Some Feedback on the Spandex Thing
Thank you for writing this particular blog topic. The subject is one of the myriad of topics that most churches seem unwilling to confront openly. As a woman, I understand the desire to look attractive. As a wife and mother of three boys (and two girls), I understand intimately the damage that can be done when women are blatantly immodest. Especially if said women are part of the church. Especially if those women are then singing in front of the church, in said spandex. It is indeed a slippery slope. We are called to be set apart from the world. It would be nice if we as women would have the decency to be modest in church or anywhere, and if the church would uphold these standards, for the benefit of all. Thank you for the very realistic and thought-provoking scenario you presented.
Sincerely,
Talvikki
Talvikki, you are most welcome.
Re: Evangelical Spandex at the Gym What about a (dyed-in-the-spandex) Reformed Baptist like James White or a (dyed-in-the-spandex) Reformed Presbyterian (male) like me “shaking our moneymakers” out on the public roads, riding our bicycles?
Curiously in Christ,
Joshua
Joshua, here’s the thing. I don’t think they are moneymakers.
I was this young woman (or a 1970’s version of her) until Jesus got a hold on my heart—something I thought He already had. It wasn’t that anyone actually chastised me, it was that I KNEW what I was doing, and liked it. The change in me happened fast enough that my male circle of friends commented about it. It was afterwards that I met my wonderful husband. I was given grace all around and I’m so grateful. My life has been rich and fulfilling without spandex in public.
Melody
Melody, thanks, and thank the Lord..
Evangelical Spandex at the Gym. I am not an eloquent speaker or wordsmith. So let me just say, Thank you!
I have been teaching my daughters (I have four, ages 5 and younger) that ‘Leggings are not pants.’ But this is an increasingly difficult line to speak when more and more people, closer and closer in relation, wear leggings like pants. It is tempting to give up the line instead of explaining modesty to people who should ‘know better.’ This post is both encouraging and challenging. Women are not exempt from modesty at the gym (or dare I say swimming pool?!?!?!) Thank you for the reminder!
Eliza
Eliza, yeah. Let’s not get started on the swimming pool.
Re: Evangelical Spandex at the Gym. It is well-known that your no-quarter November articles purposefully generate more heat than light, but it is shameful that an older Christian man would refer to Christian women who you are to regard as sisters and daughters in the faith as “hoochie mamas” and speak of “money makers” and “jumping her bones.” Let’s say a woman who has this particular problem reads your blog. Will she be edified? Will she have some clue as to constructive ways to remedy her situation? No. She will just feel icked out that an older man who is supposed to be respectable as an elder in a church has talked about someone wanting to “jump her bones.” I am a married Christian woman pursuing godliness, and as such I want no man’s attention other than my husband’s. I’ve also abandoned gyms entirely in favor of home workouts because believe me, there is no workout gear modest enough to keep creeps from ogling when all I want is 30 minutes on the elliptical. Articles like yours may have the unfortunate effect of justifying men in their sinful lust.
Evelyn
Evelyn, I agree that if that happened, it would be unfortunate. But keep in mind that we are on the same side, wanting the same thing. The goal should be public decency, and lives that line up with the gospel. But I am afraid we have cultivated a licentious church with a very prim and thin veneer. Because we won’t say what all the men are thinking, the men continue to think it. And the show gets gaudier and gaudier, with the Christian women thinking all is well . . . because if it were not, wouldn’t somebody say something?
In regards to Evangelical Spandex at the Gym: How do you square your stance on yoga pants and spandex with CS Lewis’ thoughts on modesty from Mere Christianity?
“The Christian rule of chastity must not be confused with the social rule of ‘modesty’ (in one sense of that word); i.e. propriety, or decency. The social rule of propriety lays down how much of the human body should be displayed and what subjects can be referred to, and in what words, according to the customs of a given social circle. Thus, while the rule of chastity is the same for all Christians at all times, the rule of propriety changes. A girl in the Pacific islands wearing hardly any clothes and a Victorian lady completely covered in clothes might both be equally ‘modest,’ proper, or decent, according to the standards of their own societies: and both, for all we could tell by their dress, might be equally chaste (or equally unchaste).“
Or, “When people break the rule of propriety current in their own time and place, if they do so in order to excite lust in themselves or others, then they are offending against chastity. But if they break it through ignorance or carelessness they are guilty only of bad manners. When, as often happens, they break it defiantly in order to shock or embarrass others, they are not necessarily being unchaste, but they are being uncharitable: for it is uncharitable to take pleasure in making other people uncomfortable.”
