02.28.05
Posted in culture, philosophy at 2:27 pm by
Jenell Paris has a wonderful conversation going on about breasts. (I really just wanted to use that line as a sort of ‘attention getter’. How’d I do?) Regardless of my intentions for that first line, it’s content is no less true. Jenell has been writing about some interesting cultural questions and the role of the church in a diverse community. Given my recent foray into the world of a more diverse Church, I’ve been terribly interested in that conversation.
Here’s an excerpt:
I’ll write a bit more about my perspective tomorrow, but I want to see what you think of this case study. This really happened, in an organization I’m part of, at an event I didn’t attend. Names have been changed.
Fifty people have come together for worship, from around the country, from different Christian traditions, though the organization is presumably evangelical. Marie leads worship. She is a Liberated West Coast Feminist Environmental Democratic Hemp-Wearing Christian. She is in front of the group, arms raised, eyes closed, praising Jesus. She wears a light white t-shirt with no bra. Her bobbling breasts and nipples were reportedly more interesting than Jesus. Debby took her aside and said that she needed to wear a bra with this group, especially when leading worship. Marie said, “I’m liberated, and Jesus loves me the way I am. I love my body, and I won’t allow you to bind my breasts!” She left the event, and reportedly the organization, furious.
What do you think? Was Marie’s dress inappropriate? Was Debby’s confrontation inappropriate? Should the people have been able to worship even in the bold presence of Marie’s boobs?
What a good question! This was my comment at The Paris Project:
Well, I do have an opinion. I think that the boobs should stay. I know the ‘when in Rome’ argument, but the truth is, sometimes the Romans are wrong…and when they are, they’re wrong no matter what country we’re in.
BUT, I see the other side of the argument too. If the boobs are okay, then where’s the line. How’s about topless? Totally naked-coed worship? Frankly, having practiced nudism before, I have no theological problem as such, with this.
I think maybe, Jenell, adhering to the cultural standards from which you find your identity may be the best. Accepting differences in those standards NEEDS to be a part of a truly ‘multicultural’ church (even if that multicultural refers to groups of poeple not seperated by geographical distance.)
Thus, the beautifully boobed woman was behaving appropriately according to the cultural tradition in which she found her identity. To me, and this is just opinion, to conceal the boobs isn’t just a bad idea, it’s sinful.
After a few days of thinking about it, I agree with me. I think that tolerance plays a big role in this discussion. Tolerance requires us to understand that those cultural differences that we notice aren’t frightening, they’re exciting, facinating, they’re what makes the world a place that’s worth living in.
Now, Marie’s boobs were probably distracting to a number of men in the crowd. But, when it comes right down to it, they’re her boobs. They’re there for nursing children. AND, they were covered. She wasn’t topless, for crying out loud. Why were Marie’s boobs a problem? Because men were sexualizing them. Why is it that Marie should change her undergarment choices because men can’t just let a breast be a breast.
Does Marie have a responsibility to her community? Yes, I think she does. However, her community also has a responsibility to her. When there’s a difference of opinion in a community that causes grinding, it is NEVER the responsibility of one individual ALONE to do the changing. The community as a whole must grow.
I suppose we could say that we need to make Marie wear a bra to church, but where does that put us? That puts us in a position where any cultural difference needs to be forgone for the sake of entering into the community. Eventually, you’ve got a place where individual differences are eliminated (i.e. the Heaven’s Gate cult.)
Individual differences rock my ass off. Without them, we are a mishmash of nothing. We’re boring.
I think that Jenell asks another wonderful question that is difficult to answer, essentially that question is this: “by what processes should we negotiate this issue? Is it a leadership issue, a community issue, an individual issue, or something else?”
I don’t know that I have a good answer to that question. In my response above, I’ve alluded to the fact that I think it’s a community issue. I think, I’m right but I also think that Jenell is right in saying that though it is a community issue, it is VERY difficult to find a community that is realistically willing to take such a strong stand on this issue as my suggestions would demand.
Culturally speaking, Jenell is right, women like Marie are in the minority when it comes to worship experiences.
