For Angela: The Modesty Survey
Posted on February 19th, 2007 by catalyst into the Uncategorized categoryHere is a survey sent to young Christian men asking them what aspects of a woman's appearance make them "stumble".
For pure entertainment value, it doesn't get any better than this. I have no clue how this helps, but it makes me think that Christianity and Islam are not that far apart. In the end, women should just wear Burka's and stay in the home, you know, to keep us guys from "stumbling".
Anyway, here are some of my favorite facts.
Showing any cleavage is immodest.
Seeing a girls chest bounce when she is running or walking is a stumbling block.
A girl bending over and showing her lower back is a stumbling block.
Seeing a girl stretching is a stumbling block.
Skirts that go above the knee are immodest.
And in closing, the survey allows some of the young men to tell their "sisters" how they feel. Here's some sage advice from one young man to his Sisters in Christ:
Dearest sister: God made you a thing of beauty. A thing to be admired and respected. When you dress or act in a way that draws attention to your body, you make it easy for the guys around you to reduce you to the level of a disgusting toy - using you to mentally satisfy their fantasies. They stop thinking about your Godly qualities and immerse themselves in sinful thought. By dressing and acting modestly, you draw attention to your face instead of your body. Your body may be alluring, but your face - those deep, mysterious eyes and smiling mouth - is infinitely more beautiful than any amount of revealing dress. Would you rather be the tool by which guys satisfy themselves or the beautiful thing God created you to be, pure for your husband? My flesh prefers the former, but my heart pleads for the latter.
February 19th, 2007 at 9:14 am
I’m all for more modesty in dress. However, it is completely patronizing to survey men regarding what women should wear or not wear. Shouldn’t men be responsible for controlling their own responses? Even if women were to wear head-to-toe burqas, I’m sure there are men who are going to say women’s bare hands or uncovered eyes are a stumbling block.
Why didn’t the authors give the same survey to women? Apparently, Christian women don’t “struggle” with desires.
Also, the survey’s narrow-minded focus leaves out non-heterosexual Christians (such as myself). Maybe women should dress more provocatively for gay Christian men — although I’m sure it won’t help.
February 19th, 2007 at 9:19 am
I stumble when women wear cowboy boots.
February 19th, 2007 at 9:48 am
I stumble when I go out for wings.
February 19th, 2007 at 10:40 am
I think this survey is ridiculous and totally condescending to the female gender! Talk about blame-shifting! Maybe men should practice a little discipline and not let their minds wander if that’s their struggle? Why is it the woman’s fault? So maybe this survey MIGHT change the dressing habits of a one or two women, but how is that going to help a man’s personal struggle? There’s still the majority of women who dress how they want regardless. Do these guys ever step foot on a beach, work out at the gym, pick up a magazine or newspaper, watch the olympics or turn on the tv? That’s just so stupid!!!
How about a letter to the guys…
Dearest (weak) brother:
God created the feminine form to be different than that of a male for many reasons, one reason being to create an attraction for you. There is nothing shameful or wrong about a woman’s body. It is sad to see that you and your fellow brothers-in-the-Lord cannot appreciate what God created in a pure, respectable manner. It’s too bad that you cannot control your own thoughts and keep your mind from wandering whenever you see a girl bend over or when you are reminded that women have breasts. The fact that men find it easy to reduce women to a disgusting tool used to mentally satisfy their fantasies says a lot more about the integrity of your brothers than about our wisdom in choosing clothing. I am completely uninterested in what YOUR flesh prefers and YOUR heart pleads for, that’s YOUR issue not mine.
PS - you can go ahead and ditch your jumbo belt buckle and boots, regardless of what Mr. Sparks told you back in college, they do NOTHING for us.
Sincerely,
ChurchGirl
February 19th, 2007 at 10:43 am
Neither do men in tights… I have never been able to watch the entire Nutcracker as men in tights is not thrilling to look at for me
February 19th, 2007 at 11:07 am
ChurchGirl said:
Dearest (weak) brother:
God created the feminine form to be different than that of a male for many reasons, one reason being to create an attraction for you. There is nothing shameful or wrong about a woman’s body. It is sad to see that you and your fellow brothers-in-the-Lord cannot appreciate what God created in a pure, respectable manner. It’s too bad that you cannot control your own thoughts and keep your mind from wandering whenever you see a girl bend over or when you are reminded that women have breasts. The fact that men find it easy to reduce women to a disgusting tool used to mentally satisfy their fantasies says a lot more about the integrity of your brothers than about our wisdom in choosing clothing. I am completely uninterested in what YOUR flesh prefers and YOUR heart pleads for, that’s YOUR issue not mine.
That…is AWESOME. One of the most satisfying things I have read in a long time.
Thank you ChurchGirl!
February 19th, 2007 at 11:14 am
You’re more than welcome, glad you enjoyed it!
February 19th, 2007 at 4:35 pm
I stumble when I wear cowboy boots!
February 19th, 2007 at 8:10 pm
I stumble when I see lace collared jumpers.
February 19th, 2007 at 8:16 pm
To be fair (and I think we should all strive to be fair), some men also have breasts, which, I think, is something women should keep in check.
February 19th, 2007 at 8:56 pm
This thread has nowhere to go but down.
February 19th, 2007 at 10:37 pm
IF women thought like men:
1) Women stumble when any button is open on a man’s shirt.
2) Women stumble when they see chest hair.
3) Women stumble when they don’t see chest hair.
4) Women stumble when men are bald (reminds them of the other kind of head)
5)Women stumble when men wear neckties–they should only wear bow-ties.
6) Women stumble when men wear short sleeves.
7)Women stumble when men have facial hair.
8) Women stumble when men wear turtlenecks.
9) Women stumble when men wear bicycle pants.
10) Women stumble when men dance ballet.
11) Women stumble when men’s shirts are tucked in.
12) Women stumble when vertical stripes are worn.
13) Women stumble when a man wears a Rolex.
14) Country women stumble when a man has a circle faded into the back of his jeans.
15) Women stumble when a man wears a wedding ring.
IF.
February 19th, 2007 at 10:45 pm
In fairness to women, Sovereign Grace ought to put out the equivalent for men.
I think the equivalent would be to teach men to guard a women’s heart by not sharing too much emotionally apart from a committed relationship. I think most women are attracted by sight, but not ready to jump a man’s bones until there is a deep emotional connection. A man defrauds a woman when he shares an emotional intimacy with a woman apart from a physical relationship. IMHO, anyway.