Could it be that the wearing of yoga pants falls more in the category of societal propriety? Is the wearing of spandex appropriate in any situation? Is it possible that other cultures do not view yoga pants in this fashion? It would seem Lewis’ solution prescient here:
“At its present stage, however, it has this inconvenience, that people of different ages and different types do not all acknowledge the same standard, and we hardly know where we are. While this confusion lasts I think that old, old-fashioned, people should be very careful not to assume that young or ’emancipated’ people are corrupt whenever they are (by the old standard) improper; and, in return, that young people should not call their elders prudes or puritans because they do not easily adopt the new standard. A real desire to believe all the good you can of others and to make others as comfortable as you can will solve most of the problems.”
Thank you in advance for response as I’m just trying to align two men who’s teaching I respect greatly.
P.S. The other main point of your article regarding discipline was much appreciated. Thank you for that and God bless.
James
James, I agree entirely with the point that Lewis is making here, and I can think of any number of examples. The kind of mandatory knee length skirt required by a very conservative Christian high school today would have been the occasion of scandal in Victorian England. So I take Lewis’s point, and his examples. The issue is where we would categorize this trend. It is very much a matter of sexual decadence. I think the designers and advertisers of stretch pants are sinning against chastity. I think that Christian women who wear them might be sinning against chastity, or it might be bad manners through ignorance.
Great Idea for a Christmas Present
Re: The Cultural Mind quotes
So ever since the first quote I read from this book I have been trying to find it…. is it a work in progress and I just need to learn patience?
Laurel
Laurel, here you go.
Another Business Question
Freebie question: Could our church purchase Canon+ subscriptions for multiple members at the $49 price? Sounds like a subscriber can only purchase “a” (singular) discounted subscription.
Thanks
BJ
BJ, the short answer is yes. But there is a small catch. You would have to do it one at a time, using the gift subscription. The tech guys are working on a way to do in one fell swoop, but that won’t be ready for a few months yet.
The Forgiveness Quandry
Are Christians ever required to forgive a person even if that person never repents? Is forgiveness only to be extended when asked for?
Rose
Rose, the short answer is yes, but with a qualification. Forgiveness is to be extended before it is requested, but it cannot be transacted until it is requested. I tell people to wrap their forgiveness up, like it was a Christmas present, and to keep it by the front door. If the person finally comes and requests it, you don’t have to hunt for it. You have already settled the matter in principle.
Those Timely Puritans
I have been reading a little on the history of the Puritans in England, Scotland, etc. during the 1600’s, etc. And just looking at the broad outlines of their history, and how they lived and responded and acted in the context of the ruling authorities in England (e.g. toward the King and Parliament, etc.), I think I see that they have more in common with the more biblically “militant” pastors and Christian leaders of our time (e.g. Doug Wilson and John MacArthur), than with those of us Reformed who are quick to read Puritan books and quote them AND TO PRAISE THE PURITANS FOR THEIR GODLY COURAGE, but yet who (with the best biblical intentions and a good conscience before God) would be much more quick to submit to our civil rulers and distance themselves from any kind of conflict for anything short of the government dictating to what they could preach from the pulpit, or demanding some kind of flagrant sin (e.g. “marrying” homosexuals, etc.), etc.
These “pietistic” Puritan lovers (like I tend to be) might object and say that the Puritan situation in England under a state religion, is entirely different from our situation here in the U.S., since we don’t have a state church/religion in this country, and we are “free to worship as we please” where the Puritans were not. But I think this would be an argument about words and names and not about substance, e.g. since the U.S. government is openly operating under the presuppositions and guidelines of the “state religion” of atheism, or whatever you want to call it.
Like I said, my thinking on this is very vague and the ideas and similarities just barely taking shape in my head. Do you think there is a valid, direct comparison between the Puritans and their situation in 1600’s England and our “post-Christian” situation in the U.S.? . . . Or, on the other hand, if the Puritans were over here in our time maybe they would simply be taking similar stands to those godly pastors who refuse to be silenced in the pulpit, refuse to perform homosexual “marriages,” bow the knee to BLM, CRT, and other woke things., etc.
