Protect Your Family Online

Family Pricing is Available for just $13.99 per month!

Start protecting your family today from harmful content online. Set up a Family Account with Covenant Eyes which will cover all your Internet devices and all the members of your family for only $13.99/month. Learn about our Internet Accountability and Filtering services.

42 thoughts on “6 Marks of Biblical Modesty: How God Brings Sexy Back

  1. I hear what you’re saying Luke but I have a question to pose to you before this discussion ends up devolving into subjective admonitions and advice to women as to how they can dress more “modestly”:

    First off, is the fully nude human body by definition immodest? Is your own unclothed body intrinsically immodest?

    If your initial premise about the body is wrong, then your conclusions will be tainted as well.

    • Great question. Modesty is, by definition, a command given to those living in a sinful context. In the beginning, human beings were naked and without shame. Nude Adam and nude Eve were not immodest, because their nakedness was a natural and godly expression of their human beauty and worth. There was no sin to react to. And in a very real sense, their naked form was a display of the image of God in them.

      But since the fall, things have been very different. Nudity still communicates the same kind of openness, beauty, transparency, and vulnerability it did in Eden, but because of the way sinful people exploit that vulnerability (through seduction) and are exploited by it (through lust), clothing is important.

      So, is nudity immodest? Yes and no. No, it is not immodest when it is experienced before others who can appreciate it without exploitation (such as husbands and wives naked before each other, or a child naked before a loving parent, or a number of other contexts). Yes, it is immodest when it is experienced before those who would exploit others by it or be exploited by it.

      Like my article says, modesty is contextual. Modesty doesn’t say, “My naked form is inherently shameful.” Rather, a modest heart says, “My naked form is a thing of divine beauty, and knowing my own sinful heart and the sinful hearts of others, I will not use such beauty as an opportunity for exploitation and indecency.”

    • I hear many of you talk of dressing to please God and yet I hear very few of you use Scriptures to back that up! 1 Timothy 2.9 commands…yes commands (i.e. God ordered) all Christian women/girls to not only dress modestly and unshamedly, but also to wear {proper} clothing. The Greek word for clothing here is katistole where we get our English word STOLE. In the Greek, the word katistole means a long, let done, loose covering. Obviously swimsuits, leg exposing shorts, tight pants and tight short dresses do not meet God’s criteria for PROPER CLOTHING. Ladies, we have to stop comparing our modesty standards with what the world wears. The Word of God should be the standard that ALL Christian women use for determining how to dress and even how long our hair should be. (See 1 Corinthians chapter 11 for God’s hair standard for men and women.)

      Again girls, lets dress, look, talk and behave as God’s Word tells us. Let’s quit comparing our ‘more modest standards’ to the less modest standards of this world; when we use the world as a gauge for what modesty means it convinces our hearts that we are dressing ‘okay’ because after all, we are not dressing like those sinners….at least many of are not. An example of that is when Christian women chooses not to wear a bikini because they believe a bikini is immodest….which is good. However many Christian women will then choose to wear a one piece swimsuit (which is still always form fitting) with a pair of shorts. Now choosing to wear the one piece swimsuit with shorts is much better than wearing a bikini….however, it’s still not biblically modest in God’s eyes. God’s standards are not based on the world’s, or even the churches, concept of what modest is. Oh how far we have fallen from God’s standard for modesty! I can’t even imagine faithful, biblical women like Sarah or Hannah even considering going out in public wearing the type of clothes that many Christian women wear today. For thousands of years godly thinking women wore modest, discreet clothing. A lot of the clothes that Christian women wear these days would have only been seen on harlots or prostitutes in years past.

      And finally, girls/ladies it is NOT legalism when we follow God’s standards for choosing to wear modest clothing to please the Lord. Now the Scriptures do NOT tell us exactly what we can and cannot wear. By that I mean the Bible does not directly command that women cannot wear pants. However, the Scripture do clearly tell us that ANY pants that are worn by girls/women must be modest and discreet. No obviously, nearly skin tight, (i.e. form revealing) pants (of any style) are NOT modest and discreet. Trust me gals, if you’re wearing skin tight, butt or crotch hugging pants, any guy with more testosterone than a French fry is not going to look at what color your eyes are when he sees you coming or going. Ladies, all those ‘goodies’ should be for your husband’s eyes only. Save all those nice looking body parts for your marriage bedroom. Please see http://www.scriptureblogger.com for more info on modesty and gender issues.

