That class…
Here’s another gem: “I call the magazine Christianity Today ‘Christianity Astray’….”
Where do you get that from? Just what are you trying to achieve with that sort of statement? I have been known to read articles of Christianity Today on occassion and sometimes I will find them enlightening. Are you now trying to drive a wedge into my faith?
The entire series of this class, while based on a premise I can agree with because it’s from the Bible, is nevertheless staunchly fixated on a conservative almost-legalism that I had rejected a long time ago. There, I said it.
Take the following examples:
- The guy who actually did throw away his television. (well, there we go.)
- The guy who, in order to avoid sexually-tinged billboard content on his commute to work, changed his driving route.
- I don’t know if a guy actually did this, but we were encouraged to cut off internet access if necessary to avoid pornography.
None of those extremes satisfy me. Where, in any of this, is the grace of Jesus Christ, who died to save a fallen world because we could not possibly overcome these sins without him?
I’m going to say something else that’s fairly controversial, just following a train of thought I had this morning. Let’s see where this goes.
On women’s dress: at some point the class is going to publish a laundry list of clothing Christian women shouldn’t wear, because if there’s any hint of possible sexual suggestion, it will be marked as bad. Let me preface this by saying that if you are a girl who is convinced about what you should or shouldn’t wear, I have no problem with it. (I let these sorts of things fall under the interpretation of Romans 14:1-6 [+/-].) But at no point should a church be involved in drafting a dress code, because I think the application ought to be a personal one and not “imposed.” If you make a list, even an unofficial one, it might be interpreted as a de facto official dress code. And presto! We see the birth of legalism within the church.
Now, suppose we can successfully convince all Christian women to adhere to a super-conservative dress code. But you can’t tell non-Christian women to obey the same rules. As a guy, if our eyes are drawn to women, guess where those eyes will fall? (Hey: I know, okay? I am not going to hide behind a wall of self-proclaimed righteousness.) I guess we could cut out those eyes, or simply never walk outside except to go to church. But we won’t. What I’m saying is, if the root cause of the sin is still there, the exhortation for dressing modestly in effect solved absolutely nothing.
Like avoiding billboards on the way to work. You’ve changed your environment, but you haven’t changed at all. Is that the way to go?
I most definately agree that changing your driving route to avoid boobs is kind of silly, but maybe somewhat understandable…
Like if you’re on a diet, you’d probably want to avoid situations involving fried chicken and chocolate sundaes. So if you’re trying not to think of boobs, then maybe avoiding anything that reminds you of them might be a good idea.
(Or maybe keeping your eye on the road instead of gawking at 15 foot tall women on the side of the road works too.)
I’m really not so sure about the dress code either. What I’m thinking is that the most modest possible clothing would be clothes that completely hide any feminine attributes of your body. Really, whatever clothes that make you look the most like a man. Hide your chest, hide your hips, and keep your hair neat and out of the way. And ironically, women who adhere most to this ideal are often lesbians, which seems to be frowned upon by the same people who want women to dress more conservatively.
I’ve given this a lot of thought because when I was in middle school/high school, I considered dressing like a girl to be “selling out.” Dressing like a girl meant changing my appearance to attract guys, which = selling out. My philosophy then was to wear nothing to show what little there was of my non-existent chest, and only wear shorts that went to my knees. If I was going to get a boyfriend, it was going to be by personality not by ho-ing it up.
I’ve laxened this policy a lot (I only dress like a dude about 50% of the time now), but I think it’s funny that me and certain thinkers in the consevative Christian circles have come up with such similar modes of thought.
If trying to keep men off of thinking about sex is the goal, dressing women up like guys is a pretty good start. Dresing like a dude 100% of the time most definately keeps them away.
Written on March 20th, 2006 at 10:45 pmI should note that changing the route also entailed a loss of efficiency in that it made the route longer. It seems like extra effort expended to patch up a problem that hasn’t gone away. If a boat has a tendency to leak, gum might patch the first hole but it doesn’t prevent the second or the third. What if these billboards start getting posted on the new route as well?
It would be interesting to see what this clothing list will be and whether you or I are on the right track in predicting the direction they’re going, but I might not ever find out. I’ve decided not to take the class anymore only because finding things to disagree with is not a particularly healthy way for me to be going to church. Better to find other material I can actually learn from.
