Modesty

Modesty is definitely addressed in the Bible, but Christians consistently inflate the scriptural concepts to unbiblical proportions in an attempt to solve the problem of men’s lust. In the typical dialogue on this issue, I detect three very crippling opinions: that bodies are evil, that men have uncontrollable sex drives, and that it is selfish for a woman to be beautiful.

Bodies as evil

Not long ago, when I heard liberal voices accusing conservative Christians of labeling the body as evil, dirty, and sinful, I thought they were being a bit harsh. I didn’t remember any sensible Christian saying anything like that.

Yet as I’ve listened to more conservative opinions on modesty, I’m amazed at how consistently this undertone can be identified in the rhetoric. Here’s an example from www.minthegap.com, one of the first articles I found in a search for bible modesty:

However, because of sin, there is only one person that should see your body—your husband/wife. Displaying that body now tells the story of the morally loose woman, not the morally pure. (http://www.minthegap.com/2007/07/12/what-does-the-bible-say-about-modesty/).

This article goes to great length to explain that there is “nothing wrong with your body,” yet ends with this absolute statement that, “because of sin,” only your husband or wife should see your body.

When does the Bible say this? What about your doctor? What about your parent? What about your child?

… sin at the fall made us feel shame—and shame is not wrong when it comes to sin and nakedness… Just think about every time you go to look for a swimsuit. Even if you have a terrific body, you still fuss over which one will hide the “bad areas”, etc. (http://isthismodest.com/2008/11/13/good-excuse/)

This one says it more bluntly: breasts are bad; genitals are bad. Sin and nakedness are used side by side, as if they were synonyms. But where, after God declares that his creation is excellent in every way do we read the amendment, “Breasts are no longer good. Shoulders and thighs are under review.”

Shame is useful if it points out sin in our lives and drives us to repent and return to a right relationship with God. There is no use in feeling shame about our bodies: good things given to us by God himself.

Men as villains

Often conservative articles will admit that the Bible isn’t concerned with the amount of thigh or breast or midriff that is visible on a woman. Dress standards are determined by society, but God is concerned about the attitude and the heart, not what’s hanging off of the body. So as long a woman’s heart is in the right place, what she wears is secondary, right?

Wrong. Because, as we all know, we must always be aware of these volatile creatures known as men. Men are well-meaning beasts, but are known to spontaneously burst into bonfires of uncontrollable lust when placed within eyeshot of female skin. In fact, in many cases, combustion only requires a hint of the female shape beneath fabric.

Joking aside, as a man I find it somewhat degrading to be identified as the gender with such a lack of self-control that women must be constantly vigilant lest they “cause us to stumble” by doing everyday actions like bending to pick up a pen. The constant message—to both women and men—in these discussions of modesty is that men are slaves to their sex drive: that sexual temptation is as good as sexual sin.

By insisting that a bare thigh causes men to think sexual thoughts, we make this the reality. By constantly warning that the inevitable reaction to cleavage is lust on the part of men, we turn them into the villains that we fear. Men are constantly reminded which parts of a woman are “supposed” to cause a sexual reaction, and so that’s what happens. We criticize our culture for being hyper-sexualized, yet instead of fostering mastery of our bodies and setting an example of how Christian men and women can interact with freedom and restraint, we adopt the culture and become slaves to it, trying to band-aid the problem with more clothing.

Beauty as selfishness

The true arena for the fight between modesty and immodesty is in a woman’s mind and heart. It’s true; if a woman is dressing in order to attract attention because she craves acceptance or praise, she is being immodest, by definition.

Just as our language or our habits can speak for our character, so our choice of clothing can send messages, and we should be aware of this. Admittedly, black leather miniskirts or sexy lingerie communicate different intention than a baggy T-shirt and sweatpants.

Yet we seem to often go beyond the heart and condemn ladies that dress in a way that flatters or reveals their bodies. A beautiful woman should be ashamed if she doesn’t show appropriate self-diminishment by sufficiently obscuring all of her attractive features. If she wears tight jeans, or short shorts and a sleeveless shirt on a hot summer day, she is accused of promoting herself and not Jesus Christ, and she bears part of the responsibility for all the men who notice her and lust uncontrollably.