I guess it’s just the optimist in me that would hope that regardless of Marie’s status as a minority member the community should do what is right rather than what is popular. BUT..if what is right is unattainable at the present time, my question is: Is it really right?
Permalink
Trackback URL »
http://www.badchristian.com/2005/02/28/the_paris_project_on_boobs/trackback/
Posted in culture, philosophy at 2:27 pm by
Jenell Paris has a wonderful conversation going on about breasts. (I really just wanted to use that line as a sort of ‘attention getter’. How’d I do?) Regardless of my intentions for that first line, it’s content is no less true. Jenell has been writing about some interesting cultural questions and the role of the church in a diverse community. Given my recent foray into the world of a more diverse Church, I’ve been terribly interested in that conversation.
Here’s an excerpt:
I’ll write a bit more about my perspective tomorrow, but I want to see what you think of this case study. This really happened, in an organization I’m part of, at an event I didn’t attend. Names have been changed.
Fifty people have come together for worship, from around the country, from different Christian traditions, though the organization is presumably evangelical. Marie leads worship. She is a Liberated West Coast Feminist Environmental Democratic Hemp-Wearing Christian. She is in front of the group, arms raised, eyes closed, praising Jesus. She wears a light white t-shirt with no bra. Her bobbling breasts and nipples were reportedly more interesting than Jesus. Debby took her aside and said that she needed to wear a bra with this group, especially when leading worship. Marie said, “I’m liberated, and Jesus loves me the way I am. I love my body, and I won’t allow you to bind my breasts!” She left the event, and reportedly the organization, furious.
What do you think? Was Marie’s dress inappropriate? Was Debby’s confrontation inappropriate? Should the people have been able to worship even in the bold presence of Marie’s boobs?
What a good question! This was my comment at The Paris Project:
Well, I do have an opinion. I think that the boobs should stay. I know the ‘when in Rome’ argument, but the truth is, sometimes the Romans are wrong…and when they are, they’re wrong no matter what country we’re in.
BUT, I see the other side of the argument too. If the boobs are okay, then where’s the line. How’s about topless? Totally naked-coed worship? Frankly, having practiced nudism before, I have no theological problem as such, with this.
I think maybe, Jenell, adhering to the cultural standards from which you find your identity may be the best. Accepting differences in those standards NEEDS to be a part of a truly ‘multicultural’ church (even if that multicultural refers to groups of poeple not seperated by geographical distance.)
Thus, the beautifully boobed woman was behaving appropriately according to the cultural tradition in which she found her identity. To me, and this is just opinion, to conceal the boobs isn’t just a bad idea, it’s sinful.
After a few days of thinking about it, I agree with me. I think that tolerance plays a big role in this discussion. Tolerance requires us to understand that those cultural differences that we notice aren’t frightening, they’re exciting, facinating, they’re what makes the world a place that’s worth living in.
Now, Marie’s boobs were probably distracting to a number of men in the crowd. But, when it comes right down to it, they’re her boobs. They’re there for nursing children. AND, they were covered. She wasn’t topless, for crying out loud. Why were Marie’s boobs a problem? Because men were sexualizing them. Why is it that Marie should change her undergarment choices because men can’t just let a breast be a breast.
Does Marie have a responsibility to her community? Yes, I think she does. However, her community also has a responsibility to her. When there’s a difference of opinion in a community that causes grinding, it is NEVER the responsibility of one individual ALONE to do the changing. The community as a whole must grow.
I suppose we could say that we need to make Marie wear a bra to church, but where does that put us? That puts us in a position where any cultural difference needs to be forgone for the sake of entering into the community. Eventually, you’ve got a place where individual differences are eliminated (i.e. the Heaven’s Gate cult.)
Individual differences rock my ass off. Without them, we are a mishmash of nothing. We’re boring.
I think that Jenell asks another wonderful question that is difficult to answer, essentially that question is this: “by what processes should we negotiate this issue? Is it a leadership issue, a community issue, an individual issue, or something else?”
I don’t know that I have a good answer to that question. In my response above, I’ve alluded to the fact that I think it’s a community issue. I think, I’m right but I also think that Jenell is right in saying that though it is a community issue, it is VERY difficult to find a community that is realistically willing to take such a strong stand on this issue as my suggestions would demand.