Written on March 21st, 2006 at 8:46 amfood for thought that i happened to read this morning:
Written on March 22nd, 2006 at 9:31 amwhat does mark 9:47 mean when Jesus says it’s better to pluck an eye out than to stumble?
interesting… what kind of class is this and who teaches it? Is this a class from Mosaic? I agree with your points on legalism and addressing the sin directly. If a man has cancel his internet, add five miles on his commute, or force women in the entire world to dress according this his standards, then the real issue isn’t his objectification/lust of women, it’s his failure to fully submit his sin to the Lord.
All these rules are man’s way of “working” toward holiness. It’s God, not us.
Written on March 23rd, 2006 at 9:51 amHey Lou! I agree with you! If this was a xanga, I’d give you e-props. I don’t like legalism. It doesn’t solve the root of the problem. Life is suppose to be a struggle. It’s a war between bad and good, and we’re suppose to strengthen and train ourselves to be strong enough to stand up against what is in the world. I’ll admire the ex-con who walks into an empty bank and leaves with nothing, rather than the guy stranded on the deserted island and brags, “Look, I’m not stealing any money!” It doesn’t make much sense if a guy struggling with lust tells all the girls to leave the room. He’s the one who needs to change, and taking the easy way out doesn’t cut it.
Styles change, depending on the time and society, so if girls wear tank tops, who is to say that’s wrong if that’s how the fashion is? In the jungles, they walk around naked, but that’s not wrong (according to National Geographic). I think it only becomes wrong if someone is obviously trying to cause someone to stumble. The idea of a dress code is almost like playing it safe, and “playing it safe” is not a bad thing in itself (I can’t fall off the cliff if I don’t stand too close to the cliff). But it’s pretty unfair, because the girls aren’t doing anything wrong in the first place, and it’s not even their problem, if it is even a problem at all. It seems like legalism tends to make “gray issues” into black ones. It just brings in too much judging in the area of gray issues, and who has the right to claim what is right or wrong?
About the passage Mark 9:47 [+/-]ERROR: You have exceeded your quota of 500 requests per day.
, I think it doesn’t necessarily mean that you “have” to do those things. It seems that it’s saying that it’s better to take those actions than to NOT take ANY actions at all and go to hell. But there are lots of things that people can do that will help them, without being overly legalistic, and still be living a holy life—therefore, they won’t have to cut off their feet. It’s kind of interesting that in the passage, it says that it says you’re plucking out only one eye, and still keeping the other—which means you can still see!
Please contact the developer of this application if you have questions.
(If you're the developer and have questions about this error message, please contact Crossway.)
I have an interesting story I heard. A group of college aged guys were watching this year’s Superbowl. Everytime the commercials would come on, they would turn OFF the TV, to avoid the “scandalous commercials”. It’s funny cuz my friend who told me the story said that he actually went there JUST to watch the commercials! He said that everyone would sit around for a few minutes and be all anxious, trying to guess when it would be safe to turn the TV back on.
Written on March 24th, 2006 at 2:47 amHey Lou…you’re right…you’re trying to get to the root of the issue, which isn’t exactly behavior but the heart, the thing which Jesus has been addressing.Have you read my comments on Christian modesty? It’s my Dec. 29th xanga. entry
Written on March 24th, 2006 at 8:10 pm[…] The week and a half following my return from Thailand has been quite the terrible for me. Jet lag plagued me, and in attempting to recover from it by simply refusing to sleep at all (thanks also to a mug of Peet’s from leeeeeeeesahhhhhhh) I was further afflicted by sudden flu-like symptoms of pervasive body soreness and an intense headache that went away after a few days only to return again. I am back to regular now. Plus, I had been working on photos and taxes and so I had refrained from any heaving thinking at all… but I did say I wanted to respond to a can of worms I had opened prior to my trip to Thailand. […]
Written on April 18th, 2006 at 7:08 am[…] or to address women’s self worth? Let’s try that one for a spell. :: Posted by Lou at 1:18 am:: […]
Written on April 22nd, 2006 at 1:19 am