What are your thoughts, please?
Robert
Robert, I think you are very much on to something. Continue down that road, and maybe pick up the pace a little.
Always a Postmill Question
I am trying to reconcile Matthew 24:1-35 with postmillenialism. If there is to be a great period of Christian ethics on earth before the return of Christ, how does this reconcile with the end times spelt out in Matt 24:10 (apostasy, betrayal, hatred, false prophets) and the dire predictions in 2 Tim 3:1-9? Does the key lie in verse 14 of Matt 24: “And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come”. Does this verse mean that not only with the gospel be preached, but it will be obeyed? Does the period in 2 Tim 3:1-9 therefore come before the period of Christian ethics flourishing? If you have written on this point, could you please refer me to those posts? Thanks for your time.
Regards
David
David, I take those descriptions as applying to the first century, and the “end” being referred to is the end of the old Judaic aeon.
Do you see any significance in the forty-two generations listed in Matthew 1 and the references to 42 months repeatedly used in Revelation 11?
Tom
Tom, my initial reaction is no, but I also have to say I never considered that before. So let me think about it.
“A word to my postmillennial friends:
Doesn’t Jesus tell his disciples to make disciples of all nations, baptizing them, you might ask? Yes, but, first, Jesus moves from the neuter “nations” to a masculine ‘them,’ meaning he’s talking about people.”
What do you make of this remark?
Thanks and please, continue the good work.
Christian
Christian, yes. Of course he talking about people. You disciple nations by discipling people. You baptize nations by baptizing people. You teach obedience to nations by teaching obedience to people.
Honoring a Poor Father
Could you help me think about how I can honor my Christian father who abandoned me as a kid? I want to honor God by the way I interact with my dad. How do I go about honoring him if the way he treated us by leaving is something that I would describe as cowardice and abnegation if I saw a dad doing that to their kids?
Any help would be much appreciated.
Will
Will, on the assumption that this is something that your father needs to learn about himself, honoring him is going to be the surest way to get to the place where you might be able to tell him. He does not need the truth asserted simply. He needs to hear the truth. And you don’t have to honor the desertion itself. You can’t honor the sin. But you can honor the sinner. You can salute the uniform.
Smashmouth Incrementalism & Pro-Life Stuff
I’m just now starting to process the abolitionist/ incrementalist debate wanting to honestly come down on the right side of the issue. I have to wonder what Christ would have to say about it? I’m having a bit of trouble imagining Him signing off on an incrementalist bill (or voting for a candidate that holds to incrementalism), whether it’s abortion or any other godless societal behavior. Do we have record of our Lord ever negotiating with man in sinful behavior? My mind is still open to arguments, pro or con.
Rob
Rob, sure. Moses granted divorce because of man’s hardness of heart, and Jesus approved of Moses doing so.
A pro-life group came to the university I work at today (abortionno.org). I met with them and was mightily encouraged to see them on this campus. I started to look into their volunteer requirements and they have one line that I’m having a difficult time with:
“Commitment to non-violence: Do you condemn all forms of violence in pro-life activism and refuse to collaborate with groups or individuals who fail to condemn such violence?”
I don’t know if I can condemn this. I understand that vigilante violence is a violation of God’s law and can easily condemn that. What about self defense? What about if we actually get the civil magistrate punish abortionists? What about if our cold civil war turns into a hot one?
My question to you is: should I be able to make such a commitment to this condemnation? Am I in sin for my current inability to do so?
Thank you for your faithful teaching,
Thomas
Thomas, it seems to me that they are simply trying to exclude clinic-bombers. If it came out that they were a pacifist group, meaning no use of force under any circumstances, then of course you could not sign. But this seems like a common sense requirement on their part.
Inductive Bible Study
I recently finished Ploductivity, and in the post script you mentioned the inductive Bible study method. Could you point me to a good resource to learn more about that? Jay
Jay
Jay, here you go. This is where I learned it.
The Constitutional Convention
A friend got me devouring Gary North’s “Conspiracy in Philadelphia.” I’m hooked. It sounds too good to be true.