Culturally speaking, Jenell is right, women like Marie are in the minority when it comes to worship experiences.
I guess it’s just the optimist in me that would hope that regardless of Marie’s status as a minority member the community should do what is right rather than what is popular. BUT..if what is right is unattainable at the present time, my question is: Is it really right?
Permalink
Trackback URL »
http://www.badchristian.com/2005/02/28/the_paris_project_on_boobs/trackback/
Locust Years said,
February 28, 2005 at 3:34 pm
Interesting dilemma. At my church we have a similar “issue” and one that, to the best of my knowledge, has not been addressed yet, so there’s hope for learning from one another: An acquaintance of mine — let’s call her Kelly, for no better reason than that it’s not her real name — is one of the teachers for the church’s Jr. High group. Kelly is a competent public speaker, as well as a very well-endowed young woman. She wears a bra, but when she wears a thin dress or shirt, her nipples show through regardless. And, well, big breasts + nipples + 30 Jr. High aged boys = Not a whole lot of attention paid to whatever it is that Kelly is saying.
There are things Kelly can do to “fix” this “problem” — cover up more, put band-aids on her nipples (… this one comes to me by hear-say from another woman. I have no first-hand knowledge of the effectiveness of this), etc. As far as I’m concerned, she isn’t doing anything “wrong” and I don’t think anyone should approach her and communicate to her that her boobs are causing a problem. Because this scenario deals with young adolescents, however, it’s something the leaders need to talk with one another about because we’d do so about any other “inattentiveness” issue in the group — and to talk about it sensitively, because a.) Kelly’s boobs are really not a problem in and of themselves, nor should she be made to feel that they are, and b.) one’s boobs still tend to be a sensitive subject for most of us women. We can “handle” this in a variety of ways — teaching more about what it means to respect another person, to not objectify women’s bodies, to deal with lust, etc. Because they are Jr. HIghers and entrusted to our care, Kelly may nevertheless choose to do something on her end as well.
With adults I think it’s a bit different. In Marie’s case, I think Debby was out of line because she made the men’s issue Marie’s problem to solve. What I think should have happened is perhaps unrealistic, but, in my opinion, should be possible amongst adults who are brothers and sisters in Christ: I think the men who were distracted by Marie’s breasts should have explained to her *their* problem — recognizing it as not something bad on her part, but something sinful on their part — and have asked her with humility whether, in the spirit of Romans 14:21 and helping her weaker brothers not to stumble, she would consider wearing a darker-colored T-shirt, put on a bra, etc. I suspect that such a request would have been better received — then again, I don’t know any of the people involved
Sorry for the long rambling comment!
Wendy said,
February 28, 2005 at 4:42 pm
I agree with Locust Years that this is a situation where we the advice of Paul in Romans 14:21 applies. Marie should have exercised her Christian liberty in a way that was considerate of the men she encountered, realizing that in this case they are the weaker brethren. According to her response, she was only thinking of herself and HER rights. That’s not very Christian; shouldn’t we consider our neighbors before we consider ourselves?
Being a woman myself, I DO NOT agree with the women who say, “I should be at liberty to dress any way I want, and if the men lust, that’s their problem.” I feel it’s my responsibility to dress in a way that does not deliberately provoke men. For instance, if my boyfriend tells me something I’m wearing is too tight, I won’t wear it anymore, even if I didn’t think it was too tight. On the other hand, if I’m dressed according to my God-given standards of modesty, and he still lusts, then it IS his problem. If a man lusts because of something a woman is wearing that is less than the culturally accepted norms of society, then I don’t think the woman will be held blameless.
Brandon, that’s a nice idea that the community should change and grow, but it ignores the inalienable fact that men are biologically hardwired to respond to the beauty of a woman’s body. I don’t want that to change, do you? Sure, Locust Visitor is right that men should be taught not to objectify women, but if women don’t want to be objectified, they shouldn’t dress like the women who pose in magazines strictly created to objectify women! All smart women know that if you want to be respected for your brain, don’t overwhelm people with your cleavage!