      Ladies, the Lord never intended for girls/women to be, act, behave or compete with the boys/men in all areas of life. God intended that the men do those things like: climbing the coconut tree or build the pyramids, wrestling the sheep away from the wolf. Now there are many things that women can do modestly and discreetly while wearing modest, discreet clothing. I am afraid that many Christian women have wandered away from that biblical concept because they desire to do everything that the guys do. I believe that’s why we have so Christian women involved in all kinds of head-banging, body-slamming sports activities today. Let’s be honest: you put a dress on a girl/women and she’s going to be limited into what she can do physically. Over the years women in civilized societies (who always choose to dress somewhat modestly) have slowly drifted towards dressing ways that were once considered barbaric. Today we have a whole generation of women that are going back to the plates in the lips, numerous body piercings, and grass skirt type outfits. And ladies, it always amazes me that many Christian, and even secular women, who do attempt to be modest (i.e. working hard to not expose their undergarment things) when wearing dresses, will show up at a beach pretty wearing things that pretty much reveal everything they’ve got!

  2. I am glad that you approached the subject of a woman’s modesty. Before I started covering all my body, except my face, hands and feet, in public, I would like to look at the old paintings of women wear veils over their heads and long, loose dresses. Then I thought, “Why only then? There certainly is enough fabric in the world for me to cover more. For thirty years now I have covered myself in long dresses, with a head covering. I have worked, In Philadelphia, been on stage singing in a modest way, and have even had four children in hospitals staying covered mostly. It makes a giant difference. When I put on these clothes of “old”, I think of the virgin Mary and other good women of the past. I just smile at people, speak perfect English and sometimes people ask: “What country are you from?” I say that I am American, and go on with the subject that I want to address, or listen to them. Concerning the matter that you wrote about, a woman going to a party and doing things and then getting raped, I believe that her going to the party not covered well was a sin, drinking alcohol is a sin, “making out” with men who are not her husband is a sin. So although I do believe that a man raping her is a sin on his part, she did a lot of sins also, in the story presented. Help children in need or do another good act, and don’t sin people!

    • interesting comment, Jocelyn. to me the point of being modest is not to draw attention to oneself; therefore, covering yourself completely is going to draw attention to YOU. i would rather go unnoticed….you might be a person who desires attention from others, even if you can cloak yourself from head to toe.

  3. Well done! Perfect timing for your article… we are three weeks away from launching an event called “Modesty Matters” (www.mosdestymatters.us) on Sept. 7 at a waterpark in Mansfield, TX with the purpose of showing how beautiful modesty can be. You’ve hit the nail on the head with your post, and I’m grateful for your boldness and courage. I’m a father of five (7-12 yrs old) and can greatly appreciate what you are doing for our next generation. God bless!

  4. Luke, I totally agree with your last statement in your article: “What am I trying to accomplish by what I wear?” That puts the focus on our covetous motives rather than a particular style or fashion.

    Any discussion of 1 Timothy 2: 8-10 needs to be closely compared to 1 Peter 3: 3-5, which is very similar in message.

    In regards to Adam and Eve, they felt a sense of shame about their own bodies but the shame did not come from God. At the time of the Fall, the only two human beings on the face of the earth were Adam and Eve and they had seen other naked for possibly a very long time and even been intimate with each other after the Fall. Were they trying to hide their bodies from each other? There were no other people on earth at that time.

    Finally, I think that you need to re-think your premise that 1 Timothy 2: 8-10 is talking about “respectable apparel”. Many Bible translations have read that into the text because they have not exhaustively studied the original Greek. The Greek word “Katastole”, which has been interpreted to mean adornment or apparel is not referring to clothing at all — but rather a quiet, restrained attitude. Furthermore, there was no article of clothing in the ancient Greek or Roman world that was named Katastole or could be identified as Katastole.

    Please tell what you think about this scholarly exegesis of 1 Timothy 2: 8-10:

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/19510245/Rightly-Dividing-1-Timothy-29

    • I agree about your statement of 1 Peter 3. Deserves an article all of its own because it is another rich text. And yes, it relates very closely to this text.

      I agree that the shame Adam and Eve felt was something internally motivated. No disagreement there. Still, it was God who clothed them (Genesis 3:21), showing that he didn’t disapprove of their instinct to cover up. As you said, they were married and the only two people in existence, so seeing each other nude was not a problem, but the new presence of sin signaled something in them that there was a danger in being exposed. The shame seems to be something more related to their sin, not just their nudity, per se (Genesis 3:7). Not sure how much is in the Genesis text we can glean.

