My oldest daughter and I went for a grocery outing/Hobby Lobby stop yesterday. It’s always so fun for the two of us to get out and chat together.

As we were headed across the parking lot, a gentleman was walking in our direction. (I feel that his race is important to note–he was black–because of the warm, jovial, southern tone in which he spoke that a typical white man doesn’t normally use…it was simply endearing.) He literally stopped in his tracks, looked at us and said,

“Well, praise the Lord, look how nice you look! Are you sisters? (Yessssss!)”

“No, we’re mother and daughter.”

“Look at those smiles! You look so nice…it’s so wonderful! It’s just wonderful!  God bless y’all!”

It really made me think more about my dress and how much our outward appearance speaks (or should?) about us.  We can’t get it backward though–”white washed exteriors with dead men’s bones within”.  But don’t we “speak” with our outward appearance?

Was it the refreshment of simple feminity displayed? (I’m not pretending to be “all femininity”; I don’t always wear skirts and dresses, but more often than not.)

I don’t know.  I do know that once there were clear and obvious distinctions, that women gloried in their femininity, and that even the most feminine-loving of us have grown up in a culture where it doesn’t seem to matter much and we struggle ourselves over appropriate dress.  Lines have definintely been blurred and the blurring defended so vehemently that even talking about dress gets people all bent out of shape.

Still, it was an interesting experience that made me think.

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.  The once-covered, beautifully-adorned lady walks unashamed with her undergarments showing and a strategically placed tattoo in case we didn’t notice.  (Funny how this springs from a generation of women demanding to be valued compared to a time when we were too valuable for such display.)  She is often loud, inconsiderate and speaks of subjects once overheard in only the basest of conversations.

Raising girls to be lovely and feminine creates a special challenge in the 21st century.  We are going against the grain and our girls have competing role models on every side.  Whether it’s the bare-thighed, wide-standing teen on a full-sized poster at the mall telling them how they should look or just the girl next door, loveliness eludes us.

And this is not about a certain dress code or standard–each family must arrive at its own.  But there are some basic observations from Scripture that I think are worthy considerations as we raise daughters of the King.

Consider these lists of a virtuous woman and her counterpart:

A virtuous woman (from Proverbs 31):

• is clothed with strength and dignity
• has the law of kindness on her tongue
• is reverent
• is self-governed (sober)
• is pure

The Scriptural counterpart of a virtuous woman is:

• loud and boisterous (clamorous) (Proverbs 9:13) (Note:  “The word translated “clamorous” includes not only the stridency of her voice, but the spectacle of her appearance, as that of a harlot’s apparel.”   -Heraldmag.org
• always outside the home (Proverbs 7:11)
• defiant (Proverbs 7:11)
• forward, aggressive (Proverbs 7:13)
• immodest

In as much as we reflect grace, beauty and loveliness, we have the opportunity to reflect our part of God’s crowning work of Creation when He made them male and female.  Because man and woman are made in His image, we can only see the fullness of who God is through the attributes that each displays.  Where we attempt to blur distinctions that He created, or covet characteristics that are not ours, we sling mud across the human masterpiece that He so tenderly constructed.

Practical Advice

On a more practical note, how can we cultivate a “spirit of loveliness” in our daughters?

Have we even pondered what “loveliness” looks like?  Have we even thought about how our tone, our expressions, our sense of humor, our speech reflects the glory of God?

I have to admit that even as I extol these virtues in my heart, I don’t always practice them or teach my daughters to do so.  Just one small example:  not too long ago, girls understood that it was  inappropriate to yell or be boisterous.  This behavior is given little, if any consideration today.  I have a girl who is more loud than the others.  I have begun to work with her about “letting her speech be always with grace” and “being kind with her voice”. 

It’s not about squelching uniqueness, but rather that some need a little more help with self-government than others, always checking that our behavior is “others-oriented”; this is the greatest commandment.

I lean heavily on the effects of Philippians 4:8:

“…whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things.”

What are they reading, listening to, watching, observing–who are their companions?

How do we behave in front of them?

Do we handle ourselves with grace and loveliness?

I’ve pondered this a lot lately and just wanted to share my thoughts.  I’d love to hear yours!

“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

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!)

“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

“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.

“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.

I’ve noticed a common tendency, one I think is a big problem, among the legalist-accusing folks. ALMOST always, when I hear someone accuse another of legalism, the accuser asserts that “the legalist” is keeping rules or standards because he thinks it will make him more godly, and he expects others to keep his rules also. This last assertion is almost always an assumption. I’ve personally never heard anyone who is a “dresses only” lady tell others they must stop wearing pants to avoid being in sin. And I know quite a few.