One more point and I’m done with this long diatribe: Would Marie dress that way in a corporate environment? To a job interview? Unless she wanted to work at a tattoo parlor, in most places she wouldn’t make it past the dress code! Why would/should churches allow their members to dress in ways that is rejected by mainstream America as being below the normal standards of modesty and decency? Sure, we should be loving and accepting, but we should NEVER accept something God’s word rejects.
Kristen said,
February 28, 2005 at 7:06 pm
This is such an interesting question- and one that I could argue either way. I agree with Wendy’s sentiment, and yet- this is the logic whereby women are required to be covered from head to foot in Muslim countries.
Franklin said,
February 28, 2005 at 8:24 pm
Perhaps this scripture will give some light on the subject.
2 Corinthians 6:3. Whole chapter 6 may be helpful.
Ol Cranky said,
February 28, 2005 at 8:35 pm
Aside from the fact I am now obsessed by the fact Marie Osmond wasn’t wearing a bra in church, I am also now very confused. Is she no longer Mormon? I seem to recall being told not only that Mormon’s have that special underwear they have to wear (except with special dispensation), but that it is made of pretty scratchy material so I’d think she’d want some extra protection for the girls. OK, I’ll try to focus now. . .
I understand all too well how uncomfortable bras can be, especially when one is well endowed. I also understand that some religions have especially strict rules on the physical appearance, attire, behavior and even presence of women ostensibly because men cannot control themselves & their desires (my father was raised in an Orthodox Jewish home; he, his brothers and sisters revolted when their mother died and they realized she’d have to be buried separately from their father - apparently dead men can’t control their desires either). It goes without saying that I think the idea that women, in this day in age, are held responsible for the inability of men to think with the correct body part is ridiculous. That being said, whatever happened to showing some decorum & respect when attending a religious service or church function? If you have a more casual service or program, go ahead and dress for comfort but be cognizant of what is and isn’t appropriate for the where you are and why you’re there.
Brandon said,
February 28, 2005 at 8:47 pm
Interesting and, I think, valid points one and all.
To me, the issue is less with ‘Marie’ and more with the church being open to the culture that Marie represents. I just get a little freaked out the minute we start saying that people should by all means behave appropriately and respectfully for the culture they inhabit. If people always did that white people would probably still own slaves, and the US would have a queen (and a several dysfunctional princes that insist marrying compulsively.)
Some of the greatest advances in history come from folks in the minority who are willing to buck the system.
Brandon said,
February 28, 2005 at 8:51 pm
Oh, and Franklin, pending further review, I’m not sure that the passage you cite really brings further clarification to the matter.
This could quite easily apply to either the men in the congregation being able to worship God and not areolas, OR it couls apply to not placing a hurdle in Marie’s path toward worshipping God just like she is!
Franklin said,
February 28, 2005 at 9:03 pm
Exactly, it could go either way. I think what the scripture is getting at is for everyone to act in such a manner as not to cast a bad light on the ministry of which a person is a member of regardless of personal situations or preferences. In order not to offend anyone…..If that is possible to do.
Resident Atheist said,
February 28, 2005 at 9:29 pm
I think offending people is inevitable. As far as discrediting the ministry, there are people on the outside who’ll dismiss the entire group because you’re even having this conversation (some because it’s obvious she shouldn’t have to wear a bra, and some because it’s obvious that she should).
I think the real dispute is not over breasts at all, but over how important this sort of thing ought to be. Is it a question of trying really, deeply hard not to cause anyone else to stumble (whatever that means), or is it something that people should talk about for a little while and then forget about? It’s impossible to completely separate cultural norms from foundational principles, but not making a distinction between them them is still a really, really bad idea. I think that’s Brandon’s point, and it still stands even if he were to eventually decide that it would be better for her to wear a bra in that particular context.
Nicole said,
February 28, 2005 at 11:54 pm
How about we have the men wear blindfolds?
bobstevens said,
March 1, 2005 at 12:00 am
I find that my view of Christianity is less about asserting whatever rights we may have than it is about giving up our rights for the benefit of others. I think that the New Testament clearly indicates that we should respect the humanness of others and avoid offending other believers who approach the issue honestly.
