 |
 |
|
 |
Welcome |
|
FeaturesChrist’s death, God’s wrath: the vital connection
Jul 30, 2009 Are you missing the point of Scripture passages? Jul 21, 2009 Modeling misjudgments: Clothing, contradictions and Miss California May 14, 2009 Exploring The Last Battle’s Emeth element May 11, 2009 MacArthur on sex and the sacredness of the Song Apr 14, 2009 Heaven and Earth, part 1 — Fixing our eyes away from the lies Apr 13, 2009 Fighting on broader battlefields of Biblical spiritual warfare Apr 11, 2009 Keeping the Cross in focus this Good Friday Apr 10, 2009 An open letter to Jennie Chancey from the Devil Mar 12, 2009 Capitalism, socialism and critics’ Rush to judgment Mar 10, 2009 |
 |
Search |
|
Updates |
|
Recently read:
|
|
Recently read:
|
Modeling misjudgments: Clothing, contradictions and Miss California
|
||
 |
by
Dr Ransom
at
05:25 PM ET
,
Thursday, May 14, 2009
|
|
| Tags: Columns, Politics: The Left Wing, Deep Doctrine Magic: Cross Firings, Life Applications | ||
(Adapted from responses, this one and this one, posted today to the Boundless Line blog.) Perhaps the Miss California furor is finally fizzling out, after spending most of the month in national headlines. Yesterday none other than multimillionaire Donald Trump defended infamous Miss U.S.A. pageant contestant Carrie Prejean, and even got in a great zinger against Barack Obama™. Trump noted that Prejean, after being asked a rather loaded question from a homosexual activist about marriage, had given the same answer as the president of the United States — that is, it should be between a man and woman. I grinned at the rhetoric, which was so shrewdly and perfectly balanced between justifying Prejean’s honest answer yet not directly agreeing with it. And I wished so much that I could also fully rally to this young woman’s cause. Yet it seems that during conservatives’ and Christians’ haste to defend Carrie Prejean — rightfully! — from the rabid liberal factions’ intolerance of her brave stance on real marriage, folks have been just sort-of skipping past the whole Immodesty issue. And this isn’t just incidental immodesty, this is making a living from being intentionally immodest. First, though, a disclaimer: All of this would ordinarily not apply if Ms. Prejean did these kind of things in the past, and has now turned away from them. For that, Christians — like the Christ they follow — should be lavish in their Grace and unilateral in their defense of one of their own. However, from what I have read, Ms. Prejean has responded to the release of provocative and even naked photos of her, and said “I’m not perfect” while also defending her showing her body in provocative ways in the present tense. “I am a Christian, and I am a model,” she said. “Models pose for pictures, including lingerie and swimwear photos.” (Summary: It’s my job.) Unfortunately that job is not something Christians can support Biblically. However, this does not mean we leave one of “our own” to suffer at the hands of secularists. What is needed here is neither full-fledged support nor repulsed rejection — but rather, careful discernment (especially on the part of men like me who’d like to write about the issue and be informed about it, though, ahem, without actually seeing the photos). A mere ‘malfunction’? In a recent Boundless blog item, Focus on the Family PR handler and “Boundless Show” host Lisa Anderson questioned whether at least one photo — apparently of the young lady on a cliff — was not intended to be released, with the wind having blown about her skimpy garments. “A girl on a cliff in the wind wearing next to nothing is going to have a hard time keeping herself covered up the entire time,” Lisa noted. But the question about a “wardrobe malfunction” seems irrelevant. Long before whatever it was started blowin’ in the wind (and I’m not talking about the answer, my friend) the “malfunction” was well under way, and intended to be. After all, there is that whole “wearing next to nothing” part — in public, for public view. How can a sincere Christian defend this? Moreover, how can sincere Christians — such as even the Christ-following hero Dr. James Dobson — host Ms. Prejean on the “Focus on the Family” program, applaud her for defending marriage, and not even acknowledge that with an it’s-just-my-job justification, she is equally offending marriage? I’m well aware of, and have often reminded others of, Romans 14 and other Scripture passages about how Christ-followers can disagree on some matters of conscience. However, in terms of dress this is not a matter of whether a knee is showing, or even the barest bit of cleavage or whatever. This is in effect public nudity, with only strategically placed thin strips of fabric or elastic (underwear) that only render someone not naked by way of technicality. If this were truly about modeling the underwear, swimsuits, sexy attire, whatever, then get the stuff and put them on a table with a blue cloth. But that’s never the way it works, is it? Instead retailers constantly put nearly naked women inside this stuff. What is really being modeled, then? It’s the woman’s body, of course. Scripturally, of course, nothing is wrong with nudity or sexily “modeling” one’s body — within marriage. But if someone claims to defend the honor of marriage, why exploit this gift, meant only for one’s special partner within that God-ordained institution, with the rest of the world? This is not honoring to marriage, or to the God Who created it and Who clothed the first humans after they sinned (Genesis 3). Thus, to defend marriage while treating one’s own body as if it were not sacred, acting and dressing provocative for anyone to see, is far beyond inconsistent. Another Boundless contributor phrased it perfectly: “If the body is a temple (which it is), dressing like that is like putting a screen door on the Holy of Holies.” Marriage defense initiative However, it is absolutely true that intolerant Liberals, who cannot stand to have anyone popular and articulate opposing their doctrines, have gone full-force to oppose Ms. Prejean and attack everything she stands for. They don’t object to her modeling nearly naked; they only pretend they do to try to make their usual “hypocrisy” charges stick. It has been appalling. Unfortunately, Prejean’s Christian testimony has been truly tarnished and marked by profound inconsistency. Both believers and non-believers (though the latter can be more mean and hypocritical about it) do see the double standard. Similarly, it is a truth universally