      My friend Bobby Scott wrote an interesting piece about nudity and the fall. You might like it.

      I never said that katastole was a specific piece of apparel. As far as I have studied, you are right: there is no item of apparel that is called katastole. That wasn’t what I said. I said the term translated apparel is probably translated too narrowly. I said, “it is a term that encompasses not just clothing, but one’s whole demeanor, attitude, and actions.” Since the context is clearly talking about clothing (as Paul mentions several manners of adorning one’s body), the force of the word is about attitude expressed through apparel.

      From what I can tell, the term katastole has a couple nuanced meanings. First it means something put in order or arranged, in the sense of being equipped, clothed, or dressed (the Greek playwright Aristophanes, for instance, used it this way). The term also used of something “let down,” or calm and sedated. The definitions are related because of the way clothing is “let down” over the body.

      Clearly we agree that the heart of this text is about one’s attitude. We also agree that Paul is not prescribing a kind of clothing. (He is denouncing certain styles, but not prescribing anything specific.) But to say this text has nothing to do with clothing at all doesn’t do justice to the text.

  5. Thanks for the good dialogue Luke — I appreciate opinions like yourst because they are well-thought out.

    I read your friend Bobby Scott’s series on how nudity affected Adam and Eve in the Fall with much interest. While I agree with some of his secondary points about the nature of deception and how it marred the image of God in people, I have to respectfully but unequivocally disagree with his basic premise regarding the Fall and nudity — namely, that through Eve being deceived and Adam going along with it, that Eve used her nakedness and sensualistic whiles to forever corrupt the purity of Adam. Wow! I thought that this type of regressive theology passed away with certain vestiges of old line Catholicism. I still recall my, aunt, who was raised up in the Depression area Catholicism (where the Bible was read to them only in Latin), sitting around the dinner table with my Mom and I during the early 1970’s (when I was a young boy,) explaining to us how the forbidden fruit in Eden was Eve giving Adam a taste of “sex” through nudity and sensualism — thereby corrupting him and forever warping his purity. In all due respect to your friend Luke, again I have to say Wow! — I never thought I would ever hear that kind of reasoning again, particularly in this century. I mean no disrespect to Bobby. He obviously has taken some time to think deeply about this issue. It’s just that his ultimate conclusion is illogical and unfounded: The fall of Adam and Eve in the garden was far more universally damaging than simply perverting Adam’s view of Eve and her body. Their insecure desire to want to clothe themselves when God didn’t want them clothed was a symptom of their illogical feelings of separation anxiety when God wasn’t even separating Himself from them or rejecting them. The issue of their nudity and their hastily acquired fig leafs (which quickly burned away in the noonday sun) was a side issue. God knew that they need better clothes to protect their bodies from the elements once they were out of the protective realm of Eden.

    I agree with you that the Greek word Katastole can be very well extended to include clothing — I’m just telling you that that is not the primary thrust of the word — yet many have made it that. In fact, there are hoardes of so-called Christian modesty proponents who have made it their sole focus. Just google “Christian girls and modest clothing”, for example, and you’ll see how far this passage of Scripture has been stretched out of context. You’ll see articles about the length of dresses for women and even head coverings.

    Luke, you said this in your article:

    “Similarly, modern modesty standards are not about arbitrary rules of how much skin is shown or how low-cut something is, but about the messages and values our clothing communicates.”

    I would submit to you, that in most Christian forum discussions about 1 Timothy 2: 8-10 and modesty, there are no raging debates about braided hair, gold, pearls or costly attire. It is entirely about midriffs, cleavage and skin exposure and what it is perceived to communicate.

    Consider this:

    My seventeen year old Paul, whom I have carefully trained in the ways of inner sexual purity — through the Holy Spirit, not the Law — recently went to his church summer camp and had a great time with the girls and guys there. As usual, we received some “purity guidelines” from our church (which is a great church) in advance of his outing. In particular, most of these well meaning guidelines were geared towards how the girls should cover up. Wear t-shirts under their one piece bathing suits and not wear short shorts which exposed their thighs or blouses which exposed their breasts or belly buttons. The admonitions were also slightly given to the young men as they were counseled to not wear pants that hung down too low — but that was it.