As Mr. Phillips pointed out in the last post, some of the issues of ethics (birth control, education, etc) warrant careful study of the Scripture and may have definitive lines in a Christian’s life. I’m not even talking about those subjects here.

I’m using “modesty” for illustration purposes, since that’s one of the most common areas of disagreement among Christians. This thought can be applied to any topic.

I am defending those who are accused of legalism. But hear me…I’m not defending it because it is so personal to myself. I love dresses, I love femininity, and I wear a lot of dresses. But we do not have a strict, “dress only” code in our home. Just want you to understand that so you can see that I speak from a less biased starting point than you may think.

Everyone agrees that the Bible says “dress modestly”. What we don’t agree on is the definition of modesty.

So when one family decides to “err on the side of caution” as a reader pointed out in the last post, why are they so prone to be called legalists? (By the way, dresses have as much to do with simple femininity as they do modesty for those who wear them…)

For illustrations sake, consider the command: “Thou shalt not commit adultery.” Again, agreed.

I know many couples, including my husband and me, who “err on the side of caution” in this area. Barring an impossible situation, we’ve just made some RULES, across the board, to keep us above reproach and temptation. Stuff like not allowing ourselves in the position of being alone with someone else, not having exclusive friendships with members of the opposite sex, etc.

These RULES are not written in Scripture. They are our own standards to protect from potentially harmful consequences. They still do not make us immune to sin, but they represent a deep honor and desire to do all we can to remain faithful to our vows.

I submit that many “dress only” families subscribe to a similar concept. Would you call me a legalist because I purposely avoid being together, alone with another man? Why not? Isn’t that a “man-made” rule?

Could I remain faithful to my spouse if we didn’t have those rules? More than likely, yes. So the rule in itself is not where my trust is. The rule is simply a visible guideline that keeps us from creeping, accidentally over into forbidden territory.

And if a lady wears dresses only simply for the sake of feminity, how tragic the act of being called a legalist! It would be the same as being called a legalist because you choose to only wear “warm” colors after the beauty consultant told you those were the most flattering.

I would hope that those of you who have different standards of modesty would reconsider your thoughts of legalism toward others. Understand what legalism is, and understand that you cannot, under most conditions, accurately label someone a legalist.

In Scripture, if someone had a higher standard about something not explicitly written, the “lower standard” people were to submit to the others for the sake of not offending a weaker conscience.

Just something to think about

My husband treated us to dinner at a local restaurant last night. Imagine the place is divided into two rooms, with a half wall in the middle. One side is the bar, and the other is, well, not the bar.

The only thing I saw when we walked in (my husband was helping little ones behind so somehow I made it in before him) standing ON TOP of the middle wall, were two life size “cardboard people”. You know what I’m talking about…they always catch you off guard because they look real. One was facing our side, and one was facing the bar…both were visible from either side.

And it wasn’t just any life-sized person…they were identical…it was a blown-haired, brunette beauty with hardly any clothes on. Seriously. She had a teeny mini-dress, accentuating her long legs and 6-inch spiked heels, then the top of her dress..I’m sorry, there was no top. The sleeves…I mean, well anyway, lots of cleavage. There.

Just as bad as her dress was her provocative posture–let’s just say she wasn’t standing like a lady. She was the Budweiser girl, if you’re wondering why she was even there.

So, I walk in, and as soon as our waitress showed us the table (right next to the life-sized thing–she would literally be towering over our table), I pointed to it and said, “Um, could you take that down…that’s pornography and it’s offensive.”

She said, “Really, you think so?”

“Yes, I do.”

I was hoping she would save my husband and sons the view, but she had to go talk to the manager. He [unhappily] came over and, you won’t believe this, turned the effigy ever so slightly (like a 20 degree turn) as if she was going to suddenly become invisible.

We were all still standing because we had decided that we would leave if he didn’t take them down, so then he looks at us, after the “turn” to see if we approved….we nodded in the negative.

So then, he said, “it’s a part of the bar”. To which I replied, “Then put her in the bar.” (Words are just coming out at this point….I’m not really proud to admit that.)

He finally picks her (them) up and throws them over the wall, to which we gave a satisfied look. By the way, there was only one other family in the building, and then right after we had the offense removed, I couldn’t believe it, another family with seven children walked in. (You know they’re “one of you” so you just give a mutual nod and smile.)

My point, seriously, is that I think if every Christian who walked in that place would express their discontent with the pornography, it wouldn’t be worth his trouble to have to relocate her each time.

If we really understood what the sensual, visual stimulus does to boys and men, we (as a Christian community) would fight it so much harder.

We go to the ends of the earth to keep from offending others (even at the cost of their souls, perhaps) while we allow our own families to be offended because we’re afraid of offending the restaurant manager!