February 19th, 2007 at 10:52 pm
And a question to ponder:
If Adam and Eve had not fallen until there were a fair amount of other people–would the nakedness have continued?
There couldn’t be lust–but then wouldn’t all men be attracted to all women and vice versa? I wonder how people back then (pre or post curse) understood fidelity and marriage.
February 19th, 2007 at 11:32 pm
hahahaha
February 20th, 2007 at 8:29 am
Bravo, ChurchGirl. I couldn’t have said it any better.
I will add this, and I’ve said it before, and that is that Christians confuse sexual attraction with sin. If a man thinks a woman is sexually attractive, how is that a sin? God made men such that they are hard-wired to enjoy the female figure. Implying that any enjoyment of that *fact* is a terrible sin to be avoided at all costs is a terrible mind game that Christians play. If we take this attitude to its logical conclusion, then no Christian man should ever be allowed to see a woman EVER until he is married. God forbid he should ever see anything that he feels is sexually attractive outside of marriage, right? I’m sure a lot of “less attractive” Christian women would have a better shot at marriage if this were true. (Oh snap!) On the other hand, men who objectify women solely for their own gratification are sinning, and the woman only shares blame if she dresses to encourage it.
There is a difference between recognizing and acknowledging the attractiveness of a woman vs. objectifying her for her body. There is a difference between being feminine and attractive while maintaining modesty and dignity vs. exploiting and demeaning yourself to play on the lusts of men. If you don’t understand the differences you need to grow up.
Christians actually propagate the objectification of women through their pubescent view on sexuality and attraction.
February 20th, 2007 at 9:20 am
Well said! This could just be my own experience, but it’s surprising that I’ve never heard this topic really discussed in a church/small group type setting. It is a pretty big issue considering the divorce rate and the fact that women are so emotionally-driven.
February 20th, 2007 at 10:27 am
Since the start of the written scriptures, men have pretty much done all the interpreting, written the commentaries etc. In fact, most of the time it has been ‘celibate’ men involved. That is why the womans point of view has not been considered.
An example of what I’m saying can be found in 1 Corinthians 11:16, the word ‘other’ is used, when in the margin, the actual greek work is ’such’. It is only translated ‘other’ in this one verse. The issue is womens head coverings.
At any rate, it is far past time for men to realize that their testosterone level is their problem! Asking others to modify normal behavior to accomodate your problem is just classic ADDICTION!
February 20th, 2007 at 10:30 am
Castrations for EVERYONE!
February 20th, 2007 at 10:31 am
You first!
February 20th, 2007 at 10:05 pm
Um, isn’t lust an emotion? The thing that makes KariMichelle’s list funny is that it’s ridiculous. Women typically aren’t the ones whining about this, that, or the other making them “fall”. Why? Because women are socialized to be emotionally demonstrative (often mistaken for “driven”) and thereby become more aware of what they and others are feeling. Men are taught to supress emotion, and we know from history and experience that the things that are most supressed typically have the firmest hold on driving human behavior. I understand that this whole thread is essentially being critical of the idea that men aren’t in control of themselves to begin with, but there’s obviously still a deep layer of misogyny being assumed, if the “emotionally-driven” comment can be taken as an indicator. How about this:
Everyone is responsible for his or her own thoughts and behavior.
Period, end of story. I hold myself responsible for the times when I’ve gotten emotionally involved with people prematurely or one-sided-ly and gotten hurt because of it. Did it take two to tango? Yes. But, does it do me any good to place blame on my tango partner? No. Was I aware of my emotions and of my willing participation? Yes. It only benefits me to examine my own responsibility and move forward with the knowledge I gain from that examination.
So, conversely, if men feel like it’s a terrible thing for them to see cleavage because of the thoughts it incites, maybe they should take off their shoes and stay in the kitchen where they can’t get into trouble and don’t have to be concerned with controlling themselves. That’s how we kept all those scarlet women out of trouble during the dark ages. As they say, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
February 21st, 2007 at 1:18 am
Call me a traditionalist.
I don’t know very many guys who dream of rolling over in bed one day and saying, “Nancy, I find your militant, assertive demands for social and economic parity every bit as attractive as your butch haircut, gender-neutral penny loafers, and mansuits. And the way you always belittle me is SO sexy!” Neither do I know very many women who wish to hear these words.
Say what you will, but physical attraction plays a part in the divine order of romance (especially for men), and I would be remiss if I suggested that it’s somehow “stumbling” if you happen to appreciate that. Rather, to be confused about this is to set oneself up for disappointment.
Whether it’s taboo to admit or not, to be male is to be visually stimulated and naturally inclined to serve and protect. This is what gives men the inherent drive to launch ships into battle to defend their girlie girls–the ones they left behind in the village kitchens to tend their children. You see, hunting and gathering and waging war isn’t easy. What, pray tell, is so wrong with looking forward to a little cleavage (etc.) when you come home?
There’s nothing wrong with it! Most men I know are attracted to girlie girls who know their way around a kitchen, who know how to nurture the children, and who know how to make (and keep) a comfortable home. I make no apology that Mrs. McBlogster is a stone-cold fox(!), a crackerjack in the kitchen, a nurturing caregiver to our son, and a source of respect and support to me–nor that these are some of the very reasons why I asked her to marry me (although there’s much more to her than these things alone).
My end of the bargain is that I bring home a regular salary, lovingly engage with her intellectually and emotionally (but not too emotionally), make sure there’s firewood chopped and stacked outside, “get the spider!”, sweep the garage, don’t leave the toilet seat up, bring her flowers every so often, and regularly wear the cologne she bought me.
When Mrs. McBlogster and I got married, a very wise old man told me this: “Bloggy, if you don’t love your wife, someone else probably will.” He understood the way men and women were created—women with a distinct need to be loved, men with a distinct need to be respected. If a man loves his wife–if he cares for her and protects her and provides for her and is tender toward her and is considerate of her need for emotional and intellectual stimulation–then she will be happy and will never have a reason to roam. Of course, alternatively, the implication is that if a woman respects her husband–if she encourages him and honors his leadership and cares for the home and children and understands the force of visual stimulation going on inside him–then he, too, will have no reason to roam. It all boils down to understanding and providing for each other’s needs.
This is part of the divine order of the universe, at least in the McBlogster home. I love my wife; she respects me. She gets a hunter/gatherer/gentleman; I get a girlie girl with cleavage and a tasty dinner. Everybody wins; nobody stumbles.
