Live your theology.

There’s been quite a dust-up over my post on tight jeans & modesty.  I have found that whenever a discussion about modesty occurs a few different things invariably seem to happen:

• People talk.  Any time you bring up a Christian doctrine that has the potential to challenge or change how people may live their lives, the opinions are going to fly.
• Men restrain themselves from being frank about the issue and speak in decidedly polite tones.  Seriously ladies, you may well be surprised at the opinion of the guys when ladies are out of the room.  We all know something about one another that you may not, and we’re not quick to share it in public.  More on that another time.
• Legalism is brought into the discussion (still waiting for someone to actually manufacture that Christian burqa everyone seems to think proponents of modesty are demanding).
• Weaker brothers are brought into the picture.

It’s the last two points I wanted to look at here because I think they’re often the ones most misunderstood.  When we talk about “weaker brothers” we’re referring to a passage in Romans 14:1-3

1 Receive one who is weak in the faith, but not to disputes over doubtful things. 2 For one believes he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats only vegetables. 3 Let not him who eats despise him who does not eat, and let not him who does not eat judge him who eats; for God has received him. 4 Who are you to judge another’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. Indeed, he will be made to stand, for God is able to make him stand.

What’s often lost when we talk about weaker brothers is the fact that they’re acting weak “in the faith”.  That is, what they’re doing is being done in faith with a real desire is to glorify God.  There is a tendency to look on these people with eyes a’rolling, frustrated with their spiritual immaturity and temporarily forgetting that it is ALL of the grace of God.

“I’m not going to change my life for some schmo who can’t handle life in the real world.”  <— This is a bad thing.

Paul recognized that this response would be a natural one for mature believers who would rather not have their style cramped, so he says “Don’t be like that” in verse 4.

OK, but what about legalism?  Even if we can agree that weaker brothers have troubles with immodest clothing, aren’t they just being legalistic (this leads to the burqa argument, one some common that it would occupy the “free” space on the modesty discussion bingo card).  We often misunderstand legalism to be “anything above or beyond what I feel like doing.”  So if a brother or sister says “Maybe it’s not the best idea in the world to wear the kind of jeans that constantly reveal the color of your underwear” the response is often “Legalist!”

True legalism supposes that the actions taken (say modesty) would serve as a means of justification (Galatians 5:1-3).   That’s a false gospel.  It’s also a false attack when someone calling for modesty is labeled a legalist.  Doing so reveals a lack of understanding for what a legalist truly is and we Reformed folk (especially we Reformed Presbyterian folk) are all about precision when it comes to doctrinal terms.

Remember: Biblically weaker brothers or sisters calling for modesty are doing so in faith to glorify God.  Can the same be said for the man or woman who hears this, but chooses their personal desire for fashion, comfort, appeal or whatever else is of greater value?  These discussions get turned sideways because we try straining gnats instead of looking to the issues at heart for both sides.

In other news, there’s still time to enter a drawing for a free Ligonier lecture series!

Sorry if this is all too much modesty talk for you, but the subject has been on my mind as I map out my sermon series on 1 Timothy.

Married (or unmarried) men:  Were you to be spotted staring at a woman’s posterior (specifically not your wife’s) what would the response be?  What would your wife/say or think?  What would your brothers and sisters in Christ say or think?  Would the response be positive – like “I know right? Check that out!” or would it be cause for concern: “What’re you looking at?”  Let me assume it’s the latter.  If it’s the former, reconsider who’s holding you accountable.

Married (or unmarried) women: Were you to realize that a Christian man (other than your husband) was admiring your derrière what would your response be?  Would you be flattered that some guy was checking you out or would you be embarrassed?  Would you meet the man’s eyes and flirtatiously ask if he likes what he sees?  Would you act like you didn’t notice and allow him to keep staring?  Would you get red in the face with embarrassment and leave the area as quickly and discreetly as possible?  If you’re relishing in the attention given you to in such a scenario, may I suggest there may be a heart issue that needs to be corrected.