I know you’ve read more North books than most of my generation has read at all—I’m hoping you’ve read this one. Do you agree with his thesis that the Constitutional Convention is more likened to a coup than the glorious narrative that’s been taught for two centuries, and —if so—how are Christian nationalists to rebuild in light of this alarming truth?
Cole
Cole, like Patrick Henry, I also smelled a rat. But I don’t go quite as far as North does. I don’t think it was a coup—all the states voted, and successfully got their stipulations attached. The Bill of Rights was the contribution of the Anti-Federalists, and with them attached, I was content with the resultant compromise. But I do think they should have locked a few more doors than they did.
I am one of the privileged few who managed to obtain a NQN flag. It is hanging proudly in my apartment, a daily reminder of this month’s festivities.
I am newly out of the evanjelly way of life, but find myself unprepared to pick fights like Paul and Schaeffer, as you mentioned in “Like Dead Flies on a Windowsill”. At my core, I am a weak people-pleaser. I dislike strong disagreement with those I am closest to.
I am convinced, however, that I must fight for truth, because I love these people.
What would you recommend for a 20-something who knows it’s time to grow up and fight like a man?
Lucas
Lucas, I would suggest this. Start praying that God would send you one situation where you need to step up, and that you would recognize it as it is coming. And that you would acquit yourself well. Then do that again.
Thank you for your ministry, it has been a blessing to my wife and me.
Unfortunately I cannot recall a specific post, but throughout your blogs, you have mentioned something to the liking of, “The evangelical academy advocates for a winsome charity over proclaiming truth, as to stay in the ‘guild.'” Could you give some wisdom here to a pastor-in-training? I’m in an excellent seminary, and for a class I had to review multiple commentaries to figure out their aim and give a critique. One of them was an IVP publication where the author glossed over what the Bible said in favor of a feminist interpretation of the reading (which wasn’t even truthful in the slightest to the text). I gave my critique of the egalitarian/feminist position, and closed by saying I was baffled this even received publication. I felt my response was in proportion to what the content of the commentary warranted. My professor and TA disagreed, encouraging me to have ‘Christian Charity’ in my response, as the author is a well-accomplished scholar in the evangelical sphere, and I need to learn to engage winsomely with those on the “other side.”
How do I maneuver around this?What insight do you have regarding this whole “If it’s published academically absolutely no harsh criticism is warranted?” I’m considering this a taste of what the future holds for me in the evangelical world, and I see myself in one respect or another becoming blacklisted like yourself or MacArthur. Is the evangelical academy really that opposed to conscience and conviction? Sorry, I know that’s a lot, respond however God leads you.
Caleb
Caleb, welcome to the fray. And you will find this kind of thing everywhere.
Did I Break My November Rule?
“the ecclesiastical lynchings that occurred in the name of dealing with sexual offenders (never forgetting that sometimes lynch mobs do get the right guy)” Was that a qualification to appease people looking to misread? Are we starting the season by breaking the rules?
“The cardinal deadly sin in the unique evangelical lexicon had become meanness, and their cardinal virtue had become niceness”
This is spot on one of my biggest criticisms of the church for most of my life. The church (small c) confuses niceness for kindness. The laws of kindness are defined by God. We can measure it with Scripture. Coming from God, kindness is always good. The laws of niceness are cultural and defined by man. Niceness is a slurry of arbitrary rules derived from the personal opinions of everyone from Kshama Sawant to Abraham Piper to David French. Niceness is pestilence. While kindness has that objective measuring stick in Scripture, niceness is a constantly moving target, determined subjectively by whatever person has self elected to become the judge. Kindness tells us to be gentle with struggling brothers. Niceness tells us to lie to them to let them fall into self delusion. Kindness tells us to protect the sheep from the wolves. Niceness tells us to pretend wolves don’t exist, and allow sheep to be slaughtered in the name of that lie.
Niceness has none of the goodness, but all the appearance of it, yet churches swoon for niceness as a younger sister in a Jane Austen novel.
Good article I suppose is the point of the letter? I don’t really have a question or objection. You just kind of got me started on a thought process there. Thanks as always for the work.
Justin
Justin, I suppose you could argue there was a technical violation there, but let us not be legalistic. Amen to all the rest.