February 21st, 2007 at 8:35 am
I think Bloggy’s post is the first reasonable one I have read on this subject….
It both appalls me and amazes me the length humanity will go to to basically say, “It’s my life, and I will do as I please no matter what effect it has on those around me.” …in the last days, people will be lovers of selves…
I mean, really, God created man to be visually stimulated, yet stupid women are shocked when they dress like whores and those ‘weak’ men actually both look and stumble, and sometimes even forcefully take what tantalizing piece of flesh is being teasingly dangled in front of them. Now, I really do believe that we are responsible for our own behavior, but when some little tramp is writhing around in her saran wrap clothes, she is defrauding her gender, and she herself is being nothing but a weak and thoughtless slave to the lastest immoral dress that Satan can come up with.
To those ‘free’ females–who flatter their silly selves to think they are ‘fashionable’ when they are really just ‘feebleminded followers’… Do you realize that the majority of modern, flesh flaunting dress is nothing but a recycling of the garb worn for years by prostitutes? *shakes head* You know, I almost feel sorry for the sex sellers of our day, what with ‘innocent church girls’ stealing their advertising tactics…*sigh* what’s a poor working girl to do to compete in this sex-driven society?…:o)
Many times on this blog Paul’s example has been lauded at how he ‘doesn’t take tithes’, yet it seems like his other example of ‘not being the cause of his brother stumbling’ isn’t a very convenient character trait….so, to take the usual step of extrapolating this understanding of women’s ‘freedom’ to dress like brainless sex objects, let me ask,
“Do you also flaunt your ‘freedom’ to have a beer or a glass of wine to your friends that may have struggles with alcohol? What about someone who is trying to lose weight? do you tempt them with all manner of delectable tastes? What do you tell them if they object or are offended? That they are ‘weak’ and should get over it? Tell me, where is the brotherly love in an attitude like that?”
Therein lies the biggest problem with using the Bible as a buffet table, rather than taking the ‘whole council of God’. We meander through the scriptures, taking the tasty, convenient trifles, but leaving anything that might actually require discipline, sacrifice, self control, or consideration for someone other than ourselves.
Your brother Paul was crystal clear that we DO have a moral responsibility to look after the welfare of our brothers; “It is good neither to eat meat nor drink wine nor do anything by which your brother stumbles or is offended or is made weak (Romans 14:21) and also; “…because of your knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died? But when you thus sin against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ. Therefore, if food makes my brother stumble, I will never again eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble. (1 Corinthians 8:11-13) Gee, Paul seem to care more about others than he did his own wants, or what others thought of him…
What a novel idea for a self-proclaimed ‘Christian’….
February 21st, 2007 at 9:52 am
Hungry, I don’t think anyone here is advocating that women dress immodestly. I think there’s just a reaction against the idea that women must completely shoulder the burden of preventing men from “stumbling” because they dress in anything other than a burkha. Where to draw that line is a matter of cultural preference because there’s nothing in the Bible to generate guidelines on this issue. I will agree with you that the best approach is a mature one from both parties using Romans 14 as a measuring stick.
I found it terribly funny how some of the people “strongly agreed” that things like a woman’s naked arms were considered immodest. I remember a time when a young woman at CBC, who was in fact a PBC graduate and a stellar woman of God in the church, got up to share something in front of the church on Sunday morning. Later she told me that she was scolded by Edie Iverson because she was told she was dressed immodestly. She had worn a long dress that was sleeveless, which in my opinion was both modest and appropriate considering it was the middle of the summer.
February 21st, 2007 at 9:53 am
“and sometimes even forcefully take what tantalizing piece of flesh is being teasingly dangled in front of them”
-Hungry on the Harbor
I more or less agree with everything that you said…but this sentence is particularly disturbing to me. It seems to suggest that forcing a woman — any woman, madonna or whore, doesn’t matter — to have sex is justifiable or at the least understandable if that woman is dressing, acting, speaking, etc. in a way that is meant to arouse men.
I agree with you that if a woman is going to do these things, then there should be no shock or surprise when a man gets excited because of them (if she doesn’t understand that, then no one ever taught her these things which is incredibly sad). That is her choice, her responsibility. And because forced sex (aka rape), is a reality in the world that we live in, then she needs to be aware that it is a possibility. BUT…it is equally dangerous to suggest that because a man was being tantalized and teased it is understandable that he lets go of his own responsibility and “forcefully take”s a woman. That idea takes all responsibility off men and puts it on women.
I think we should all be equally responsible for our own behavior and in an ideal world we all would be. But there are thousands of young girls and boys who grow up without someone to show them what real love and respect are — for themselves and for others.
I am all for women respecting themselves, each other, and men in the way that they dress and carry themselves, but I do not think it is ok for a man to be justified in NOT controlling his arousal/urges (to the point of forcing a woman to have sex with him) because a woman has decided to flaunt herself around or even in front of him.
Hungry, I hope this does not come off as suggesting that you think it is ok — I would never think anyone was actually saying that (although some people do think it and say it).
February 21st, 2007 at 9:57 am
No matter how a woman dresses, abuse is never justifiable.
February 21st, 2007 at 11:23 am
*grin* just in case you missed it….balance is a beautiful thing, I just felt this thread was a little lopsided….
Besides, rape isn’t really supposed to be about sex as much as it is a power trip for a ‘weak’ man.
)
February 21st, 2007 at 11:28 am
It totally is a balance - or at least it should be.
And yes, rape is a lot about power — to the person who is committing that offense. To the victim it is about being raped and the mental, emotional and physical suffering that follows.
February 21st, 2007 at 11:40 am
It’s interesting that people associate “immodest dress” with causing people to lust. There is just as much lust today as there was back in Victorian England when women wore 10 layers of undergarments and neck to ankle dresses, so why are we pretending that we can cover women up more and the problem will go away? All these people are really accomplishing is enforcing their subjective view of what is modest on others so they can feel like they’re keeping the big bad lust demons away. In my experience, it usually leads to them looking down their noses at the evil neighbors that let their daughters wear jeans while their own lace-jumper princess revolts and becomes a stripper to get even with her parents for years of being a fashion victim.
All kidding aside, I don’t think there’s one good answer on how someone should dress, just some basic guidelines. Everybody has different views on what’s appropriate and they to use their common sense and moral judgement to dress appropriately. We should also prepare our children and ourselves to see some people dressed inappropriately. Those people are out there and your child will see them eventually, so parents should make sure they aren’t raising their kids in such a sterile, temptation-free environment that their children “stumble” the first time they see a girl wearing pants with writing on the rear end. If you don’t prepare them to deal with those kind of things, you’re setting them up to fail.
