to people.)
Are you catching what I’m catching? (I certainly hope not. I want to maintain my ability to think.)
This passage, which is about proper attitude and decorum in the church, though it may have a vague implicit reference (Oh, it's vague! how wonderful that we can simply dismiss uncomfortable verses with a wave of the hand!)
to the sensual kind of modesty, is actually very explicitly referring to a materialistic kind of modesty. Scripture is chalk FULL of references to this kind of modesty and humility (the actual definition of the English word modest). (So the author walks back his claim? The Bible is full of references to modesty and humility, but God doesn't care about sexual modesty? Now THAT'S an astounding bit of exegesis!)
The early church (and the modern church!) is full of people of different races and socio-economic status. The church Timothy pastored in ancient Ephesus would have had rich businesspeople and slaves worshipping side by side, temple prostitutes, artisans, soldiers, beggars, trust-fund babies, and everything in between.
Paul was telling Timothy to shepherd his people in such a way as to communicate the values of the kingdom of heaven — that in Christ there is no Jew or Gentile, rich or poor, male or female — all are one and of equal status in his kingdom. Why would you wear expensive clothes and fine jewels to a worship gathering when you know that the woman next to you doesn’t know where her next meal is coming from? Paul is encouraging here a kingdom reality check, the hope that the church would be the kind of community that communicates radical welcome to everyone, where all are on equal footing with God regardless of race or riches, and we communicate these values even with little things like how we dress, act, and speak in our worship gatherings. (Now the author seems to be leaning to socialist rhetoric.)
Jesus himself had some pretty radical things to say about lust and sexuality, and never once did he invite women into the blame game, (The author has dishonestly attempted to redefine the equation by making it about blame. It's subtle word usage like this that manipulates and diverts us. However, calling for people to be responsible for themselves in their appearance, speech, and behavior is not the same a "blame game.")
something we are told our first fallen father, Adam, did from the very beginning. Instead, Jesus makes the following scandalous statement, contra MiH teaching:
“But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.”
(Matthew 5:27–32)
Whoa! Not only does Jesus say nothing about female culpability in a man’s fantasies, he absolutely destroys any excuses a man might make about his inability to control his own urges. No, Jesus says, a man’s culpability begins and ends with his own dang eyes and right hand. (Duh. Everyone is responsible for their own actions. No one contests that. But the author seems to think that we have no responsibility for the way we affect others. We apparently should be free to do whatever we want without regard for anyone else.
Which means that women should not care about the visual nature of men, and dress in as little or as much as they choose. And if men notice, well, it's their fault. This is a direct play-by play from the Feminist Handbook of Talking Points.)
(Please tell me this cracks you up… I can only imagine Jesus preaching this with a little twinkle in his eye, as his good Jewish co-ed audience chuckles uncomfortably.)
Jesus is always pointing back to the broken human heart as the spring from whence our sin comes. Men don’t lust because women are immodest. Men and women alike lust (Hebrew/Greek: covet) because we want what we can’t have. Men in Afghanistan or Turkey will lust after a woman in a burqa or niqab, men in Tennessee apparently will lust after an ankle, while men in the Amazon apparently don’t think twice of topless gals, if National Geographic is to be believed. (Each of those examples is culture-specific. Modesty is expressed in a variety of ways, depending on the culture. However, none of this is relevant. The author is simply justifying his opinion by pointing to the way people behave in other cultures. However, we are talking about men and women in OUR culture.)
We are discontented creatures, all of us, including the woman who intentionally dresses to attract the men that she wants but can’t have. But not Jesus nor any of the other writers of Scripture so much as insinuate that women are in any way responsible for men’s choices, sexual tensions, or fantasies. (Which is simply false.
Job 31:9 “If my heart has been enticed by a woman...Even the well-known passage about “helping your brother not stumble” is a stretch to apply to women in how they dress. (the author provides us no documentation of these assertions.)
It’s not the original intent of the passage, though again, it does seem reasonable to me that all of us should live with an awareness of how we might be placing unnecessary stumbling blocks in our brothers’ and sisters’ lives. But this does not equate to a command for women to obsess over clothing choices. (Obsess? The author goes to the extreme as if it is the typical case. However, we are not discussing any obsessive, and to use such words is manipulative.
Apparently causing someone to stumble excludes women as they choose their clothing. Upon what basis the author gives women a pass is a mystery.
We might wonder why Paul is saying that we should not cause our brother to stumble. The author of the article has taken great pains to explain that we are responsible for our own choices, but acknowledges we have a responsibility to others. What that responsibility might be is never explained to us. Except it doesn't apply to the way women dress. How he knows this is unknown.)
Each man (and woman) is responsible to God for their own choices. Scripture is surely clear about that point.
So, speaking as a man who knows well this “struggle” of holding faith and purity in an over-sensualized culture, I hope today that you my sisters feel free to dress with both charity and charm, with dignity and dazzle, to adorn yourself in a way that makes you feel beautiful and confident, in a way that allows you to experience solidarity with other women of different bank account and/or breast size, to make your clothing choices based on the values of God’s kingdom (which includes wearing clothing that is ethically manufactured), (So he does have one standard...)
and to feel free to let men take the responsibility for their own right eyes/hands and figure out how to be respectable men who treat all women, regardless of cleavage or legs for days, with dignity and respect. (There it is. Women should do what they want without a standard or any regard at all for how they might impact others. There is nothing biblical about this.)
No comments:
Post a Comment