Bodies—and especially the female variety, I suggest—are beautiful. God created them, declared them very good, and never gave us instructions to cover them up. Modesty is important as it relates to the attitude and motives of women—mostly I think because of the power in the beauty of their bodies.

Let’s not be so draconian as to unduly saddle women with men’s self-control issues, and burden them with the guilt that their God-given beauty will be the cause of other people’s sin. The solution to men’s lust is a healthy view of women as people, not a smokescreen of unflattering clothing. The solution to women’s desire for acceptance is a healthy view of themselves as people, not an emphasis on clothing and their role as sexualized objects.

You have died with Christ, and he has set you free from the evil powers of this world. So why do you keep on following rules of the world, such as, "Don't handle, don't eat, don't touch." Such rules are mere human teaching about things that are gone as soon as we use them. These rules may seem wise because they require strong devotion, humility, and severe bodily discipline. But they have no effect when it comes to conquering a person's evil thoughts and desires. (Colossians 2:20-23)

Sex and the Unmarried Christian

I watched Rent a few days ago (the 2005 film directed by Chris Columbus) with my mom and younger brother. Well, tried to watch it. I ended up taking the initiative to stop the DVD in the middle of Mimi's dance at the nightclub. I shut if off because of this provocative display.

So, I asked myself, why did I feel so embarrassed about watching that erotic dance scene? Would I have stopped the film there had I been watching it alone?

First, let's talk about the idea of unmarried people learning about sex.

I've seen video with more graphic displays than that dance while alone. If you've read my post on lust, you'll know that I believe that there is a difference between viewing a naked body, or even viewing depictions of sexual acts, and sinning due to lust. I admit that I have failed to draw the line at times, and have been irresponsible in my viewing of sexual imagery. I acknowledge the power of such imagery and the danger of abusing it and becoming addicted to it. However, I maintain the position that viewing “pornography” may be acceptable for a person who is honestly curious about the mechanics or physiology of sex.

Our society is obsessed with sex, yet at the same time is terrified of exposing young people to anything sexual. In my experience, sex education (both at school and in my family) has provided the essential information to understand sex as a method of reproduction. I'm thankful for that, but am beginning to wonder if it is adequate. As Christians, we value maintaining sexual purity until marriage, which typically means no sex. Again, I'm on board. But it seems to also translate into no seeing sex and no talking about sex. “You shouldn't even be thinking about sex!”

I would say that my family is uncomfortable with talking candidly about sex. We likely assume that if sex happens after marriage, there shouldn't be anything to talk about for unmarried people. During my early adolescence I found the courage to ask my dad about masturbation. I remember him reacting with mild disgust—perhaps embarrassment—and asking me where I had heard the word, as if, under ideal circumstances, the idea would have never occurred to me and we wouldn't be talking about it.

I think it's fair to say that even if adolescents decide to abstain from sexual contact until marriage, they are still going to spend some time thinking about sex. Speaking as an unmarried twenty-something-year-old whose sex drive has been running full tilt for almost a decade, if I can't have sex in God's will until I marry, I'd at least like to know a thing or two about it in the meantime. I find it difficult to expect people who don't marry for ten years after puberty to completely deny their undeniable sexuality, including their curiosity about the opposite sex and sexual relations.

I read an opinion recently that suggests not only sexual abstinence before marriage, but also "emotional" abstinence before "betrothal." To quote a portion of the article:

Thus, my children do not participate in dating. Ideally, they don t even allow themselves to dream about romantic relationships.

So the ideal in this case is to suppress all sexual thoughts and (if I read right) even any dreams of future romance. Is this the model of purity to which the Bible calls us? Parents had better start tearing out Song of Solomon from their teens' Bibles; they wouldn't want to put any thoughts into those innocent little minds about how passionate and pleasurable God's design for romance and sex might be.

I realize that this article on The Onion is exaggerated satire based on the idea that abstaining from sex before marriage will make you an incompetent lover. But seriously, following these 200% abstinence ideologies, isn't there risk in entering a full-on sexual relationship overnight, not only completely ignorant of your sexuality and that of your spouse but possibly very embarrassed about the whole idea of sex, having never before considered or openly discussed the topic. To me, these two problems combined could be enough to seriously damage the sex life of a newlywed couple.

The other trouble with not allowing—even encouraging—open dialog about sex in a Christian household is that the answers kids don't find at home (or are too embarrassed to ask) will likely be found through ill-informed chatter with peers or in the skewed, perverted representations in TV shows, music, or porn.