I agree that this isn’t at its heart a discussion about breasts. I also agree that it may not have been the second woman’s place to bring it to the attention of the worship leader. However, given the social dynamics of the situation… it’s highly unlikely that one of the men who was actually distracted by the woman’s chest would have told her. How socially acceptable is it to walk up to a woman and say “your breasts distract me”?
Kevin said,
March 1, 2005 at 12:00 am
Forget boobs. Have you seen Dick Cheney’s penis?
bobstevens said,
March 1, 2005 at 12:07 am
One more thing… (I hate reposting, sorry)
It sounds from the situation described that the second woman may have not approached the woman with the appropriate attitude. If the conversation was as simple as “You need to wear a bra [you dirty whore]”, then I certainly can’t blame the woman for reacting negatively, and think it would be appropriate to do so.
That never works. I remember the time some jerk told me to take my hat off in church. If he’d asked nicely instead of being snarky about it, I wouldn’t still resent the situation a good 8 years later.
Joan said,
March 1, 2005 at 8:21 am
I wear a bra maybe a couple of times a year. They’re awfully uncomfortable. But I’ve learned what kind of clothing works best without needing a bra (I’ve come to have the belief that if a particular shirt doesn’t do an adequate job of concealing my nakedness, why should I spend my money on it?). I don’t wear light white shirts.
Especially in a group where people are not familiar with you, it’s good to try to make allowances for other people’s sensitivities. I think that can be done without having to put on a bra.
Topmate said,
March 1, 2005 at 8:29 am
I hear you on the hat thing Bob.
Last time it happened to me (just going into church, before I’d even had the chance to do it) I asked the person if they asked all the women to put hats on, if they wished to stay in keeping with 1 Corinthians. Interesting blog posting on the topic here
Joan said,
March 1, 2005 at 8:38 am
Also, I agree that it would be extremely difficult for a man to approach a woman and tell her that her breasts are distracting. That could easily be taken the wrong way since, “I need to confess my weakness to you” is sometimes used in the church as a pickup line.
Wendy said,
March 1, 2005 at 10:07 am
Ol Cranky Visitor, perhaps I didn’t explain my point as well as I should have. You said, “It goes without saying that I think the idea that women, in this day in age, are held responsible for the inability of men to think with the correct body part is ridiculous.”
Well, that statement is true, but the intents and motives of the woman’s heart should be considered as well. If she is dressing deliberately to look sexy or tempt a man to lust — and many women do nowadays — then she is in sin.
On the other hand, Kristen, God has given me my own personal standards of modesty. If I do not dress in a way that violates them, and a guy still lusts after me, then that no longer becomes my problem. So this isn’t the type of logic that leads women to dressing in head to toe scarves. Moderation in all things, right? Above all, God wants us to find a balance that is both godly and something we can live with.
mainsheet42 said,
March 1, 2005 at 5:25 pm
Brandon,
You said,
“Now, Marie’s boobs were probably distracting to a number of men in the crowd. But, when it comes right down to it, they’re her boobs. They’re there for nursing children. AND, they were covered.”
Marie’s tits (my preferred term, YMMV) have as their primary function infant nutrition. However, breasts also have a secondary function in attracting potential mates. We know this because infant chimpanzees, gorillas and humans are much of a size, but you never see tits on a great ape anything like human breasts. Chimps and gorillas use different sexual releasers, and I’m speciesist and squeamish enough to prefer our approach thank-you-very-much.
Any decision Marie makes has to take the secondary function of the female breast into account. Like you, nudity doesn’t bother me and sometimes I think we’d be better off if we did worship in skin. But I don’t expect that to happen in my lifetime.
That said, I think Debbie was out-of-line for calling Marie out in the way she did. If it was me, I’d ignore it. If my Significant Other got distracted, I’d quietly and politely suggest that he pay attention to something else.