February 21st, 2007 at 12:49 pm
I think it is ignorant to think that immodest dress DOESN”T cause men to lust…places like Victoria’s Secret are WAAAAYY smarter than that; just read some of their selling points;
“Sexy!”
“…for come-hither curves!”
“Seductive!”
“Drop dead gorgeous!”
…and the pictures? Nothing more than ‘acceptable’ pornography…..
So….tell me….WHO has their head in the sand???
)
Oh, and for the record, I don’t wear denim jumpers…er…not that there’s anything WRONG with denim jumpers….*cheezy grin*
February 21st, 2007 at 1:12 pm
THE MODESTY SURVEY SITE: A HARRIS FAMILY CONSPIRACY?
When I clicked over to the survey, I noticed that it was sponsored by Alex and Brett Harris. Are these guys the brothers of Joshua Harris, author of, I Kissed Dating Good-bye, etc.? Is C. J. Mahanay, whose message, The Soul of Modesty, is also noted there too, Joshua’s pastor? I noticed that the site is powered by Noble something; isn’t that the name of Joshua’s dad, Greg Harris’, company?
HOW DO THE RESOURCES RECOMMENDED ON THE SITE SOUND TO YOU (below)? WOULD YOU EVER READ OR DOWNLOAD THEM?
The Soul of Modesty: C.J. Mahaney’s heart-focused, grace-filled, gospel-centered audio message on the topic of modesty. Made specially available for free download by Sovereign Grace Ministries.
The Responsibility of Modesty (Part 1): Excerpted from the survey results, a 20-year-old Christian man shares a powerful summation of men’s responsibility in this area.
The Responsibility of Modesty (Part 2): Excerpted from the survey results, a 22-year-old Christian man shares an insightful analogy explaining the responsibility of women to protect their brothers in Christ.
The Purpose of Clothing: John Piper explains both the negative and positive messages God communicated by clothing Adam and Eve after they fell into sin.
Free To Be Modest: Nancy Leigh DeMoss explains how living under the Ownership and Lordship of Jesus Christ, frees us to be modest.
Modeling Modesty: A downloadable article (PDF) in which Mary K. Mohler thoughtfully addresses eight reasons why Christian women are intentionally or unintentionally failing to model modesty. Made available through AlbertMohler.com.
GUYS: WOULD YOU SIGN THE MODESTY PETITION? (below)
LADIES: WOULD YOU CARE IF YOUR BROTHERS SIGNED THE PETITION?
“The Modesty Survey Petition: A list of seven encouragements from Christian guys to the girls reading the survey results.
The Modesty Survey results have been released, but there is still an important message for Christian guys to communicate to their sisters in Christ. Whether you participated in the survey or not, the Modesty Survey Petition below is your opportunity to affirm and commend the following biblical truths surrounding feminine modesty by adding your name to the hundreds of signatures below.
As a Christian guy with a deep appreciation for feminine modesty, I hereby affirm and commend the following biblical truths to my sisters in Christ:
Please, approach the survey as a resource, not a list of rules.
Always honor your parents above the results of the survey. (Ephesians 6:1-3)
Seek personal feedback on your attire from the godly men and women in your life.
Remember, modesty is first and foremost a matter of the heart, not the wardrobe.
Faithfully pursue the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit. (1 Peter 3:4)
Let your good works outshine your outward appearance. (1 Timothy 2:10)
Dress for the glory of God. (1 Corinthians 10:31)
INSTRUCTIONS: To sign the petition, enter your full name and age below and click ‘Submit’. The button will change to indicate when your signature has been successfully recorded. Your name will not immediately appear in the list of signatures. Refresh the page to submit additional names. Guys only. Ages 12 and up.”
DO YOU THINK ALL OF THE ABOVE IS A BUNCH OF ‘JOSHUA HARRIS’ LEGALISM, GODLY WISDOM OR A MIXTURE OF BOTH?
February 21st, 2007 at 1:51 pm
You have GOT to be kidding me??? This is ridiculous! There are so many important issues that today’s youth could really use some teaching on, yet these jumper nazis are spending their time and energy pushing this crap? In all fairness, I haven’t even visited their website myself, but from what I’ve just read I don’t think I could stomach it. And what’s the point of signing this pledge/survey/pettition nonsense, anyway?
I think this stuff just makes the whole modesty issue worse than it really is. I can only imagine that these kids would be much better off being taught self-control and how to keep themselves pure in an immodest world that isn’t going to get any better by them signing a stupid petition to only date flat-chested chicks in long skirts with baggy turtlenecks!
Or, maybe that’s a bad idea. Turtlenecks could remind boys that there’s a neck under all that fabric which could then lead to thoughts of “necking”…
How in the heck are these poor boys going to react when they walk into the mall and see lingerie-clad mannequins? “Hello, Security? We’ve got a group of ‘clean teens’ passed out in front of the Victoria’s Secret store.”
I’m definitely not an advocate of women walking around in clear heels and stripper-wear, but there’s got to be a better way to teach young people morality!
February 21st, 2007 at 3:12 pm
Wow. That’s pretty snobby of you to judge a ‘flat chested chick’ as not being worthy to date, as well as mocking the dress of a young girl who doesn’t care to flaunt her body as the only way to attract a future husband…a young woman who may be pure in heart, and have a gentle and quiet spirit which is very precious in the eyes of the Lord (not to mention a truly godly young man). She is saving her affections AND her body for the man she will someday marry….*sigh*…what has the modern ‘church’ come to that we should not value or encourage a chaste and virtuous young woman…
Ummm…. Do you know what the word ‘desensitized’ means?
)
Please, share your enlightened, trustworthy and practical ideas….I’m waiting with anticipation….:o)
February 21st, 2007 at 3:22 pm
David..
Yes, Alex and Brett are younger brothers of Josh. Noble Institute is Gregg’s baby.
February 21st, 2007 at 3:32 pm
Pardon my saracasm, if that’s what bothers you. Lighten up, you clearly don’t get my point!
February 21st, 2007 at 3:33 pm
Lust is a sin of the heart. It has nothing to do with how someone is dressed unless your mind is there in the first place. If immodest dress absolutely causes men to lust, how do you explain cultures in the tropics where the women go around topless?