acknowledged the professing Christians also divorce in droves almost as much as professing non-Christians. But someone famous will always be flawed (as we have seen). Then Christians are wont to do two things: ignore the flaws, or turn against their own once the facade has collapsed. With Ms. Prejean, or any other “celebrity Christian,” we should do neither. We should love them, yet — especially for their friends in the body of Christ — point them toward Scriptural standards. And again, this is why Christians should neither react with ungracious attitudes against Prejean, nor fully support everything she does just because someone the world views as “beautiful” or famous has defended traditional marriage. What does that do to the supposedly “ugly” people who also defend real marriage? And how does this give credence to the whole outward-beauty focus of “beauty pageants” anyway — which are already problematic even without the provocative attire? What does Scripture say about how women ought truly to be beautiful? What examples does this set for other young women, especially Christians, who are already confused about how to dress and be attractive, yet not immodest and provocative? Marriage as God created it is valid because God says it is — again, not because someone famous or seen as “beautiful” supports it. And if we are to defend Christianity, or defend marriage, let us defend all the aspects of these. For Christianity, let us uphold not just the “marriage is one man and one woman” part, but the “provocative nudity is only meant for marriage” part. And let us uphold all of marriage’s splendorous wonders including the sacredness of the human body, meant only to be seen in its fullness, appreciated and loved within the context of marriage. Revealing disagreements To be sure, sincere Christians can, will, and do disagree on immodesty issues. (For example, I am still surprised that many Christian girls, who would not be caught dead in public in their undergarments, think the “fabric” of standards — or the way men’s eyes or minds instinctively operate — suddenly changes when it’s time to go swimming at a pool or beach.) But — I am afraid this is going to be very unpopular — only one “side” will be closer to being Biblically correct — the side that recognizes provocative dress and behavior are only glorifying to God and honoring to one’s husband (or wife) within that traditional institution of marriage. In case you haven’t noticed, this sort of thing outside of marriage is really rough on men who seek to honor Christ, His gifts of marriage and feminine beauty, and their wives. But it’s also rough for other reasons few people talk about. Too often I catch myself thinking — trying to “cope,” as it were, something like: Well, maybe shouldn’t be such a big deal. Maybe I am the one who is hypersensitive. Maybe I’m the one who’s acting perverted and I should just take the sight of a nearly naked — or provocatively dressed — woman “in stride” or something. I think this line of thoughts first began when I had to close a Facebook photo album, in 2005 I believe, that showed girls from my college Christian group on the beach in hideously immodest attire. Argh, if I could change the way this affects me, I would; it would make things so much easier, I would think. But then I re-think that. No. I wouldn’t. If I could flip a switch, take a drug, undergo some kind of mental conditioning to de-sensitize me to this kind of beauty that is only meant for marriage, I would not do it. God made men this way — for marriage and His gift of intimate relations within marriage. Sin in the world notwithstanding, He wants a husband to appreciate his wife’s beauty, including physical beauty. That’s what it’s about. That’s why these reactions are there! They just misfire sometimes. And garbage like soft-core porn pageants does not help. What we need is not a “less Puritanical” attitude toward such things, but a more-Puritanical attitude. I am referring to the Puritan idea (skewed by some, of course) that some pleasures and beauties are so sacred that they should be safeguarded. They should not be cast about for all to see and leer at. They should not be made a mockery of, despite lip service given to honor marriage. And here I am speaking in general terms. Christians who devalue marriage even in such things as too-easily given affections, and more with their own conflicts and divorces, do just as much damage to the cause of this Christ/Church symbolism (Ephesians 5: 22-33) than any ill-informed young “model” who doesn’t understand that her public nudity dishonors marriage just as much as all those homosexuals. What will best help Christianity, defense of traditional marriage, and Ms. Prejean personally, is not hordes of grateful, unquestioning Christians who are glad for a “celebrity” to support their cause, yet will ignore the celebrity’s inconsistencies in behavior (again, I am talking about present flaws, not past mistakes that one can turn from as one grows in Christ). For a situation like this, it would also not be right for Christians to shun one of their own, becoming outraged and abandoning her because of either past or present devaluing of her own body or of marriage’s sacred act between a loving husband and wife. Instead, what Ms. Prejean needs more than anything is a saintly old lady, perhaps at her church, with multiple grandchildren, sparse gray hair, a friendly gaze and a personality tempered by the Spirit’s Biblical balance over the years. Someone like this should take Mr. Prejean (or any other Christian woman wearing provocative attire) aside, smile, and say graciously and gently: “Oh honey. Put some clothes on. I know it can be tempting to think it’s nothing and show yourself off — why, you are a lovely girl, after all, aren’t you! — but what would Jesus say if He were here? What would your husband think?” That’s what truly sincere, Christ-following women who want to honor the Lord, the opposite gender, and their future husbands, need most of all. And Bible-believing pastors and their wives would do well to step up their efforts to remind women what the Bible truly says about modesty — not that a woman’s body is somehow inherently disgusting, but that it is so special and sacred that it should be covered in public, and revealed only in the blessed, pleasurable contexts of God-established marriage. 
|
||
Comments |
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
Add commentThis item is closed, it's not possible to add new comments to it or to vote on it
|
