before i go on, i’d like to make one thing clear. i don’t mean this blog to be a sam-show-off-how smart-he is, or a sam-show-how-well-he-can-argue, or even sam-convince-all-his-readers. just things i’ve been thinking about and that i need to bounce off someone. it’s not ‘cool’ to start a thinking blog, or to read intellectual books, or to discuss anything, really. the thoughts i’ve had over the last six months have been nothing my parents or even most of my friends believe.
i think cs lewis is one of those underrated overrated guys. i liked this passage.
page 88 of mere christianity
“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). some of the language which chaste women used in shakespeare’s time would have been used in the nineteenth century only by a woman completely abandoned. 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 is 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. i do not think that a very strict or fussy standard of propriety is any proof of chastity or any help to it, and i therefore regard the great relaxation and simplifying of the rule which has taken place in my own lifetime as a good thing. at its present state, 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, or 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.”
thoughts? to you, how does this apply to profanity? style of clothes? style of music? do you believe what he says about the girl in the pacific islands? i’m going to leave it at that, because i immediately become judgemental and demanding when i look at it in my life. *deliberately looks away from parents* i can’t force this on anyone. for me, and what i can change, though, when i think about the last sentence of this passage it becomes easier to be friends and talk to Christians who may be extremely different than me.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
*Ahem*
Welcome to the Blogging Comunity.
*Curtsy*
What's “emancipated” ?
I think there's some truth to that concept... a lot of truth, even. But...
Take the island girl. Suppose her motives are perfectly pure... but she's still causing people to stumble.
She's still guilty, isn't she?
thank you. *awkward half-bow*
emancipated means "made free," and in lewis' time, i think it meant freed from a lot of older social norms, like lewis brushes on.
we're all guilty. our sinning hearts make us equal.
but as far as what you meant (lol), I don't know. sinning out of ignorance. I've had christians tell me what's what both ways. I think it's almost impossible for us (here as christians in this era and society) to sin and have pure motives. though in his example of not knowing better and saying a word that used to have a different meaning, I think you can come pretty close.
in island girl example, I'd say no, she's not causing anyone to stumble (at least not if i understand lewis correctly). but if she was, and she didn't know she was? at all? and every woman in that culture dressed that way? would she be then? *scrunches up face* ionno, i guess my tendency would be no. what sin would she be guilty of, if it's not chastity/modesty/whatever you want to call it? i think she's being consistent with what her culture views as being right and ok. in her culture, she isn't provocative.
hollywood has so skewed our ideas of natives. and we're so caught in a western mindset, it's hard to say.
but i think your question was less about that and more about sinning in ignorance in general. and i don't know. maybe we can ask mr price and his bright christmas tie if they know.
Seeing how the island girl has been brought up to dress this way, and it's all her culture has ever been, I'd say she's really not causing anyone in her culture to stumble, because they are all fine with that - it's their culture.
I do however, think that culture has different influences and that the causes behind those influences are different (much different) in America than the South Pacific. The main difference being the role religion plays into it. Our concepts of chastity and modesty all spring from God and the Bible, and our culture shouldn't determine how we as Christians can ease off the modesty (esp. girls) because our American/Western culture has been one continual downhill slope from our founding fathers' idea of modesty to now. This island girl may never even have heard of Jesus, and where she grew up, they have been going the opposite direction - from idols to Jesus. Because of this, their definition of chastity is different from ours, and I don't think that we can use different cultures' norms to justify our cultures' downfall. While the island girl's culture may be tightening their rules on chastity (meanwhile she's not causing anyone to stumble as long as she is modest by the definition of her culture), our Western culture is drastically loosening their rules, and because we are getting farther and farther from the Biblical definition of godly modesty, we are causing our Christian (and non-Chrsitian) brothers to stumble if we conform to a decaying culture that is slipping/pulling away from its Christian roots.