What has the modern church come to that we assume our opinion on what is chaste and virtuous is absolute? The point is there’s a lot of wiggle room in the area between lace jumper and stripper-wear. Just because someone’s opinion is more liberal than yours doesn’t necessarily make them a harlot.
February 21st, 2007 at 3:38 pm
I can’t stop chuckling. Would you like to elaborate on said “wiggling”?
February 21st, 2007 at 3:43 pm
I would but I don’t want you to stumble.
February 21st, 2007 at 4:07 pm
Hungry, I certainly don’t appreciate your insinuation. What is it exactly that makes you suggest that I may be “desensitized”?
I wasn’t judging flat-chested women who like to wear turtlenecks, suggesting that they were not date-worthy. Where did you get that? Clearly you’ve misinterpreted what I had to say and it’s not worth my time to try and explain it to you. I’m convinced you’re well aware of that but just chose to be catty with me anyways. If that’s what you took from my comment, then maybe it would be best if you read things over a few times to fully understand before you spout off calling me “snobby”!
February 21st, 2007 at 4:46 pm
Livinglife said: Yes, Alex and Brett are younger brothers of Josh. Noble Institute is Gregg’s baby.
To Livinglife: Thank you very much! I needed my hunch confirmed.
February 21st, 2007 at 4:47 pm
Dave,
CJ Mahaney’s wife (I believe) started the whole modesty conversation going in Covenant Life circles (Sovereign Grace). She has a book out on it which I think her 4 daughters contributed to as well. John Piper is a good friend of CJ’s–they often speak at each others conferences.
Josh Harris took over CJ’s church recently–I think 2 or so years ago. Not sure who originated the survey, but I’m guessing it sprung from Cov Life, but not necessarily directly from Josh.
Cov Life/Sov Grace has a lot of good things going on (IMHO), but as I’ve shared other places–I think their view on the role of women is a bit prohibitive for my tastes.
KM
February 21st, 2007 at 5:03 pm
Hungry,
I agree that women should be responsible and careful in how they dress. I think we are reacting because the “list” was so over the top, it’s ridiculous.
It’s also one-sided. (ie NOT BALANCED). Because it is clearly pointing to what a WOMAN should do so as not to compromise men.
As several of us have pointed out, it does NOT address, what men should do not to compromise women.
It also does not make room for cultural variations. In the Latino church I attended for many years, cleavage was the NORM. Tight clothes were the norm, double entendre (esp. among the elders) was the NORM. I wasn’t always comfortable with the environment, but culturally I don’t think men were stumbling over themselves because they saw someone’s panty lines.
When Pastor Frank visited he even tried a joke that he would NEVER have said at CBC. (Can’t remember it, or I’d share it). He didn’t pull it off though.
February 21st, 2007 at 5:05 pm
Probably the fact that you say you don’t advocate women walking around in the clothes that are basically revamps of stripperwear from yesterday, yet you seem to mock ‘modest’ dress encouraged by a more conservative group that desires to address the untouchable subject of modesty that no one else wants to acknowledge because it may convict them of their own standard (or lack) of dress….and goodness knows, nobody has any right to judge…(1 Corinthians 5:11-13)
Any time some level of standard is held up as an example to others, people who don’t want to take a hard look in the mirror froth out the same old whine, “AACK!! LEGALISM!!!!!!!!”
Well, l am not at all an advocate of any sort of legalism (defined as requiring outward conformance to any biblical standard) because I believe that our behaviour speaks loudly about what we really are in our hearts. One can be outwardly conforming to the acceptable norm of their circle of influence and still be full of rottenness and vulgarity. However, a heart that is following hard after God is easy to recognize because they wouldn’t DREAM of doing anything that gives the ‘appearance of evil’, or that would cause their brother to stumble. They do not fear legalism, because they do not love the world or the things in the world….every part of their lives is modest–their clothes, their eating habits, their relationships, their activities, their words–even their thought life they fully understand is an open book to the One whose eyes roam throughout the earth searching for those whose hearts are fully turned towards Him….
Anyway, I’m still waiting for your ideas on teaching our youth about such delicate issues…:o)
February 21st, 2007 at 5:18 pm
They do not fear legalism, because they do not love the world or the things in the world….every part of their lives is modest–their clothes, their eating habits, their relationships, their activities, their words–even their thought life
Wow, I can’t tell you how frustrated that sentence makes me. I greatly fear legalism and it’s not because I love the world. Legalism is not about holiness, it’s about the appearance of holiness. It’s about someone else’s idea of holiness. It’s about church leadership reaching down from their PERFECT worlds and sinless lives to squash you because you’ve sinned or appeared to sin or thought about sin or knew what sin was.
David hated legalism–and not because he sinned. Because he understood God’s heart enough to know that eating bread from the temple was ok.
Jesus hated legalism because he understood it was ok for people to eat on the sabbath and to be made well on the sabbath.
Jesus can search my heart whenever he wants. YOU and my leaders and my friends need permission.
February 21st, 2007 at 5:21 pm
Again, my point was completely missed. It wasn’t about the long skirts and turtlenecks - I have a few long skirts at home in my own closet and if I liked turtlenecks I’d probably have some of those too! It was a very sarcastic example. And for the record, I am not convicted by this particular subject matter in any way; I’m not a flashy dresser and I don’t try to show off my body by wearing revealing clothes. I do consider my husband’s opinion on what I wear and that’s about as far as it goes. It’s no one else’s business period! I didn’t cry legalism either, so please if you need to vent, take it out on someone else!
What are you waiting for? I didn’t offer ideas on teaching our youth about such “delicate issues”, and to go further, I don’t think the “modesty petition” is even considered a “delicate issue”. I merely suggested that these guys could be more productive by addressing actual character issues such as self-control, pure thoughts, respecting their peers enough to abstain, etc. instead of going overboard on the modesty petition.
February 21st, 2007 at 6:12 pm
I like it, ChurchGirl …
You know what’s funny about immodest/modest dress? A man’s perspective changes when he gets serious about a girl … that immodest dress that played a role in attracting him in the first place, becomes a bit of a threat to him after the couple gets serious because the same look that attracted him will attract other men … jealousy/possessiveness kicks in with the man and sometimes he wants his girl to dress more conservatively to fend off the competition … immodest/modest dress also changes with the shift from school to profesional to dating scene …
My wife is a public high school teacher, and the school has a dress code … so the kids dress to code during school, then change as soon as school is out … dress code violations are primarily girls who wear spaghetti straps, thongs with low-riding jeans, louses that show their midrift … they get booted for that … so, perhaps the women here can tell me WHY do jr/sr. highschool girls change clothes just as soon as school is out? Why aren’t the clothes that meet the school dress code good enough for dating or just hanging out with friends (co-ed)?