Long Standing Porn Problem
How long should a wife endure her husband’s attraction to porn? Does it constitute Biblical grounds for divorce? I’m sorry—I know this isn’t “How it’s done. ” But I’m about at my limit. He’s 90, I’m 75; married in 1998. Both previously divorced, both previously widowed. Both profess Christ, one attends Sunday worship. Thank you.
E
E, if this is unrepented porn use, and not just “attraction to” porn (e.g. temptation), then it is possibly grounds for divorce. But if you have known about it for an extended period of time, then divorcing him now that he is 90 is an additional complication. Are there other factors in play? There could be strong reasons both directions, and so I would strongly recommend seeking out pastoral counsel where you live.
Psalm Learning
As someone who has no experience for richly liturgical churches, how can I learn to chant the Psalms?
Thanks
Levi
Levi, the Christ Church web site has a number of videos to help learn different kinds of psalms, but if you want chanting lessons, I am sure there are entire YouTube counties dedicated to something like that.
Am I a Traducian or Not?
A couple of weeks ago someone by the name of Marne wrote a letter with several questions in it. One of the questions wasn’t answered, and I was kind of curious to hear your answer myself. So here it is. “What is your conviction on when our souls are ‘made.’ Is it when the egg is fertilized or are our souls made before conception?”
Rose
Rose, I don’t believe that Scripture teaches that our souls are made before conception. The two basic options are the creationist view, which holds that God creates the soul at the moment of creation, and the traducianist view which holds that we inherit our souls from mother and father, just like we do our bodies. The Reformed tend to be creationist, and the Lutherans traducionist. On this one, I lean traducianist, but I haven’t settled yet.
A How-To Manual on House Building
Didn’t you once recommend a book that teaches you how to build your own house? I know you essentially did that, correct?
I’ve searched the blog and can’t find it, but I know I’m not crazy!
Chris
Chris, yes. A friend loaned the book to me, and I can’t remember the name of it. But I used it faithfully.
Saving the Awkward Question for Last
This will be an uncomfortable topic—but I believe it would be helpful to clarify biblically for those who deal with this.
In various articles you have discussed the “natural use” of the woman—and what sexual acts are constituted as within God’s framework and intent—and those that are not. In the specific article that you wrote—I believe you were dealing with anal sex as prohibited biblically. I thought the argument was simple yet cogent. In fact, I think the argument biblically is fairly obvious.
That said, anal sex is not the only type of issue that sinful men deal with, of course. I know you have dealt with fetishes and like topics (like feet, etc) and have mentioned them being juvenile and potentially unhelpful. Would you apply the same argument to fetishes? For definition sake—I am talking about parts of the body that are sexually stimulating for a man. I am not talking about the type of fetish or interest that renders a man uninterested or unstimulated by any other part of the female body unless that fetish is catered to. For example—I am curious to know if it is SINFUL for a man to find sexual satisfaction in an unusual part of the female body like the feet. Do you think this is a perversion that needs to be bled out? Or an interest that needs to be kept in its proper place and proportion? For example, like a man who enjoys the breasts or legs of his wife?
Thank you Doug for your faithfulness to the Lord and His Word. Blessings to you, your family, and your church.
Anon
Anon, the best I can do here is give a general rule of thumb. I believe the Song of Solomon encourages us to think that the lover finds many aspects of his beloved’s body as fascinating and attractive. He runs through quite an inventory. But I think a problem is developing when such an interest rises to the level of that “interest” routinely substituting for ordinary sexual intercourse. As foreplay, I think a couple should do what they both enjoy. The fundamental kink arrives when we try to get rid of God’s idea of a good finale.