I agree with most of the statement. I think in Lewis' time, not only do we not know what the norm was for modesty, but it was also in a different (and much more religious) country. It still applies today, but the only part I found a little hard to digest was at the end about older and younger people respecting each others' view-points. The Bible says to respect our elders, and because they have more experience than us, and know what the definition of modesty used to look like and how it has been changing, I think that their "old" way of thinking may have a point. As teens, we are constantly bombarded with our new and changing culture, but looking closely at that culture, what are they really teaching? That it's ok not to respect your elders and not to listen to their "old" ideas. This in turn is pulling us away from the biblical principals our country was founded on, and toward new unchaste ideas that cause our fellow teens to stumble. As girls, what goes through our minds when we see a really cute guy at the mall? What makes him cute? The way he dresses and does his hair probably have a lot to do with it - because he's "in." On your side Sam, what goes through your mind when you see a really cute girl at the mall? What makes her cute? The way she dresses and how her hair's styled, and how she does her make-up? The thoughts we think on both sides probably aren't Christian.
Interestingly enough, I read the part in 1 Timothy yesterday that talks about young girls remaining pure, not only in their physical purity, but mentally as well:
"That the women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with propriety and moderation, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly clothing, but, which is proper for women professing godliness, with good works."
When I read this verse in the past, I always thought is was a little crazy. Not braiding my hair of wearing jewelry?! But reading it through now, I realize that, besides that fact that adornment like that was made only to attract attention in Paul's culture, Paul isn't saying that we can't look pretty. He's saying that we shouldn't in any way look pretty to try and get attention in ways that could make our brothers stumble, and that our focus should be so much more on God than ourselves anyway. It would be so much better if male and female teens could encourage each other in godliness, instead of the exact opposite that runs through our culture today. America is slipping away from God, because we have it so easy here. Most other countries (excepting western europe) in the world are moving in a different direction - away from false religions that they were founded on and toward Christianity, and they take their faith seriously because of it.
Of course there is forgiveness for sinning in ignorance. In Luke 12 (I think) there's this part about servants being in readiness for their master's return, and how if the servant knew when to expect his master, but made sure he WASN'T ready, he would be guilty by choice, and would not have a place in the master's house any more. There's also the servant who didn't know when to expect him, but wasn't quite ready yet, he would be punished, but not thrown out. Lastly there's the servant who didn't know what to expect, and did a few things deserving of punishment because he didn't know any better. He'll still be punished, because God can't tolerate sin, but he'll be punished very little. I guess the island girl may be sinning, if she is causing people to stumble at all (whether knowingly or ignorantly), and if that's the case her sin will be punished accordingly. Of course, if she knows Jesus and he makes her aware of her sin, then if she asks for forgiveness, her sin is wiped out completely.
I know that's all really long, but I had to think for a while about this one. Let me know what you guys think.
wow. i'm flattered by the amount of thought and time that went into that. thank you!
however, (predictably), i disagree strongly with some of your points. mostly it's just my little inner field marshal (i should call him napoleon) kicking in and telling me "sam, convince her!" but let's agree to disagree. all i really want to do is provoke thought, and i think i've reached my goal and then some!
*hops in estatic circles*
You used a personality term!!!!
*ahem*
My inner champion also wants to debate you both. But I'll refrain.
I guess my question was really vauge. I wasn't asking about sinning in ignorance, because I think you can't be held guilty for that.
Suppose she was a Christian. And she knew all that the Bible had to say about modesty/whatever. And she had come to the conclusion that it was okay to wear certain kinds of clothes. HOWEVER... her neighbor also read the Bible and came to a more conservative conclusion. Neither, of course, are either right or wrong. They are both right with God.
But her way of dressing causes her neighbor to stumble. Is she guilty for that, or is it her neighbor's responsibility to remaing strong in his/her convictions in spite of the example next door?
my inner field marshal will whup your champion! yargh!
hmmmmmmmmmm. dilema. i'd say it depends. there are some christians who think it's wrong for girls to show ankle. so that might tempt a guy. somewhere. theoretically. (that is extremely weird)
so then, i'd say, in our idealistic world, it can be right not to conform to that instance of a stumbling brother.
on the other side, i can't say.
i think my tendency would be to go with what paul says about christian liberty and say, well, yes, she can follow her convictions (and not be thrown to the farthest most crazy conservative view so that no one stumbles) but she should not flaunt her freedom of conscience to her brother in christ. how that plays out practically, i don't know. i'll think about it.
Okay. I think that makes since.
And I guess the bottom line is that it's all about motives. Cuz to me, if you're streaching to the limits of your Christian liberty to be able to wear certain kinds of clothes, you really have to ask yourself why.