Audrey
Ol Cranky said,
March 1, 2005 at 7:27 pm
Wendy:
I agree that a woman who intentionally dresses provacatively to a religous service is, well, trying to provoke a reaction and that’s just plain immature/wrong. I was very careful in going on to say (in bold, no less) that respect and decorum were key and that people should dress appropriately for the location/occasion which was my main point.
Brandon said,
March 1, 2005 at 7:27 pm
Good thoughts, Audrey. Welcome back, and stick around!
mainsheet42 said,
March 4, 2005 at 12:18 pm
But a Granola Girl ™ wearing a hemp t-shirt, jeans and no bra is not dressing provocatively in her subculture, Ol Cranky.
She may be dressing provocatively in your subculture — but that’s a different deal entirely. Basically, the whole problem here (if there is one) is a failure to accept that other people may have different cultural norms. Marie refuses to accept that others might find her attire distracting, and those who find it distracting refuse to accept that she might find it appropriate.
Or, as the prison seargent told Cool Hand Luke, “What we have heyah is a failure to co-municate.”
Ol Cranky said,
March 5, 2005 at 12:22 pm
Mainstreet42:
First off, I don’t think Marie Osmond is exatcly granola and I was not condemning someone who is and my comments were not limited to dressing provocatively (as in sexually) or to what is and is not acceptable within certain communities or subcultures. My comments were about showing some respect and decorum in a particular environment/surroundings.
Part of being a mature, responsible adult is considering what is (and isn’t) appropriate in certain environments, etc. Know your audience and be considerate of it.
If anyone were to walk into my office to interview for a job in torn jeans, flip flops and a T-shirt with a beer slogan on it, I wouldn’t hire that person even if they appeared qualified. We can dress somewhat casually in my office but anyone who would show up to a interview dressed that way for a job interview in my industry is showing extremely poor judgment (unless there was a legitimate reason to do so and we were forewarned as appropriate). You do not go to a formal “black tie only” function wearing Doctor Denton’s (again, unless you’ve recieved special dispensation from the host), you don’t wear a ballgown and high heels to work on a house for Habitat for Humanity and you do not, under normal circumstances, go traipsing through a predominantly black church wearing a Klan outfit any more than you’d go to a Chasidic shul in full Nazi regalia.
At an extremely casual and earthy church, Marie’s attire probably wouldn’t have raised an eyebrow - it does not appear as though this was the case at this particular church. I happen to prefer more a casual atmosphere and have pretty low standards of attire, but I am considerate enough try to ensure my attire is appropriate for the environment.
mainsheet42 said,
March 8, 2005 at 7:41 pm
Wait a second, Ol’ Cranky. We ain’t talkin’ about Marie Osmond here. Go back to the Paris Project and read the scenario again. Here’s the relevant part:
“… Marie leads worship. She is a Liberated West Coast Feminist Environmental Democratic Hemp-Wearing Christian.”
Now, that is the description of a Granola Girl, what’s more Marie Osmond is nowhere mentioned. And I stand by the rest of my post: in the context of her subculture she was dressed appropriately. And yes, you have to consider your audience in selecting your attire or be willing to suffer the consequences of ignoring your audience. But that’s Marie’s choice, just as Debbie’s reaction is Debbie’s choice.
And just how is it that you decide what appropriate attire is? Wait, wait — I know: on the basis of your cultural norms.
By the way, my nom de nette is mainsheet not mainstreet. Even more to the point, I signed my name to the post.
So, bottom line: what the scenario outlines is a failure to communicate. Both sides refused to accept the message sent by the other.
Audrey
david said,
July 28, 2006 at 10:38 pm
Whatever happened to St. Paul’s sage advice, to wit “Love does not insist on its own way?”
Who loves whom here? Either side could relinquish its cherished positition in favor of love and come out ahead. At least in the eyes of St. Paul.
David
Bobbie said,
November 2, 2006 at 10:14 pm
What is a bra for?
Its purposes are several:
1) To squeeze the breasts into an unnatural shape mimicking the shape of an idealized teenage virgin’s breasts
2) To hold the breasts up at an unnatural height on her chest, mimicking the height of an idealized teenage virgin’s breasts
3) To prevent or at least to suppress the natural movement of the breasts, mimicking an idealized teenage virgin’s breasts, or maybe more like a plastic barbie’s hard plastic immovable breasts
Why should a professing Christian woman bind her body into an unnatural shape, a shape that very few teenage virgins display?