    Anyways, after the trip, I’m looking over camp photos with my son and see some pictures that were taken on “water slide day”. The girls in the picture were all “appropriately dressed” with t-shirts under their bathing suits as they slipped down the slide. The guys? — well that was another story: My son, along with several other boys, were wearing swimming trunks and no shirts — essentially, mostly nude. What happened to the modesty standards? If the roles were reversed and it was the girls dressed like this, they would have been reprimanded by youth leaders. Question: were the girls not potentially aroused by the sight of guys without shirts and skimpy bottoms — essentially wear the modern day equivalent of loin cloths. Was the boys’ dress modest?

    Luke, this is why the unsaved world is all confused about our “Christian modesty standards” — because we are just as confused as they are. Just for the record, I don’t feel that there was anything inappropriate with how my boy or the other boys were dressed. And I would feel the same if the girls were dressed exactly the same as the boys.

    Do you agree or disagree? Please explain.

    • As far as Bobby’s article is concerned, you didn’t point out any actual problems with his exegesis, other than calling it “regressive theology.” If you would like to dialogue with him (and me) about any specifics of why you think his interpretation is incorrect, I highly encourage you to go to any one (or all) of those four articles and state some specifics in the comments. I’d love the feedback and I’m sure he would too.

      I’m glad we’re agreed that katastole includes the concept of outward adornment through clothing with the emphasis on inward attitude. It seems you keep running into arguments elsewhere (not in my article) that say that katastole is an actual item or type of clothing. We both agree: that is not what this word is. That’s why I didn’t state anything like that in my article.

      I agree there are plenty of discussions in Christian communities about the specifics of modesty, as far as clothing or a lack of clothing is concerned. I do not think such discussions are out of place if they are talked about in the light of this text, and other relevant texts, that speak of modesty as an matter of the heart. There is nothing wrong with talking specifics of clothing (after all, the apostle Paul did) when trying to bring some kind of modern application to how heart-modesty is lived out in our interactions and wardrobe choices.

      I agree with you that this should apply to men as well as women. As far as this text is concerned, modesty was something Paul was addressing to Christians women, but there are plenty of principles to be applied here for men as well.

      I do think modesty is going to be a contextual matter. From one culture to another, from one era to another, and from one gender to another, modesty is going to take different shapes based on the cultural cues certain kinds of clothing provoke. For the people in Ephesus, braided hair invoked a certain kind of cultural response. For us, not so much.

      I don’t think Christians need to hide from this fact as if it is an embarrassment. Christianity can pride itself in being trans-cultural. The gospel can go into all the nations of the world and impact those nations from within because Christ’s kingdom is not of this world. If specific kinds of clothing choices differ from culture to culture or from generation to generation, this isn’t a problem. We simply preach on the heart of modesty, watch God change hearts, and try to offer the best discerning guidelines we can to help people make modest clothing choices based on the times in which we live.

  6. What a great article! Looking at the WYD2013 I couldn’t help thinking how necessary this message is in theCatholic world. Almost every single JMJ hymn video, the mobflash videos had girls singing and dancing in tights or hot pants.

    Having said this, I’m rather surprised that you would say that we’re not responsible/ “guilty” for others’ sins. Participating in someone else’s sin, certainly is a sin. Intentionally inducing people in sin, is a sin. Not admonishing someone’s sin can also become our personal sin.

    In the CCC the virtue of modesty is linked to the virtue of charity precisely because charity has us think of the spiritual and general welfare of others. While a girl should not be blamed for gettin raped, we do need to be aware that dressing provocatively is a sin against charity and against purity and the lust we produce in others, especially if done intentionally or out of negligence (“heck, I’m only going to the corner store, hope no one notices I’m half naked”) does in fact, make us part-takers of the orher’ sin.

    Either way, thank you for this inspiring post, it got me motivated to write (once again) on the subject for our Romanian chastity site!

    Julia

    • Hi Julia. For clarification, I mean that if someone lusts after you, you are not thereby guilty of lusting. If you did something to intentionally provoke that lust, then you are guilty of seduction, not lust. In this sense, you are most certainly participating in the man’s sin, but you are not guilt of his sin. You are accountable for your own.

      You are correct: Modesty is most certainly linked to charity (love) because we don’t want to cause others to stumble. We should never want to cause someone to stumble, but we also don’t want to make the mistake of downplaying another’s sin because someone else tempted them. A man is responsible to guard his eyes no matter how women around him dress.

      In other words, both the seducer and the seduced are guilty, but guilty for different reasons.

