Raising Daughters of Grace, Beauty and Loveliness

Disclaimer (of which the discerning reader may skip):

I tire of disclaimers.  They clutter.  Yet, sometimes I take a walk on the wild side and leave it out.  I guess this post needed one.

Disclaimer #1:  Just because I posted a picture of Jacqueline Kennedy doesn’t mean I consider her a role model.  She is graceful, lovely and charming.  That’s it.

Disclaimer #2:  Regarding the mentioning of the Victorian era:  the words ” improperly elevated” are the disclaimer.

Disclaimer #3:  This is not a dissertation on whether Jane Austen was a feminist.  We like her movies.  And the pretty clothes.  And the dreamy way Jennifer Ehle says, “You puzzle me exceedingly”. The mentioning of other eras is just that–a mentioning in a post primarily meant to encourage ladies to be ladies.

End of disclaimer.

Loveliness.  Grace.  True Beauty.

You recognize it when you see it.  But it’s becoming rare.  The Victorian era has certainly been improperly elevated, and us Jane Austen-lovin’ gals still swoon over over-romanticized ideals, but there is something to be said about the way women of that day carried themselves, dressed and behaved.

The rules weren’t all pomp and circumstance; women were cherished (despite what many believe) and treated like ladies and they played the part.  Being delicate was not a weakness and acting like a female was actually recognized for the power it holds.  Women were comfortable and strong in their femininity and didn’t feel the need to compete with the toughness of the other gender.

Value or De-valued?

In our day, we have clamored our way out of  “female oppression”, roaring all the way.  And it shows.  Read more »

Modesty & The Sin of Bathsheba: One Man’s Appeal

“Your brethren in Christ may be weak, and the devil does all he can do to weaken them further. They’re forced to live in a world where they are continually bombarded with sights, which are designed by the enemy of their souls to weaken their morals and destroy their purity of heart, and must Christian women help the devil to do his work? Must they make themselves a temptation to their brethren, even in the congregation of God?

“Oh that you women could understand the fierce and bitter conflict in the souls of your brethren when you arouse their desires by the careless display of your feminine beauty. Never again would you plead for your right to dress as you please.

The fact is you have no such right. You have no right to destroy by your careless dress, the brother for whom Christ died. “You were bought with a price and are not your own” (see 1 Corinthians 6:20).

You are duty bound to glorify God in your body, to clothe that body not as you will but as God wills, and a little love for the souls of your brethren would remove forever from your heart the desire to dress as you please.”

Article by an anonymous man:  “The Sin of Bathsheba” from Revive Our Hearts with Nancy Leigh Demoss, Modesty:  Does God Really Care What I Wear

Modesty: Is There a Standard?

Modesty is a subject Christians have wrestled with, probably since the beginning.  It’s controversial, and different people, all confessing Christ, often come to distant conclusions about the subject.  One big mistake we make is to assume “modesty” only refers to clothing.  Not so.  But as far as it does include attire, is there a standard?

If we all agree that the Bible says, “In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with braided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array…” it is fair then to ask the question, “what’s the standard”?

In how many school student handbooks have you read:  “We feel it is important that the students wear appropriate clothing” without a qualification of “appropriate”?

I do not intend to launch a debate about specifics in this post. (I’ve got closed-toed shoe friends, and spaghetti strap friends, both of whom assume their standard is right.)  Suffice it to say, to “love the Lord with all your heart” is to earnestly desire obedience in all of life, reflecting such desire even in our appearance and demeanor.  To “love your neighbor as yourself” reinforces the earnestness with which we should seek to dress modestly.

I must give a hat-tip to our good friend Trey for his provoking words the other night during his family’s visit to our home.  Since then, I’ve concluded that something he said actually paints a pretty good standard for us, even though it includes no specifics about dress.

Trey explained that his father asked him to make two lists from Scripture:  characteristics of a virtuous wife and those opposite her.  In his in-depth study of a virtuous woman, he read (I think from John McArthur) about the root word translated “modesty” in 1 Timothy.

It comes from kosmios, originally taken from “kosmos” (where we get “cosmos” of course), with the literal meaning “to place in order, to arrange”.  He said that the word “kosmos”  is often used in Scripture to describe the  “reflection of the glory of God”.  What a glorious transfer, then, when we understand that a modest woman (dress, behavior, etc.) is to reflect the glory of God!

I don’t know about you, but that standard makes me look at my wardrobe a little differently.  It also makes me consider my speech, my very carriage, my thoughts (which come out of my mouth) my jewelry,  my conversation–all that encompasses being a woman.  To me, using this standard still allows freedom in one’s unique taste and style of clothing, while maintaining a decidedly strong focal point to guide.

I’m thinking of writing the question, “Do I reflect the glory of God” on my mirror.   (Yes, I’m painfully aware that I overuse winkies in my posts.)

Again, we miss it if we think that modesty only refers to dress, and we miss it if we think it doesn’t include dress.