1. Step it up. A Twitter word count existence? * Meaning my conversations stop at “I’m a Christian” I’m only able to loop,” I’m a Christian” when talking with a stranger. Is that enough?.. it’s not because it’s only a segway. I’m equipped to give an answer if anyone asks. Seems to me they assume to already know enough and dont want to know more. * Unless I’m a street evangelist ? * plus I’m a woman. * seems that starting a bible study in a cafe might be doable. I don’t want to focus on me and my no… Read more »
I do not have a solution for you but I may have some suggestions if you’ll pardon a bit of related rambling first. I was remarking the other night how I can find little written for women interested in Christian persuasion and would greatly appreciate more specialized direction on giving an answer in a feminine way. As I shall run out of Dorothy Sayers’ books eventually, I was quite happy to find “A Serrated Edge” by the proprietor of this blog. However, in the course of reading it, I realized that it was aimed primarily at preachers, by definition men,… Read more »
The question that everyone must be asking is ‘how does Doug Wilson know what women wear to the gym’? …
It’s not difficult. The same “empowered” womyn often go to grocery stores, shopping malls, parks, etc. afterwards in the same yoga pants, painted-on “booty shorts,” etc. Of course it’s not quite as bad as them doing squats 5 feet in front of you as you’re trying to work out (might as well be at a strip club sometimes), but still…
Pretty sure that was just a fat joke Cherrera.
I figured that but decided to respond anyway. If Ken B. wants to “fat shame” DW (which I don’t necessarily have a problem with), he should attach his own picture, though. I’m sure he’s 6″4″, 280 pounds with 5% body fat, but he should at least send proof.
Well I used to be a fair bit overweight though not unfit from cycling. It creeps up on you as you get older! An increase in cycling coupled with a permanent change in diet – now more or less plant-based, meat has gone and almost all dairy, and the weight has come down to and stayed at a healthy level. I might also add the blood values that doctors usually complain about for people my age are also pretty good too. I was incredibly and irrationally resistant to this until my better half showed me a picture of what I… Read more »
“ now more or less plant-based, meat has gone”
Most likely any good results you’re seeing from that is simply from getting rid of processed foods. “More or less meat-and-animal based, most plants gone” has served me much better.
Statistically speaking, anyone who goes from an unregulated diet, to closely adhering to a new diet, ANY new diet, sees success. This is true regardless of the merits or faults of the new diet.
I’m not taking sides here. If I were, I’m more inclined to side with Cherrera’s meat and animal foods, but in either direction your personal experiences are more likely linked to this generalized truth.
The canteen where I worked offered three choices of meal. When I started the weight loss campaign I simply chose whichever had the fewest calories. This meant I ate vegetarian at least 4 times a week. Couple this with my better half going vegetarian and then to a vegan diet for health reasons and my meat comsumption plummeted. I gave up meat 9 years ago and now simply don’t want it. But I don’t tell others what they should or shouldn’t eat, too often the case with non meat eaters. I would certainly recommend massively reducing it even if you… Read more »
Documentaries? Really? As if things like “What the Health” are anything more than propaganda that have been thoroughly debunked. And yes, there have been documentaries on the benefits of eating mostly meat. But contrary to your claim, the meat and dairy industry don’t support them and have little influence. Here’s an “across the pond” guy in his 70s eating a mostly animal-based diet and doing great. He lost of ton of weight and is thriving. Note that the guy doing the interview (Dr. Baker) eats a pure carnivore diet and is at least 5 years older than the famous/infamous vegan… Read more »
cower in fear over a virus Yesterday a former colleague phoned me up out of the blue. She was infected with Corona at the beginning of the year. Carried on working during and after the infection, which was not I believe too nasty. She now has long covid. Has been signed off work since March. Can do only the very mininum of exercise. Walks to the shop and back, that’s it for the day. No getting out on the bike. Thought she was getting better in June/July but then relapsed in August. There is no end in sight to this… Read more »
“Now this may only happen to a minority of those who are infected, but it ought to serve as a wake up call to the ‘it’s just like flu’ brigade.” Obviously not, as this personal anecdote of yours is so rare as to be completely unheard of for most people. How can something they only hear about on the internet from people they already disagree with be a wake up call? “ I’ve seen estimates that up to 25% of the infected population can go on to experience varying levels of detrimental effects several weeks after an infection ended.” This… Read more »
The personal anecdote is not so rare. That ought to be of concern to everyone including the deniers and those obsessed with their own personal autonomy (Hitchens’ disciples, for example). There is a range of estimates as to how frequently this occurs and how serious. In the UK the British Medical Journal and the Lancet are the go to places for informed medical opinion, and in Germany the Robert Koch Institut. The latter has a range of studies on percentages and ages, and how long the condition goes on for. There hasn’t been time for long-term studies by definition, but… Read more »
“I don’t know why you have such a downer on public broadcasting. “
It was the assertion that simply being on public broadcasting was an assurance of quality.