      Thanks for the comment!

  7. Luke, the Nudity and the Fall article by Bobby Scott makes a lot of presumptions:

    The first is trying to make a direct causal linkage between the words “arum” for the serpent in the garden and arom for Adam and Eve where none is stated or implied. Bobby’s then proceeds to extrapolate from that linkage that the entire net effect of Adam and Eve’s rebellion against God was the perversion of Adam’s original excitement at seeing his new wife Eve through the eating of the fruit of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. I’m sorry Luke but that is pure eisegesis: reading into the text rather than out of it. The tragedy of the fall was not that they viewed themselves as merely being naked — that was a symptom like the feelings of fear that they now felt was a symptom. The primary effect of the fall is that they didn’t personally trust God any longer and saw Him as an enemy who wasn’t looking out for their best interests. However, Bobby wants to make it the sole focus of how it perverted Adam and Eve’s views of each other’s bodies and their sexual attraction to each other. It really sounds like he developed a novel story line in order justify his presumption about the “perversion” of nudity. He is begging the question: Basing an assumption that is in as much need of proof or demonstration as the conclusion itself.

    One more thing about the “Katastole” issue: I never said that you personally were making out the word to mean that it is some type of clothing. You just need to be aware (and I’m sure that you are) that nearly every evangelical Christian web site with a “modesty agenda” contorts that word directly into clothing rather than an attitude (which you correctly state). I largely agree with your interpretation of the word as an attitude. You know what? — here’s attitude: If a woman (or man) dresses purposely and consciously to sexually or emotionally titillate the opposite sex, then there is a wrong heart issue. They are attempting to covet sexual attraction which does not rightfully belong to them. Coveting is the key for both the seducer and the seduced.

    Luke, you didn’t answer the questions in my last post to you about Christian girls and swimming suits. My questions to you were:

    1) Are Christian girls attracted to and aroused by skimpily dressed Christian guys? Were the Christian boys that I mentioned in my story (including my son) dressed immodestly?

    2) If Christian girls are attracted and aroused by skimpily dressed Christian guys, then why do current American Evangelical Christian “modesty standards” allow for the boys to wear almost nothing and the girls have to wear t-shirts and other types of clothing under their swimsuits?

    3) How would you feel if the Christian girls at camp wore no bathing top or covering over their torsos — just swimsuit bottoms (like the guys)? Would that be immodest?

    Please contrast and compare — I’m very interested in how you intellectually process these questions, especially in the light of the Nudity and the Fall series that you reference.

    • Like I said about Bobby’s post, you should really comment there so he can see the comments and reply back to you.

      In my article I said “the term ‘apparel’ is probably translated too narrowly: it is a term that encompasses not just clothing, but one’s whole demeanor, attitude, and actions.” Originally you said to me, “I think that you need to re-think your premise that 1 Timothy 2: 8-10 is talking about ‘respectable apparel.’” But now you’re saying I don’t need to rethink it? I’m confused.

      As for your questions.

      1. As I don’t know what kind of trunks the boys were wearing, and as I am not a woman, nor have I surveyed what women think about this, I really don’t know the answer to your question. Immodesty as a principle transcends how any one person does or does not lust after you. If a boy was dressed in swim trunks with the intention to seduce a girl, it would be immodest because his attitude would be in the wrong place, regardless of if he actually succeeds in titillating anyone. If you believe swim trunks send a cultural message of looseness or a provocative demeanor, or if you believe it is perceived by girls that way, or if you believe that girls (if they were honest with themselves) find men in trunks to be lust provoking, then I would say yes: they are immodest.

      2. I really don’t know the answer to this question either, but I have some speculations. There most certainly is a double standard present in at least particular Christians’ minds about modesty. There is the presupposition that women don’t become visually aroused by men. But I do believe that many Christians think modesty applies to guys. If a guy’s attitude is seductive, he would be labeled as immodest. If a guy poses for an Abercrombie & Fitch ad, he would probably be labeled as immodest. If a guy dressed opulently, in manner that was obvious he was only trying to show extraordinary wealth, he would be labeled as immodest. Still, you are right to want to raise the standard for men as well as women.

      3. I do think think modesty standards should be different for men and women, in terms of the specific clothing that is worn. If a girl doesn’t wear a bra under her shirt so as to show off more of her form, it could be immodest. But if a guy doesn’t wear a bra, this is simply because his anatomy doesn’t require one. A boy might be able to wear something that shows the top of his pectorals, but a girl might not. Gender differences don’t mean the presence of a double standard. A double standard exists when there isn’t the same premium on modesty for one gender as there is for another.