Fortunately for me, I feel that I've come to a balanced view of sex, considering my relatively inexperienced point in life, and I credit this to weighing what I've heard and seen about sex in today's culture against what I know about it from the Bible. I don't have the fullness of experience to say for sure, but I think I'm better informed and prepared for a sexual relationship with my wife (should I eventually marry) because of some of the material I've read and the images and video that I've viewed, in conjunction with the truth of God's word and my relationship with him.

Now that I come to it, I'm amazed at how much I know about sex from the Bible. Still, I think part of this knowledge has come from exposure to sex, coupled with dialogue, prayer, and scripture. That seems like learning that should be facilitated by a Christian household.

So, if I'm such a libertarian, why did I turn off the racy dance scene?

If I allow myself to be exposed to sexual imagery, and claim that it has been part of a valuable learning experience, why would I turn off a sexually suggestive scene when watching a movie with my family?

This may seem counterintuitive, but my various exposure to topics and imagery of nudity and sex (again, based on my Christian faith) have given me an immense respect for God's institution of marriage and married sex. I'm saddened and disgusted when I see a display like Mimi's that glorifies promiscuity and degrades women by portraying them as sex objects.

It's one thing for me to see a scene like that alone and realize that it's degrading. Honestly, that may have been the end of the movie even if I hadn't been watching it with my family. But there's an extra connotation when you sit beside your younger brother silently as a woman parades herself as a product to be consumed; there's an implication as you say nothing that this is acceptable. As a person concerned about sexual purity, and as a brother striving to set an example, I had to make it clear that this was not right, and I chose to say it by turning off the TV.

Maybe I'm setting a double standard by censoring for my brother something that I consider myself able to "handle." Maybe rather than stopping the movie it would have been more consistent to talk through the messages being conveyed by the drama, to make sure that we were all on the same page, or that we were at least being critical of what we were seeing.

I think I'm struggling with Christian freedom: how I can do certain things in good conscience that may be stumbling blocks for another Christian. I seem to remember Paul having a thing or two to say about that...

Lines (Part II: Sex)

Preface: This is the second of two posts on drawing lines for lust and sex. I am addressing the audience of young, unmarried Christians.

What is sex?

This may seem like a stupid question. Some of you may be wondering, "Well, didn't this guy get The Talk from his parents... you know... about the birds and the bees." Yet it seems to me that people—even Christians—are drawing lines in different places on this issue.

Lets talk about bounds again. We agree that sexual intercourse (i.e. penis in vagina) is definitely sex. At the other end, I think we can agree that holding hands is not sex. If I remember, Joshua Harris, author of the book I Kissed Dating Goodbye, considers physical contact beyond hand-holding something that should be reserved for a married couple.

Is kissing on the cheek safe? Is it sex when lips and tongues get involved?

What about physiological sexual response? I've been in a situation where I was sitting close to a girl, with my arm around her, and I had an erection. This wasn't because I was thinking sexual thoughts; it's just how my body reacted. Is that sex?

What about talking about sex or sexuality, in detail, with a member of the opposite sex? Can this be a healthy learning experience? What about solo masturbation? If we really want to push the envelope, we could talk about things like manual or oral stimulation of another person's genitals.

I know this is not a very popular interpretation of scripture, but it seems to me that there is a different standard for sexual purity for people outside of a marriage relationship. The Bible is crystal clear about the sanctity of marriage and how it should be honored and protected (Hebrews 13:4). The Bible is also very vocal about avoiding sexual immorality, although having sex before marriage is never explicitly lumped into that category. Adultery, prostitution, homosexuality, bestiality are easy to track down, but to me, the biblical argument that "sex before marriage" is sexual immorality rests on the assumption that "fornication" (Greek porneia) refers to "sex between two people who are unmarried." I don't find that in Bible.