Could it be the girls are trying to attract the boys?
Or is is just weak-minded conformity?
February 21st, 2007 at 9:03 pm
KariMichelle said: CJ Mahaney’s wife (I believe) started the whole modesty conversation going in Covenant Life circles (Sovereign Grace), etc.
Hi KM: Thank you for your informative post. Is Covenant Life a local church or a movement? I have the same question re: Sovereign Grace. I would like to learn more about them, if possible.
KM: I felt your observation that the Modesty Survey being imbalanced was very insightful. Would you consider contacting the Harris brothers at their website and asking them if they would consider doing a survey for the sisters - similar to what they did for the brothers? I think that it would be a great and needed suggestion! What do you think?
February 22nd, 2007 at 4:04 am
Dave,
Sovereign Grace Ministries is a network of fellowshipping churches like MFI. Covenant Life is the original, like CBC.
Jona and Joey Gimmalva are prob. the best folks to ask about SG as they attend a SG church.
http://www.sovereigngraceministries.org/
www.covlife.org
As for writing the brothers–I think I might be inclined to write the originators of the survey. We’ll see.
February 22nd, 2007 at 7:42 am
Covenant Life started with Larry Tomczak, then mid 1980s or so all of a sudden he fell off the radar and CJ had the wheel.
February 22nd, 2007 at 7:47 am
http://fcov.blogspot.com/2005/11/i-accept-challenge-charismatics.html
Here is an interesting blog about the history of CJ and Larry..
February 22nd, 2007 at 8:35 am
To Living Life: Thank you very much! I’ll check it out… By the way, whatever happened to Larry Tomczak?
To KM: Thank you very much! Contacting the originators of the survey is great. I just assumed that the Harris brothers were the originators…If you do contact them, please keep us all informed!
February 25th, 2007 at 6:41 am
Whatever was overboard on this survey can only attempt to balance the lack of attention to this matter given in other churches. I don’t say that anyone can come up with a dress code for women, or men for that matter, but I do say more teaching regarding such is needed.
I think Hungry has a very good point in referring to the prostitute dress. It’s so funny b/c I was just looking at some vintage ads from the 20’s and so forth warning men about prostitutes, or “easy women” because of VDs and they were always dressed, well. . . like most women that go to church now! haha. I was bug eyed. Then I remembered how, while growing up I had heard that hookers dressed in red and wore red lipstick. Well, so did this prostitute in one of the posters–all red. I was looking at these ads/posters and thinking about how social norms have changed and thinking about how they may continue to change until we are all running around butt naked like those people in the rainforest. Who knows maybe we will ditch housing as well and resort to a hut.
Anyway, it’s true, what used to be looking like a ho’ is now acceptable church attire in most circles.
I also wanted to add my personal: I don’t like it when other women dress provocatively. I feel, as a married woman, that I am not being respected. Now it used to be, (even in my day) that alluring seductive clothing was only (acceptably) worn at da’ club. These days, not so, even in Wal-Mart.
The church sets the standard for the world, or rather on this topic, don’t set the standard. Perhaps, PERHAPS, that is a contributor to high divorce rates. I mean, hey eye-candy over here, eye-candy over there. Sure there are a LOT of factors, but this is something to really be taught on. For one so that a believer, particularly a new believer, can have a good idea about modest dress. That new believer could be confused when lines are blurred between worldly thinking and Christian faith.
I like what Bloggy had to say. Unfortunately, not all husbands are as spiritually mature (mine included) to keep his eyes from partaking in advertised fruit (well, he might say I’m wrong. I’m only going off women’s “intuition”). Bloggy said:
What, pray tell, is so wrong with looking forward to a little cleavage (etc.) when you come home?
I say NOTHING at all, but outside of the home is also brimming with cleavage. Tis the prob. as I see it.
It’s not a matter of the letter of the law. It’s about going beyond the letter and getting to the spirit of the matter, which is love your neighbor as yourself and do unto others as you would have them do unto you. You don’t seduce my husband and I won’t seduce yours!!
(oh, I used to dress a bit seductive back in the day trying to gain attention or look “beautiful.” For the simple fact that I was ignorant and did not have a spiritual understanding of dress and its importance and how the very type of person I was attracting with this mode of dress was the very person I would not want to attract. Oh, if I had somebody to teach me back then!)
Bravo to whoever that church is. I won’t be going there, but I teach my children so much holiness at home, they avert their eyes when some girl is in a bikini in a tv ad. I never told them to do any such thing, but I like it that way!
Oh, and yes, men have a responsibility as well as the women.
thank you.
February 25th, 2007 at 12:57 pm
To reiterate my prior point, I’ll say this: You’d do yourself and your marriage a huge favor by making for dang sure that you’re seducing your husband at home! Most (actually, I think ALL, but I’ll make my comment less absolute by saying most) husbands need their wives to be seductive at home.
February 25th, 2007 at 5:35 pm
Agreed.
Better be careful, though, or you’ll be in the same hot seat as ol’ Mark Driscoll, I think it was, who implied that the reason men wander is because their wives ‘let themselves go’…..:o)
Had to chuckle at that one…I can relate…one of my children had to be further instructed on the value of discretion and quietness when they would blurt out “Mommy! That lady is immodest!!!”
) On a sadder note, one of them would ask, “Mommy, is she a Christian?” upon being visually assaulted with a no brainer outfit…
“Well, honey, I don’t know, but the way a person dresses speaks volumes about their spirit…”
February 25th, 2007 at 8:18 pm
so basically some people on here are arguing that cleavage is fine. sad standard. as a guy. a teenager i can tell you that yes, stretching does make it hard to stay pure just as cleavage and short skirts do. as it does for so many other guys. period. undebatable. its alot easier for some old guy who no longer has to deal with hormones and off the chart emotions to sit here and say all that stuff, is fine, but please remember that survey isnt to you, its to teenagers. Young adults who are finding their identity, and if they find it in the wrong thing (sex…) it could utterly screw them up for a long timee….
February 26th, 2007 at 6:16 am
Bloggy, I think to merely advise a wife to “take care of home” is to oversimplify the issue. Although there needs to be “due benevolence” from the wife to the husband and he needs to nourish her “as his own body” , including all that is inferred therein, I think the sexual politics are more far-reaching.