***As a side note, a while back, I posted an interview by Lindsay, Trey’s sister.  You may want to check out the 3-part interview:

What’s a Girl to Do-Part 1

What’s a Girl to Do-Part 2

What’s a Girl to Do-Part 3

(Thank you again, Lindsay, Trey, Bo and Zhenis, for blessing our family with such delicious food and fellowship…and words that provoke!)

Woman as Home Builder: Faithfulness in Modesty

“In the marriage ceremony a woman vows that she will keep herself unto her husband as a woman in all the aspects of womanliness.  She is building a home when her womanliness, her sexuality, is such that not only her husband knows and can safely trust in her, but all the world knows–if they know her at all–that ‘there is a woman who belongs to one man’.

She does not flaunt her womanliness in the eyes of men in a flirtatious manner or in any other way that would cast down the image that she is the faithful wife of one man in all that she is as a woman.

It is so important that we do not say one thing in our vows and another thing in our lives.  It is so important when we have vowed to be faithful to Jesus Christ that in all of our lives bef0re the world we show forth that faithfulness.  If we vow faithfulness to Jesus Christ and do not show it forth, we live a lie.

The woman lies who vows at the marriage altar faithfulness to her husband–to the degree that she exerts her power over other men even in a minor matter, even in an “innocent”, flirtatious manner, even in the manner of her dress that she advertises to other men the peculiar relationships of her womanhood that belong only to her husband; to that extent, I say, she lives a lie.  I say this because it must be said in days like these.  I say it pleadingly, though I say it authoritatively, on the basis of the Word of God;  she who regards this thing in wisdom builds her house; she who disregards this–no matter how outwardly faithful she may be–tears it down with her hands.”      –R.J.  Rushdoony

Getting to the Heart of Modesty

Missy, at Somewhere in the Middle posted a great piece about what modesty means…

“Modesty is one of those Jell-O concepts. You try to pick it up, and it squishes fiendishly out between your fingers. 1 Timothy 2:9 commands women to dress modestly, but what does that actually mean when we’re getting dressed in the morning?”

read the rest at Getting to the Heart of Modesty.

Unless You’re Near the Water

Upon traversing America in the 1830s, French author and statesman Alexis de Toqueville attributed the extraordinary prosperity and growing greatness of the nation to “the superiority of their women,” who were protected by “punishing rape by death.” Continuing, he noted that

“no other crime is judged with the same inexorable severity by public opinion. There is reason for this: as the Americans think nothing more precious than a woman’s honor.” It was a time of chivalry, honor and modest dress. It was a time when a woman “could walk anywhere alone without fear, so great was men’s respect for their modesty.”

(Wendy Shalit, A Return to Modesty, Discovering the Lost Virtue, 1999, pages 39-40).

To the post where I confronted porn*graphy at my doctor’s office, I received this comment:

“I think your response to the article in the doctor’s office was a bit “over the top.” In fact, when I read it, I actually “rolled my eyes.”

(It was a cardboard stand-up ad, not an article.)

If this commenter is an unbeliever, I’m not surprised or really concerned about her reaction. If she was a Christian, however, I am. So I post this response, with genuine concern, for all the “eye-rollers”.

Based on the PROVEN fact that a few clothes are more seductive than none, we must define pornography. (And perhaps some would be more comfortable with the word “obscenity”, to which I see little difference, although I’m aware of their specific terms.)

By one definition I quickly searched obscenity is:

“Offensive to chastity or modesty; expressing or presenting to the mind or view something which delicacy, purity, and decency forbid to be exposed; impure; as, obscene language; obscene pictures.”

The swimsuit in the doctor’s office could have hardly been smaller without revealing “zones”. Sufficient, by definition, to label obscene.

This quote reveals a major shift in our principles:

“The earliest bathing suit may have possibly been an old smock resembling a kind of “bathing gown.” Modesty was the dictum with style not much of a consideration in those days.”

Our problem is that we have allowed definition based on the name of clothing. If it’s called a “swimsuit”, then it is acceptable attire. If it were a type of underwear (which I’m not going to name for fear of keywords), it is taboo…well, used to be. *sigh*

What constitutes pornography? Does a man view the human body differently depending on what he calls the attire? “This body over here–not provocative. She’s wearing a swimsuit. But this one…well, wow, um,…”

And we’ve done it in other areas!

“Abortion is murder”. Well, unless someone has been raped and then it’s not the same.”

“Divorce is wrong. Well, unless you’re not happy.”

“Barely covering your geni*als is obscenity. Well, unless you’re near the water.”

And one of the reasons I posted this subject is because I want to beg you to THINK. It’s something we simply don’t do. We’ve let others define what is acceptable or not; we’re like blind people, who, frankly, would sound stupid to, say, an alien. Imagine it:

“Well, this is a hammer. Unless you put it under a tree, and then it is a shovel. Hammer–shovel–hammer–shovel .”(holding it under the tree and removing it again.)

Doesn’t that sound senseless? But isn’t that what we’re doing? Just trying to stop this slippery slope!

I beg someone to reveal my error if you disagree.