Obviously, to keep the marriage bed pure requires full honesty and integrity between a husband and wife. Even holding hands (something we agreed is not sex) would be a totally inappropriate gesture for a married man towards a woman other than his wife. Yet this doesn't seem to apply the same way to people who are unmarried, since they don't know who their future spouses might be. People speak of how singles should try to be faithful to their future spouse, and I think this is important to consider (2 Corinthians 11:2, which we'll get to soon). But how can you seek out a mate (which usually involves some degree of romantic interest displayed to more than one person) and still be faithful to your future spouse in the exact same way a married person would be faithful to her spouse? If God revealed to me the woman I would marry, that would be great. I would have no reason to interact romantically with other women because I would know my wife, and as soon as I could, I'd marry her. It doesn't seem to work that way, though.

Having argued all of this, I can't overemphasize the importance of marriage in the context of sexual relations. It is obviously an institution created by God, implemented from the beginning of human existence as the foundation of the family, and the intended context for sexual relations. Sex, while designed to be very pleasurable, is still at its essence a way for a man and a woman to begin a new life, and even with all the modern options for contraception, this is always a risk that unmarried people take when they have sex. A life, contrary to some people's opinion, is not something that can simply be aborted when the people who had sex realize that they didn't plan to bring a child into the world. This, to me, is a huge reason to not have sex outside of marriage.

Have we arrived at a definition of sex? Is sex any activity that induces the potential for pregnancy? So then activities like mutual masturbation or oral sex might not truly be sex. Maybe.

I was thinking about that today. What if I were in a relationship with a beautiful girl that I thought I might one day like to marry. What if we decided that we would not have "sex" before we were married, but that we were open to most anything other than "sex." Imagine this lead to us traveling together, and doing things like sharing a hotel room, where we would conceivably change clothes or bathe one in the presence of the other. This might all happen without "sex," and with enough strength of will, even without lust. Maybe. I've never been in such a situation, but I could imagine that, if there was a degree of closeness between us from our dating relationship, the temptation to give into sexual desires might be stronger than I can imagine now. In that case, kissing may be as good as sex if we lose control of our impulses.

I hear accounts of teenagers who end up having sexual intercourse because they had been dating for a period of time and happened to be at home, alone together, with parents away or asleep. They say things like, "It just sort of happened." "It seemed natural." What I'm trying to point out is that if we take away the boundary of kissing, for example (i.e. nothing beyond kissing on the cheeks), then where is the next boundary, and is the slope on which we find ourselves steep enough that we will be unable to stop from sliding all of the way?

All this talk about the definition of sex, yet all I'm really saying so far is that sex before marriage is risky and irresponsible. Let's come at it from another angle: purity. In the Bible, marriage is used as an illustration of the relationship between the Church and Christ:

I am jealous for you with a godly jealousy. I promised you to one husband, to Christ, so that I might present you as a pure virgin to him.  (2 Corinthians 11:2)

This verse really emphasizes the importance God places on purity, and purity boils down to what is in our hearts, and our relationship with God.

Returning to my example of cuddling with a girlfriend, or passionate kissing, as another instance, the main problem I see is not the act itself, but the communication going on between the people and God. When I sit or lie close to a girl, or kiss her passionately, what am I saying, and what is she hearing? Is it, "You mean more to me than anyone else." And if so, what does that mean when I want to end the relationship the next month? "Well, you meant more to me than anyone else last month, but now you're pretty much at the bottom rung. Love hurts."

I think a big part of sexual purity is how we treat sex and sexual relationships. What kind of care am I showing for the hearts of the people with whom I choose to be romantically affectionate? What level of respect am I paying to God's gift of sex? Is it something I revere or something I consume like a Starbuck's coffee. It's important, as in all other areas of life, to consider others before our own interests and to handle relationships with integrity. In any case, it means not abusing sex simply for our own selfish desires.

At the end of a discussion like this, I feel somewhat foolish for trying so hard to find loopholes that might allow me more sexual liberty in my singleness. I am uncomfortable and undecided with the idea of premarital sex, yet somehow I am also uncomfortable with the people who prescribe sweeping absolute rules that are not easy to point out in scripture. I think we should take careful note of the tragic number of unplanned pregnancies that end up dumping children in foster homes, orphanages, or dumpsters; these are caused by foolish disregard for the power and gravity of sexual relations. Yet along with this great responsibility, I feel that there is some freedom for Christians if we are careful to follow the leading and conviction of the Holy Spirit. In discerning where to draw our line in this area, I think the best compass will always be the principles taught in the Bible, applied in our hearts and lives.