Now, I will concede that it is largely a statement on the self-control and heart of the man, as far as his head turning goes. (Most) Men will look regardless to what is going on at home. I think guys like shiney things that beep and blink. So, girls/women with bells and whistles going off attract looks (even from me sometimes, and I’m hetero), as they intend to do by dressing so. On the men’s part it is an aspect of their flesh nature to look; However, on the females part it is also flesh to expose, but for the purpose of weilding POWER!
Furthermore, how many husbands are at home 24/7/365 to be seduced by their wives?
God does not teach that a husband’s loving and honoring his wife is to be based on her “seducing” him, instead simply because that’s his WIFE (by the same token, the wife should submit because he is the head). As a matter of fact, using seduction to sustain a marriage (as you suggest) seems more like the world’s way of addressing the matter.
You said “Most husbands need their wives to be seductive at home”.
I say: Most wives need their husbands to mature spiritually.
[Boy, I hope there are some godly young women being raised out there to meet the standard that I am raising my sons to look for in a wife. He who findeth a wife, findeth a good thing.]
February 26th, 2007 at 6:25 am
Hmmm, this reminds me of another quote…
I was taking you seriously until you made that comment. Yes, if a woman dresses to seduce a married man, I’m sure it could it could lead to trouble. But to imply the way society dresses as a whole contributes to the overall divorce rate is quite the leap of logic.
February 26th, 2007 at 6:38 am
jb said:
February 25th, 2007 at 8:18 pm
That’s why God gave us the blue pill.
February 26th, 2007 at 7:42 am
Tis fine if you disagree with such a theory. Like I said PERHAPS ( and that in part). Though I don’t see it so far-fetched, but to be specific, the cause would be moreso attitude (including about dress) of the body of Christ being influenced by the world.
Thank you and have a good day!
February 26th, 2007 at 9:11 am
Scrupe, thanks for drawing my attention to this statement because it needs addressing.
My 2 cents: If you think older guys (older than teenagers) have any less drive or desire for sex, you’re wrong. It’s both arrogant and naive to assume that perhaps teenage boys (yourself?) have a much larger sex drive than us old folks. I got news for ya, it never really goes away. What does change are things called “maturity” and “self-control”. To say that it’s harder for a young person to control himself because he’s a teenager is not a good excuse nor an entitlement for his behavior. We’ve all been there, and we’ve learned to deal with it. Young men are just beginning this maturity process and perhaps feel the struggle more keenly simply because it is unfamiliar. Just because a teenage boy is horny doesn’t give him the right to impose his ideal of modesty on women. For gosh sakes, some guys find naked feet arousing, so are we going to insist that Christian girls never go out barefoot or in sandals?
I’m not implying that women are free to be immodest, I’m just trying to express my discomfort with the reactionary stance of Christians to things that are mostly cultural and not spiritual. I see this same kind of reactionism and yellow journalism every time there’s a new story about how kids are in danger because of video games, instant messaging, cell phones, etc. ad nauseum. This is just another area where people need to take a mature attitude and teach their kids to do the same.
February 26th, 2007 at 9:28 am
Actually, us geezers have just learned that making love is much more than intercourse and a woman is much more than a body. Real love making is 24×7 - in a sense, everything is foreplay - whether taking out the garbage, killing a spider, conversation (read: listening), re-painting the hallway 1 shade lighter (read: ARGH!), cooking, shopping, cleaning, etc. A man is a woman’s help mate every bit as much as the woman is man’s help mate.
You know, often Ephesians 5:25-33 is quoted to men about women … and Ephesians 5:22-24 quoted to women about men.
But why is our attention seldom drawn to Ephesians 5:21 which precedes the passage on man/woman relationships?
Ephesians 5:21 GNB Submit yourselves to one another because of your reverence for Christ.
Mutuality - that is the secret of a great marriage. With such a marriage, there is really no need for the blue pill, even for us geezers.
February 27th, 2007 at 7:00 pm
hey agreed, self control is where its at. though i would say alot of you dont have to go to a public highschool everyday….its not like it was back in the 70s, 80s or even 90s. It is unbelievable, so trust me im with you on the self control thing…
February 27th, 2007 at 11:17 pm
People, you need perspective:
Let’s imagine for a moment…
a conspiracy to commit murder in an elementary school in Chicago
a suicide bomber on a school bus in Israel
an assassination of a public official in Spain
a report of 20% poverty and widespread famine in a county in West Virginia
news that 33% children are infected with HIV in South Africa
the Iranian enrichment of nuclear material, and developing weapons
a genocide in Darfur, killing 500,000 men, women and children
the child pornography on Internet
the sex trafficking in Turkey of girls and boys aged 11-15
a husband and wife serving two combat terms back to back in Iraq
a case of incest
a group of teenagers who carry out a suicide pact in Madison, WI
a brutal wife beating in Portland
a father just turned his 13 year old daughter on to crystal meth
the word that LA gangs are growing exponentially and a major spike in gang bangs and armed robbery send police scratching their heads
an earthquake kills 20,000 in Tibet overnight (made up figures - but NOT unrealistic)
…and here you are - having your “WORLD COUNCIL OF THE QUEST TO DEFINE ‘IMMODEST DRESS”!!
God help us. Get a life, please! If your whole orientation is concerned about whether you might get exicited over a pretty girl, then your issues are more than your sexuality. You’re blind, deaf and dumb to what’s happening all around you, and you have no concept of the real evils in this world if you are that obsessed with your fear of your sexuality.
February 28th, 2007 at 7:46 am
Bravo, LT.
February 28th, 2007 at 8:23 am
Well, SURE! I get it! Since the world is going to hell in a handbasket anyway, let’s just abandon the silly concepts of personal holiness, brotherly kindness or letting our light shine in the midst of this wicked and adulterous generation that they may see our good works and glorify our Faither in Heaven…
Just eat drink and be merry, for tomorrow we all die….:o)
February 28th, 2007 at 8:27 am
Larry, lighten up. Just because your high horse has come in from pasture doesn’t mean the rest of us need to get on it with you. Those things have been consistent throughout history—indeed, they are important topics—and yet, humanity has always found time to ALSO discuss personal issues. Besides, this thread has been discussed for more than a week and most of us have already moved on.