If you’re with me so far, we’re agreeing that the ogling of a woman’s backside is something that ought not be done by Christian men.  It’s something that Christian women likewise should not want to happen.  But do the clothes we regularly purchase bite their collective thumbs at this idea?

Enter the Old Navy Booty Reader (bootyreader.com) a new site launched by the clothing company designed to help you find the pair of jeans that will make your backside look as desirable as it can to any eyes that may look upon it.  There’s nothing shocking about Old Navy’s approach to jeans.  That jeans are designed to make your behind look as appealing as possible is no secret.

Now, if we’re all in agreement that Christian men staring at the bums of the mothers and daughters of the Church is bad, what might be the purpose of purchasing and wearing a product specifically designed to make a part of a woman’s body that’s not for public consumption (or adoration) look as alluring as it possibly can?

Women’s pants have evolved into a temple to glorify an object that men aren’t supposed to be staring at.  Consider the evolution of sweats (all of which I’ve actually seen worn in church):

Sweat pants -> Snugger Sweat pants -> Snugger Sweat pants rolled down to or below pelvis -> Snugger Sweat pants rolled down to or below pelvis with words written across the rear -> Snugger Sweat pants rolled down to or below pelvis with words written across the rear (in sparkly, shiny letters).  The only thing left is to actually install a neon sign with an arrow pointing to the backside flashing “Check this out!”

So what do you think? Is there value in wearing clothing designed to draw attention towards the parts of our bodies that were intended for the enjoyment (visually and otherwise) of no one but our spouses?  Is wearing clothes that draw eyes to “sexual hot-zones” a violation of 1 Timothy 2:9-10?

I think it’s an example of  the spirit of the age defining how the faithful live.  But maybe I’m wrong.  Drop some knowledge on me in the comments section.

Help me out with a thought I’m pondering.

The practical difference between the predominant culture’s attitude towards sex and the Christian is? I’m not asking for Sunday School definitions of sex but rather how lives are lived. The idea I’m incubating is that the Christian world and the World world are pretty much in agreement on sex, with a few contrasts.  My (perhaps cynical?) comparison:

Sex is primarily for…

Worldly Wally: My own personal enjoyment!

Christian Carl: My own personal enjoyment! But only if you’re married, I mean.

The Reproductive Result of Sex is…

Worldly Wally: To be avoided if at all possible, unless you decide you want kids.

Christian Carl: To be avoided if at all possible, unless you decide you want kids.

If Sex Does result in Pregnancy…

Worldly Wally: Be happy if you wanted a baby.  Be sad if you didn’t.  Grow frustrated that you’ve become pregnant when you did not want to.  Get rid of it if you feel like it.

Christian Carl: Be happy if you wanted a baby.  Be sad if you didn’t.  Grow frustrated that you’ve become pregnant when you did not want to.  But whatever you do, you can’t get rid of it! (It’s a blessing, after all).

After the pregnancy has been resolved…

Worldly Wally: Take the necessary steps to make sure that sex and pregnancy happen on my terms.

Christian Carl: Take the necessary steps to make sure that sex and pregnancy happen on my terms.

So, yeah?  Are the only things that practically separate the Church from the World in this matter “No abortions” and “Only have sex with your spouse?”.  Is that really all there is?

Not wanting the presence of sin to be around your children isn’t a bad thing, but it can be symptomatic of a problematic (and even sinful) attitude.  Doug Wilson explains by touching on some different issues of how we often miss the mark completely when we talk about “protecting our children” or lament those who (gasp!) “shelter their children.”

You think the problem is low entertainment standards, when the actual problem is that no Christian parents — including you — are teaching their kids what moral leadership looks like. About a third of the kids who went to that movie didn’t really want to, and wouldn’t have gone if someone in the class — I am thinking of your son in particular — had done more than simply studied his shoelaces when the subject came up. You are tempted to think that the others have low entertainment standards, when the real lesson is that your son is not a moral leader. The response ought not to be to do something that will make him even less of one.

Read the whole thing here.