  8. Its a great artical! But i still believe as a women that though a women isn’t souly blame for sexual missconduct in the way they dress she still has responsibility. Women these days don’t innocently dress inappropriate they aim to in many cases. They want to turn heads and get a guy into bed with them. They can be as animistic to wards the man as the man is to the girl. Now this is only some cases but though girls are in most cases the victims so in some cases are the men. Men need to take responsibility for their eyes and actions, ABSOLUTELY! When a girl under any circumstance gets abused sexually she needs 110% compassion and love and support and there is no justification for the mans actions. But girls still need to get it out of their heads that they can just dress scanty . The few clubs i have been to its been the women not the men were going out of their way to be inappropriate and it discussed me greatly.

    • No disagreement here. That’s essentially what I was getting at. A girl who attempts to provoke a man’s lust is not thereby guilty of lust, but is guilty of seduction. If someone embraces the very thing the apostle Paul is commending here, then she will do all she can to dress in a modest fashion out of love for God, love for her fellow men, and a hatred of sin.

  9. Luke, I was very clear in my statements about the word Katastole: it can be tangentially applied to clothing and outward adornement if you want to push the definition really, really hard. However, the primary thrust of the word is not about any type of clothing but inward attitudes of the heart. But is that where most of Christendom is at on this issue? — no, definitely not. If you wear the wrong type of clothing or, in their opinion, show too much cleavage, they won’t care what your inward attitudes are — you will automatically be pre-judged as being loose and provocative. You know, several years ago, I once heard of a radical pro-abortion, lesbian activist at a National Organization for Women rally who was wearing earrings made out of aborted baby parts as a protest statement. Of course, that is incredibly sick but wearing those earrings was definitely a reflection of her inward heart and attitudes! But a girl simply choosing to wear a halter top at the beach is being inappropriate? — please give me a break.

    Luke, you said: “Gender differences don’t mean the presence of a double standard. A double standard exists when there isn’t the same premium on modesty for one gender as there is for another.”

    But your in your previous example, you said: “If a girl doesn’t wear a bra under her shirt so as to show off more of her form, it could be immodest. But if a guy doesn’t wear a bra, this is simply because his anatomy doesn’t require one. A boy might be able to wear something that shows the top of his pectorals, but a girl might not.”

    So, a woman who doesn’t wear a bra might be trying to show off and that is not okay but if she doesn’t wear one for the right reason, then she is okay? Really? Does that fly with evangelical Christian world at large?

    What about men who suffer with the condition gynecomastia (enlarged breast tissue in men) — should they wear bras simply because they have enlarged female-like breasts? Or should they too decide whether they should wear a bra on the basis of being inappropriate versus not being inappropriate?

    No Luke, the double standard on this issue is alive and well: Even men who don’t have enlarged breasts, have “something to show”. A man’s pectorals are something that women notice (and sometimes intensely) and if you doubt it, why don’t you conduct interviews with several women on the subject and find out the real answer? It’s just that you don’t acknowledge it because you consider female breasts to be primarily sexual but male breasts not sexual.

    The only reason that you would have more stringent standards for a woman versus a man is because you are culturally perceiving the female body pornographically.

    • I thought I understood you about the term katastole but perhaps I’m not. Before you said the term “can be very well extended to include clothing,” but now you’re saying is can be applied to clothing “if you want to push the definition really, really hard.” As I said before, context guides word meaning. Paul is using the term for clothing the same way Aristophanes (a Greek playwright) did. Is Paul the one “pushing the definition” really hard, or am I?

      To answer your bra question: No. That does not represent mainstream evangelical thought nor my own. What I was talking about were the gender differences, not the heart/motive questions. My point in that statement was to say that men and women might have different modesty standards, and that will be due, in part, to the differences in their anatomy.

      Your last statement is interesting: “The only reason that you would have more stringent standards for a woman versus a man is because you are culturally perceiving the female body pornographically.” I might amend your word choice some. I actually think the male body can be pornographic, too. I would also rather say women should not have “more stringent” standards, just standards that reflect the message sent by certain types of female attire, which may in fact be different than the messages sent by male attire.