It's like Josh Harris said in his videos realating to another topic (but it works for this to): The goal of a healthy Christian isn't to see how close to the line we can walk without falling over into sin. The goal is to see how far away from evil we can get, to become as much like Christ as possible. (not a direct quote, obviously)
I think it's easy to loose sight of that when we talk about Christian Liberty. God says to be modest, so we shouldn't be asking how immodest we're aloud to be. We should be asking how modest we can possibly be within reason.
I wish I had a verse for that.
that is exactly it, very wise comment Em.
to your 2nd sentence, yes. and i appreciate your thoughts, beth!
Well, my inner champion always wants to hash things out and get to the bottom of everything. So...what did you guys find controversial, and what are your opinions?
I always want to convince people too. We may have to agree to disagree, which I'm ok with, but I'd like to know what it was you disagreed with.
As far as the island girl is concerned with the neighbor thing, I guess I'd have to say it depends on if she was ignorant as to her neighbors viewpoints or if she knew what they were and continued to wear clothes that made him stumble. Suppose he reached a more conservative viewpoint, but she didn't know anything about that. She'd be causing him to stumble, but ignorantly, and I think it would be his responsibility to inform her of his viewpoint. Then she should follow Romans 14:
"Receive one who is weak in the faith, but not to disputes over doubtful things. For one believes he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats only vegetables. Let not him who eats despise him who does not eat, and let not him who does not eat judge him who eats; for God has received him. ...Yet if your brother is grieved because of your food, you are no longer walking in love. Do not destroy with your food the one for whom Christ died. Therefore do not let your good be spoken of as evil; for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit."
(Disclaimer: I'm not saying that what she's wearing is right. As far as her culture is concerned, it may be right or wrong. The verse just helps illustrate my point)
Now, returning to the concept of her culture - it hasn't been wrong to wear the scantier clothing that she has been wearing in the past. As her culture is maybe becoming more Christian and more Western, if there are more conservative Christians there who are stumbling by her example, she should abandon practices that cause them to stumble in the faith.
I think we've been coming at this particular issue from a too western standpoint. We view her clothes as scanty and immodest. How were they viewed before Christianity became more popular in her culture? They were perfectly acceptable, and if they were causing anyone to stumble, it would only have been Westerners who visited her island. That said, if a surge of Western culture swept through, and her clothes took on a new definition of immodest, she would be causing people to stumble, but as long as her culture was seperate from Western culture, their definition of immodest would be different. For example - some cultures define immodest as bare ankles, head uncovered, etc. We think this is crazy, immodest is bare midriffs or too tight pants. In India for example, having one's tummy show isn't immodest at all, but Muslim women aren't supposed to uncover their head in public. It's totally a matter of culture, so as I said earlier, I don't think we can measure immodesty by different cultures because each culture has their own definition of the word. The Bible is meant to be used in all cultures at all time periods, that's why it doesn't say "don't wear baggy pants and don't show your ankles and don't show your bear midriff," because in some places that's not causing anyone to stumble and it others it's a major stumbling block. In America, Christians might call really tight pants a sin because it causes them to stumble, but in another part of the world it's not a sin because it doesn't. What the Bible does say is that we shouldn't cause any of our fellow Christians to stumble, and we shoul measure what immodesty is by that.
I love that part that Josh Harris says. I've heard it other places before too.
I'm really sorry if I'm repeating myself or everyone else again, but it's a mental thing. If I leave something out, either I'll feel like it's missing something and it'll bug me, or I really will leave something important out and you guys won't get it.
I hope that my viewpoint makes a little more sense. I'd like to hear from you guys if you still disagree with something, and maybe we can talk about it (or at least agree to disagree so it won't bug us anymore). ;)
hmmmm. i just think we're at such diverse and so-far-apart views on the subject that we shouldn't even try. we've both said our side and understand each other. i'm really bad at letting it go, but i'm trying to. hope that sounds ok, i appreciate your thoughts!
*pouts* but but but...
Ok, how's this? I really do want to know what your disagreeing thoughts were. Both of you. But I won't comment about them, I promise. I think our opinions are rather different, and continuing to debate won't change the way we think (probably) but I still would like to know what your differing opinion is.
Post a Comment