I don’t think I can ever remember a time when the BBC wasn’t being criticised for political bias, the right saying it was leftist and vice versa. At the very least when profit isn’t at stake public broadcasters have a chance of objective reporting even if they don’t always succeed at it. They can resist special interests and lobbying. Currently the Conservatives in the UK are making noises about selling off the BBC – they don’t like objective reporting and a billionaire friend of theirs owning the BBC would be in a position to tone things down a bit when… Read more »
“When I started the weight loss campaign I simply chose whichever had the fewest calories. This meant I ate vegetarian at least 4 times a week.” So you regulated your diet to eat fewer calories, and then you lost weight. ” I have little doubt that overall vegetarian is healthier, and my doctor concurs.” I have little doubt that overall vegetarian is less healthy, and my doctor concurs. Did that change your mind? No? Then you can probably see now how weak this is as at making your case. I don’t want to change your diet. I truthfully don’t care. I… Read more »
I changed diet and lost weight by cutting down and eventually cutting out meat. That was the major change.
“It’s not just meat v veg, it’s all the other things that go with it, such as avoiding too much sugar, processed foods, and particularly in Britain convenience (junk) food, cakes and biscuits.”
I don’t believe you Ken. Instead, I believe Ken.
Yes, just a bit of English humour.
On a slightly more serious note, if beauty is in the eye of the beholder, to what extent does this apply to lust?
If modesty entails not flaunting curves (and I think it does) then shouldn’t there be a corresponding admonition to men to excercise self-control over their thoughts?
That said, my understanding of ‘modesty’ in 1 Tim 2 is at least as much about not flaunting wealth in what women wear, but this doesn’t seem to feature much in discussions of this chapter,
“If modesty entails not flaunting curves (and I think it does) then shouldn’t there be a corresponding admonition to men to excercise self-control over their thoughts?”
Sure, but right now, about 99% of the church is saying “It’s all up to you perverted guys to control your lusts. So what if women are wearing next to nothing and flaunting their bodies? You shouldn’t be objectifying them or lusting!”
The 1% even hinting that women should dress modestly have to dodge arrows and bullets as soon as they speak up.
I feel like I’ve answered this question extremely recently on this very board, but I agree with C.S. Lewis on the issue. If a girl dresses with intent to incite lust, she is guilty of a sin. If she dresses with the intent to be modest, but accidentally incites lust, she is merely guilty of bad manners and naivety. I’ll be first to say that men are overwhelmingly responsible for their own thoughts while looking. That said, the reason it doesn’t get emphasis here is that it gets emphasis everywhere. There are no significant groups arguing that men should be… Read more »
This has actually been a moral dilemma for me. On the one hand, there are so many benefits to going to the gym, but on the other, it seems impossible to go without some bimbo there doing her little “work out” performance.
James makes a good point regarding C.S. Lewis’s observation on cultural differences in garb or lack thereof varying in sex appeal – so I’d say that the day American men quit finding butts attractive would be the day that Christian women wearing spandex in the gym would no longer pose any temptation issues. But I really hope that never happens. After all, I’d hate for my sons to have to grow up in a world where their wife’s booty was just the asexual equivalent of her big toe or earlobe. I’d *rather* see Pacific Islanders suddenly find female boobs amazing,… Read more »
Heh, I read Anon’s question after writing this. So a slight touche.
Not just Pacific Islanders. There are other places in the world where toplessness in women is not considered immodest
There are certainly things which I once considered mildly immodest which I now can consider modest enough–usually because too many nice girls wore them. But there are probably some immodest cultures, and there are things that I would never want my wife or daughter to wear in public. Part of that is my upbringing, and in most contexts in Christian cultures, at least all the ones that I know about, toplessness in women is considered immodest. It may be due to cold weather making it inconvenient, but it may be just the way things are.
RE: Traducianism, read the chapter on Traducianism in Shedd’s Dogmatic Theology. It convinced me.