      What you seem to be getting at is that cultural conditioning doesn’t determine anything about modesty, and if this is your point, I would wholeheartedly disagree with you. If it is true that the culture of Paul’s day determined why he would prohibit certain hair styles, then the same can be true of any culture at any time. If, for instances, we are raised in a culture where showing off cleavage is a sexual cue, then I would advise women to consider that in their personal modesty standards.

      As I said in the thesis of my article: “First and foremost, a biblical definition of modesty must focus on the heart. Modesty is primarily about our motivations. In addition, modest dress is also about discernment, having an awareness of others and our environment.” If we throw out cultural discernment, we are missing something from modesty, and I believe Paul’s statements in 2 Timothy 2 reflect this.

      I suggest, iIf you’re concerned about double standards, then by all means, promote modesty among men. Find out what cultural cues are reflected in the kinds of clothing men wear, whether certain kinds of clothing communicate decadence or sexual prowess, and then create some guidelines you think are most appropriate for men. I think that would be a very constructive way of going about this.

  10. Luke, in 1 Timothy 2: 8-10, the Apostle Paul was not “laying down the law” about what women or men should or shouldn’t wear. After all, Paul was doing everything in his power to counteract the legalistic Judaizing message of those trying to take Gentile believers in Christ back under the law (the 10 Commandments, circumcision, dietary rules, sacrifices for blood atonement, commands about clothing, etc.).

    He wasn’t directly or indirectly banning certain types of clothing or jewelry because that was not the message that Christ commanded him to preach. He was not telling the female believers in the Corinthian church that they couldn’t wear their hair in a particular way just because pagan women in their culture were wearing it that way. He wasn’t telling men that they couldn’t wear a very fancy and expensive tunic. He was preaching radical grace which is the truth that Gentile believers do not live and have never lived under the shadow of the Law but in the newness of the Spirit (the Law was for the Jews only and only for a set period of time in their history).

    Paul was advocating that we live in accordance with our Christ-given new birth identity. When you are made aware that you are to be totally consumed with your new identity in Christ, then you won’t allow yourself to distracted with externals like trying to show off to the world your possessions or trying to curry favor with people solely by how you dress or what you wear on your body. Our attention is to be focused on the loveliness of our Lord Jesus — not externals.

    Read 1 Timothy 1: 8-10 in the Message version:

    “Since prayer is at the bottom of all this, what I want mostly is for men to pray—not shaking angry fists at enemies but raising holy hands to God. And I want women to get in there with the men in humility before God, not primping before a mirror or chasing the latest fashions but doing something beautiful for God and becoming beautiful doing it”.

    The Apostle was arguing for a heart check. He was arguing for a focus check. He was not ordering the Corinthians to conform to certain fashion standards in accordance with the prevailing cultural standards of his day. To do so, would have weakened and cheapened the clear message of grace, truth and freedom in Christ that he was teaching.

    Paul was not setting up clothing and dress policies like many churches and companies do.

    • I think I’m going to have to disagree with on many accounts here. Yes, of course Paul was preaching a message of radical grace, but it was not a lawless message. Rather the opposite: Paul saw himself and other Christians under “the law of Christ,” which was a message of radical love to one another (1 Corinthians 9:21; Galatians 6:2). It was also a radical message about the gospel of God’s glory being extended into a lost and broken world (2 Corinthians 3-4).

      Seen in this light, a message about modesty is totally fitting. When a lost and dying world sees women (and men) not enslaved to a desire for opulence or sexual prowess but rather carrying themselves in decency and purity, this adorns the gospel of grace. When Christian women (and men) hate sin and love one another, they can show that by how they dress, dressing in a manner that does not seduce.

      If Paul wasn’t trying to speak about specific fashion styles, he certainly has led the whole Christian world astray hasn’t he? Why mention specifics if he didn’t mean them? When Timothy read this letter aloud to his church, do you honestly think the women said, “Well, that whole bit about hair styles…he didn’t really mean that”? Might as well just pitch out the whole letter it that’s the way they read Paul’s correspondence. It sounds like now you disagree with most of the points of my article. You’ve really got me confused.

      Of course Paul wasn’t setting up a dress code the same way many do today. That isn’t the contention of my article at all, and you have already agree with me on this in your above comments.

      A you said in your paper (where you also quoted the Message): “I found it affirming to note that Eugene Peterson made certain to tie together the instructions to men and women, considering them both to be commands towards humility. It is notable that he completely omitted any reference to how women are supposed to dress.” This is exactly what Mr. Peterson did, and to the effect that people treat this as an accurate “translation,” I would urge them not to.