February 28th, 2007 at 8:51 am
Larry’s point is well taken; perhaps if we were more concerned with serious issues, and involved IN the world as SALT, the silly issues like modest/immodest dress would take care of themselves. After all, isn’t the immodest dress issue rooted in self-focus?
February 28th, 2007 at 9:09 am
It does seem that the Evangelical Community has its priorities out of whack.
On one hand, the church can focus on genocide in Darfur, on the other, warn girls not to stretch in front of boys.
Oooh. Tough Choice.
February 28th, 2007 at 9:46 am
Larry, I love it. Thanks.
March 1st, 2007 at 5:00 pm
1. Larry posted “the child pornography on the Internet” and “the sex trafficking in Turkey of girls and boys aged 11-15″ and “a case of incest” as some of the “real evils in this world.”
Why would a discussion on the subject of modesty, and all that it implies, not in some way turn out to be very relevant to one if not all three of these “real evils” that you very insightfully pointed out to us?
2. Larry posted, “People, you need perspective!”
One of the perspectives that this blog has helped me out with personally is being lighter and funnier at times. I tend to be a very focused and serious person. Honestly, I think that posts about CBC as “the boobie church” and a “bra for the boobie church” are as stupid as they come. However, if I, or others, would make it a habit to allow such posts to offend us so much as to tell Catalyst and/or Reformed Pope to “Get a life!” - they might just take us seriously and leave this blog behind.
3. Larry posted, “an earthquake kills 20,000 in Tibet overnight…”
I admit that life is filled with tragedy and inexplicable heartbreaks. Disasters happen to believers as well as to unbelievers. Your list of the “real evils” of the world, however, sounded to me very much like the litany of negatives that we get every night from NBC. I do not feel called or able to fly to Tibet today and help the earthquake victims, do you? Just as there is such a thing as “donor fatigue,” by being bombarded with requests for money from everywhere around the globe, I also feel there is such a phenomenon as guilt manipulation by being bombarded by lists of the evils of the world and what Christians “should be” doing about all of them. The Jehovah Witnesses use such a technique of fear and guilt in their depictions of the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse often in their magazines when they want people to join their ranks. I find the approach of guilt manipulation interestingly addressed even from just the titles of the two following books: Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger…(R. Sider), answered by: Productive Christians in an Age of Guilt Manipulators…(D. Chilton).
4.Larry posted, “If your whole orientation is concerned about whether you might bet excited over a pretty girl, then your issues are more than your sexuality. You’re blind, deaf and dumb to what’s happening around you and you have no concept of the real evils in this world…”
I respect the men who want to live with a pure mind and heart before the Lord, as I’m sure that you do also. Some men, however, find living purely a little easier to do than others. It sounds to me like you might be one of those men who does not struggle in the area of sexual purity. If I’m right on this, then I am very happy for you. But, what I feel is just as much of a “real evil” in this world as all of the ones you very descriptively listed in your post is the evil of sex addiction. A CBN report claims that 60% of pastors are hooked on pornography, and the stats on sex addiction only get uglier from there. I am not going to list out all of the sex addiction evils in the world to try to make my point because I feel that they are obvious to all. Some that read this blog have admitted that they are sexually hooked and can’t break free. I personally choose not to tell those who struggle with the evils of sex addiction, however, that they are “blind, deaf and dumb to what is happening all around you” or that they “have no concept of the real evils in this world.” I don’t think that such an approach would help them very much, do you? I feel that what is happening all around sex addicts, for whom we need not fly to LA, Iraq or Tibet to encounter, is nothing compared to what is happening within them; and what is happening within them is very evil indeed.
March 1st, 2007 at 6:08 pm
Thanks David, et al,
My point is really simpler than all this. You are all spending too much time and energy on an issue that is not as significant as other issues. I never said it wasn’t a moral issue. Can we make it a big issue? Okay, it is a moral issue. Stealing pencils at work is a moral issue, too, but I don’t think we should devote pages of discussion to it; I also believe that some Christians tend to think of morality PRIMARILY in terms of the issues that make us feel guilty, inside, when there are other evils that truly rock our deepest sense of human decency. Rape, incest, and purposely transmitting HIV via intercourse are such moral issues, and they also fall within the category of sexual sin. I just think that “immodest dress” as a topic pales in comparison, and if it occupies this much discussion, it disproportionately commands our attention. I think there is a reason why there are scant references in Scripture warning women about dressing immodestly, and copious references about economic injustice, lusting after power and prestige, hating others, and harboring unforgiveness.
Am I bothered by scantily clad women? Well, I don’t wander into places where I don’t belong, that’s for sure. But I don’t experience shortness of breath with the sight of cleavage, either. I also don’t take pictures with my cell phone. I hope my point is clear, but I doubt if this will suffice. I tend to think there are two types of believers in the world (for my simple-mindedness sake): those who think Christ came to the world to reconcille us to God and jump-start us back to the road to personal purity; and those who think Christ came to the world to reconcille us to God and give us the job of liberating the broken-hearted. I realize that there is room to find value in both aspects: inward purification and outward service. I just think that putting more emphasis upon compassionate service to others may inadvertently motivate me more to be a better person than all this naval gazing. Let’s leave the primary focus on introspection to the Theravadan Buddhists, and get back to the main task of carrying someone else’s load.
And, Bloggy…by the way; I accept your criticism to me..”Just because your high horse has come in from pasture doesn’t mean the rest of us need to get on it with you…” I apologize if I was grandstanding. My horse is back in the stall, and you are welcome to disagree any time you like, my friend.
March 2nd, 2007 at 5:14 pm
I stumble when I think about going down.
November 10th, 2007 at 8:54 am
And now for some real perspective….
More souls go to Hell because of sins of the flesh than for any other reason. Certain fashions will be introduced that will offend Our Lord very much.
Get some modesty.
November 12th, 2007 at 3:50 pm
I thought people went to hell because they hadn’t accepted Jesus into their hearts as their personal Lawrd and Savior?
November 12th, 2007 at 5:08 pm
Actually, no.
)
People go to hell because they have broken God’s commandments.
Which would include sins of the flesh.
November 12th, 2007 at 8:29 pm
At the risk of starting yet another debate on this blog, I’ll have to politely disagree with your viewpoint.
Romans 7 seems to indicate the Law was simply there to point out sin.
If people went to Hell because they broke God’s commandments, then it is possible (even if extremely difficult and unlikely) that one could avoid sin and thus escape Hell. But what does Paul say about this?
So where did sin start? Why are doomed before we even attempt to obey the Law?