Rob asked: “Do we have record of our Lord ever negotiating with man in sinful behavior?” Doug Wilson responded: “Rob, sure. Moses granted divorce because of man’s hardness of heart, and Jesus approved of Moses doing so.” Of course, that doesn’t answer Rob’s question in the slightest. Our Lord wasn’t “negotiating with man in sinful behavior” when He granted permission for divorce (Dt. 24:1), as if divorce *itself* is a sinful act that God tolerated. Moreover, Jesus certainly wasn’t “approving” of sinful behavior when He referred to it (Matt. 19:8). Deuteronomy 24:1 permits a man to *lawfully* divorce his wife… Read more »
After posting my original comments/questions on the abolitionist/incrementalist debate I had seconds thoughts about my wording on this question…. “Do we have record of our Lord ever negotiating with man in sinful behavior?” Of course our Lord never negotiates with men in their sinful behavior because He cannot go against His nature. I meant it as more rhetorical. No one can deny incrementalism in this debate is negotiation. Maybe the correct word(ing) should be “capitulation.” I have to admit to the cleverness of sinful man, regenerate or un-regenerate, to muddy up the issues. May God be merciful!
Re: C.S. Lewis
Here’s an interesting article regarding Lewis & homosexuality.
Well….. that was certainly “interesting” as you said….
I wouldn’t call it very informative though.
Why not? Were you already aware Lewis’ predilections, sexual and otherwise?
The article is a propaganda piece. It is crafted to deliberately skew information to trick people into a predetermined conclusion. It ignores all standards of historical research, it poisons the well, it cites third parties as authoritative while ignoring more reliable sources for the same information, it jumbles contexts to insert implications in the text, but beyond it all it ignores the most important issue, who cares? We’re Protestants, not Catholics. We do not idolize our theologians. C.S. Lewis is admired for expressions of Christian ideas, not because he lived a sinless life. While I don’t believe this article is… Read more »
“We’re Protestants, not Catholics. We do not idolize our theologians.”
To be fair, Catholics wouldn’t idolize Tolkien or Flannery O’Conner either. Lewis wrote Christian fiction and books on Christian living and ideas. He wasn’t a bishop, priest or other minister. He didn’t craft creeds, confessions or position statements for the Church of England or anyone else. You’re spot on about it being a propaganda piece, though. And Lewis was no fan of hypersensualized, hypersexualised societies. Regardless of what he might have said about homosexuality, he’d be revolted by Pride parades and alphabet culture as a whole if he lived now.
“To be fair, Catholics wouldn’t idolize Tolkien or Flannery O’Conner either.” In my experience, Catholics have a tendency to both be defensive about their own religious icons, as well as assume that others share a defensiveness with religious icons. I remember the election night watch in 2004 I think this was. I was at the King County (Washington) election watch event, my father ran a state party organization of relative importance, and he had attracted an oddly Catholic centered fanbase to his political activities. The Catholics had a consistent interest in converting my father and myself to Catholicism, and this… Read more »
As far as I can tell, Jill holds to a Pope Fracis-ish flavor of RC that wouldn’t deny the Eucharist to Joe Biden or the Pelosis. She’s friendly with some long-time participants here so it’s kind of taboo to say that. But I wouldn’t put her in a “most faithful believer” category. I might say that about some trad Caths and EOs I know, but not her. It won’t win me any popularity contests to say that, but so be it.
If you’d like to take that up with her that’s between the two of you. I was specifying her to clarify that I was doing the opposite, NOT calling her out. I don’t know that she’s an ally and friend, but she’s near enough to one that I have no interest in quibbling the Vatican unless she’s the one interested in the topic. My point was to establish why I used that point of comparison. In my experience, Catholics do respond very defensively about the personal character of their hero figures, including authors. I don’t. At all. Even a little… Read more »
Was this the modesty police the Psalm sing? The arrestee’s pants look very close to spandex. What about the tight jeans in the background? By what standard are these ok? Honest question, are 17 year old girls forbidden from competing in swimming? A standard one piece swim suit, and even jammer swim shorts are no worse than spandex/yoga pants? Is Christ Church exercising discipline over these situations? Why not?
^————————————————————————–^
You ————————————————————The point
The article wasn’t about spandex itself as a substance.
That’s not even close to the painted-on “cracks and crevices” stuff women wear to the gym. Not-so-nice try, though. Please troll elsewhere.