Lines (Part I: Lust)

Preface: This is the first of two posts on drawing lines for lust and sex. I am addressing the audience of young, unmarried Christians. To any ladies reading, I'm sorry if I approach the discussion from a distinctly male point of view—it's difficult to help. I'll try to make cases generic when possible.

As Christians, we need to draw lines for ourselves in order to remain pure. We use the Bible, reliable advice, and our own discernment to see the boundaries in which we are free to enjoy the good things God has given to us. When it comes to sex, the lines are black and white for some. Others seem to have drawn no lines at all.

The lines that have been drawn for me by my family and church boil down to these points:

1. No lust for anyone but your wife.
2. No sex before marriage.

Black and white, perhaps, yet I feel that the lines are several paces in width, so that I can step onto the line and wander around inside it before crossing. In other words, I see a lot of room for interpretation. Those who are happy with these thick black lines may find little of value in my thoughts here. To those who may be searching for their own lines within these bands, I hope this process is helpful.

So what is lust?

"A strong sexual desire?"

"Having a craving, appetite, or great desire for..."

... sex? Frankly, I regularly find myself with a craving, an appetite, even a "great desire" for sex, and I don't think I'm the only one, in the ranks of post-pubescent humans, certainly. God designed our sexuality, and it wouldn't work without this strong drive. It's normal to feel a desire for sex.

Let's look at The Lust Passage:

You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.'  But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.  (Matt. 5:27-28)

Taken in context, and provided that we agree on the definition of adultery, what the Bible condemns here is lust directed by a married man at a woman to whom he is not married (and vice versa, I imagine). For the purpose of this discussion, let's adopt this definition of lust, and assume that it extends to everyone, regardless of their marital status.

So, don't direct a strong sexual desire at someone who isn't your spouse. But what's a "strong sexual desire?"

Let's establish some bounds. Here are some examples that I hope we can agree are out of bounds: entertaining a sexual fantasy about a particular man; masturbating while viewing the image of a particular woman. These involve explicit sexual actions associated with a particular person. What about the other end of the spectrum? I hope we can agree that seeing a clothed person and appreciating that they are attractive is outside the scope of lust. So where do we draw the line between these two?

Some men seem to be terrified to even lay eyes upon an attractive woman. The book Every Man's Battle describes a technique of "bouncing your eyes" to avoid lust, which involves recursively looking away from any tempting imagery until one's eyes land on something non-tempting. There is a popular enumeration of areas of bodies (women's especially) of which the viewing seems to automatically constitute lust. "You looked at her breasts?" That's lust. "You looked at his butt?" Lust.

I believe there is room for Christians to appreciate the beauty of the human body. It's lovely! God created it, after all. Should young people be burdened with guilt that they are attracted to members of the opposite sex—that it is impure for them to acknowledge that, yes, she is very pretty (and for the ladies, yes, he is a fine-looking man). We're all attracted to certain things about the opposite sex; why require such a dishonest and unnatural cover-up?

These are some of the reasons I have chosen to draw my line even past the boundary of clothing. I don't have a conviction from God that looking at a beautiful, naked woman is the same as looking at her "lustfully". A lot of people have trouble with this because they have come to associate "nakedness" (usually the absence of clothing from very specific parts of the body: another fine line) with sex. So it is impossible for some people to see a naked body without thinking "Sex.  Sex, sex, sex..."

For me, this is a choice. I can choose to revel in the beauty of a person and her body without taking the next step and thinking, "If I could, I would... and then I would..." The temptation to lust is present whether or not a girl is wearing clothes. I choose to respect her as a beautiful woman in any case.

That is where I currently draw my line, and between me and God, this is an acceptable limit. I have occasionally stepped over this limit, sometimes by spending inordinate amounts of time staring at photos of women, sometimes by looking at images that go beyond showcasing the simple beauty of the female form. In these cases I abuse the freedom God has given me to appreciate female beauty.

I hope people take the opportunity to look deeper into the Bible to determine the location of their lust line. I think it's sad if Christians are saddled with guilt when we should have freedom in Christ. As I conclude, I should emphasize that where you draw your line is ultimately between you and God. I have a friend in med school who draws his line at the illustrations of bodies in his textbooks because, to him, stepping further isn't worth the risk. If the temptation to lust presented by part of a clothed or unclothed body is more than you can stand, you will draw your line in a different place.

Next — What is "sex?"