Bras are the descendant of the corset, which was finally abandoned due in part to health concerns that had been voiced for several hundred years, but mostly due to changing fashion.
Earlier corsets fitted only around the midriff from the bottom of the breasts where they join the chest wall to the hips, leaving the breasts to hang free in their natural position. Other clothing (the “waist,” made of fairly thick and stiff fabric) reduced the movement of the breasts. Many waists were rather loose and stood out from the breasts, leaving them mostly free to move around inside the waist.
Later a part we today might call the “shelf bra” was added to the corset. It was composed of two part-cups in which the breasts sat, somewhat supported above their natural position. The breasts were free to jiggle, wobble, bounce, and roll around to some extent, in these open-topped cups. The first brassiere of modern times, that patented by Marie Tucek in 1893, was muck like the shelf-bra’ed corset but without the full corset below the breasts, kind of like a longline bra. Tucek’s “breast supporter” had opentopped cups like most corsets, leaving the breasts from the bottoms of the areolas exposed. A waist was worn over this, usually rather low-cut in the style of the era, displaying the tops of the breasts and leaving their jiggling and bouncing exposed unless an additional article of clothing was worn to partially cover the opening of the low-cut waist or gown.
Breast binding has appeared as fashion fads at numerous times in history across many ethnic cultures. Sometimes the breasts were held up and thrust outwards for public display, at times and places completely bare above the support, while at other times and in other places the breasts were strapped down and flattened to conceal their existence.
Should Christian women be caught up in these worldly fashions? Simple plain clothing sufficient to cover the body from the gaze of others but not disguising the feminine shape would seem to me to be more in accord with the guidance of the Bible. Due regard to the culturally-warped sensibilities of others should be exhibited while at the same time not letting these considerations pressure us into worldliness.
For a Christian woman in this culture to insist on her “rights” to do as she pleases is contrary to the guidance of scripture. At the same time she should not allow others to push her into worldly behavior to satisfy their fetishes concerning the marks of her gender. If you will look at how Christian women of modest means dressed in New Testament times, you will see that they generally wore simple tunics or shifts from their upper chests and shoulders to below their knees, the length depending partly on their work and partly on the customs of the age. Elbow length or longer sleeves were typical. If the woman was out of doors she would wear a cloak to protect her from the climate. Hoods or scarves were common.
T-shirts are in my opinion inappropriate for men or women to wear to common worship. When we attend services we are in formal audience before our King. While He does not look at the outisde but at the inner man (human being) our dress and comportment are taken by others as an strong indicator of our inner persons’ attitudes. As He is no respecter of persons but regards the meek and contrite spirit, overly fancy clothing is out of place. At all times should a Christian, male or female, not think of “Would an unbeliever, on looking at me, think, ‘Her (him) a Christian? Why, Christians don’t dress (act, talk, etc.) like that’?”
Bobbie said,
November 2, 2006 at 10:16 pm
I meant to mention that “boobs” is a demeaning term for the parts of a woman’s body God made for the nourishment and comforting of babies, and for the enjoyment of her husband. “Breasts” has no jesting or disrespectful implications.
Rivikah said,
November 7, 2006 at 12:57 am
First,
Well, personally I don’t see anything wrong with that reaction. It might be useful for an unbeliever to know that Christianity really isn’t about a bunch of stuffy rules concerning dress, speech, and never having any fun.
And many woman wear a bra because it can be darn uncomfortable to go without.
Rick said,
November 11, 2006 at 7:52 pm
I wouldn’t necessarily agree with the dress comment. My wife works overnights and I’m scheduled in to work directly after service (within 15 minutes of the end of service.) Am I to use that as an excuse not to attend, or do I attend in attire that potentially offends church members (of which I am one) and not the Almighty himself?
Your right, attitude is influenced by the clothing you wear; I just wish it would be seen as it is: a dedication to come to church no matter how busy nor how many things I have planned that day.