  11. Luke, of course, the Apostle Paul was not preaching lawlessness. However, it was Paul himself that said that both sin and the Law was nailed to the cross. As believers, we died to both sin and the Law including the so-called moral laws. (not the just the ones prohibiting the consumption of bacon). We know love others and God out of the overflow in which God loved us first through the Resurrection of Christ.

    Paul’s admonitions to the churches were always centered around focus: Since you are a new creation in Christ, don’t excessively focus on and become distracted with externals whether it is clothing, food, sports or playing golf. I maintain that he was not preaching anything even slightly smacking of prohibition but rather about our focus and identity in Christ. Any attempt to turn it into “Thou shalls” or “Thou shall nots” entirely cheapens and minimizes the message of the New Covenant and causes the Cross of Christ to become of no effect.

    You know, at one time in my life, I hung around some, what I would call “Holiness Pentecostals”. They were very strict and legalistic in their teachings about everything in the Bible (nice people nonetheless). Anyways, the first time I came to their church, I was wearing a tie. Unbeknowst to me was the fact that they interpreted 1 Peter 3: 3-5 as meaning that women and even men are not to wear jewelry or clothing adornements (such as ties). In fact, they came up to me after the service and actually asked if I was saved because they told me that saved men and women don’t wear ties and jewelry! Thoughts?

    Once you go down the prohibition road, there is no end to it — because everybody has their opinion. The best thing that we can do is allow the Holy Spirit to permeate our hearts and follow his admonitions from within — not from without. We must not become slaves to fashion or other the world’s opinion of us. That also includes the opinions of our brothers and sisters in Christ.

    Luke, I must still say, however, that your modesty standards for men vs. women are still highly confusing. It seems to revolve around your subjective feelings rather than any objective standards of “modesty”. It something looks or feels immodest to you, therefore it is (to you). The real test of your open-mindedness on this subject is if you allow your brothers and sisters to wear what their own consciences dictate without you passing judgment or pronouncements with your own ideas. That includes your interpretations of 1 Timothy 2: 8-10.

    • I believe you are confusing being dead to the law (as in the law of Moses) with being dead to the law of Christ (which, as Paul himself said, we are still very much in submission to). Of course that law is now written on our hearts and is empowered by the Spirit, but that doesn’t make such a law any less specific. There are moral commands all over Paul’s letters (1 Timothy included).

      I agree that identity in Christ is at the heart of Paul’s command here, but that doesn’t make his command any less specific. In other words, “Women, your identity is now in Christ, so don’t wear things that demonstrate your identity is still bound up with the world.” With that at the heart of his command, it makes perfect sense for him to get granular with them. You really aren’t proving your point here, Ed. If Paul wasn’t trying to give them the impression that he didn’t want them wearing braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, he certainly was a poor communicator, because that’s exactly what he wrote.

      Your experience with the Holiness church was unfortunate. Clearly, they were twisting a first century application of a timeless principle into a 20th century context. Never goes well when we do that.

      I’m not sure what modesty standards of mine you are referring to (regarding men vs. women). I’ve really not gotten specific nor definitive in my statements about that. I’ve never said anything about what I personally think is immodest on a man or a woman in my comments to you, nor my article (trying to be careful to preface my statements with appeals to conscience). I’ve never asked anyone to cater to my ideas of how modesty should be applied, nor have I tried to apply it in anyone’s specific questions or statements here. I believe you’re putting words into my mouth.

      I can see this line of comments is going nowhere fast, but let me summarize…

      1. We clearly agree that modesty is a matter of the heart, that it applies to men and women, and that first and foremost people should be tenderized in their conscience over the matter. We also seem to agree that trying to bring Paul’s specific applications of first century modesty into a modern context does an injustice to the Bible.

      2. We seem to disagree that God gives believers specific commands today. I’m really not sure where you get the idea that God has nailed all his moral laws to the cross, leaving us with no commands at all.

      3. We also seem to disagree about the role of culture when it comes to modesty standards (what you call “subjective”). I’ve tried to make my case (in my article) that the reasoning behind Paul’s specifics (about what not to wear) were due to the culture of his day. In this sense, Paul was not being subjective but applying an objective principle through his discernment of what those items of clothing communicated to the people in Ephesus. Applying this to today, I believe Christians should discern the cultural cues certain kinds of clothing invoke and make wise choices, born out of heart-motivated modesty.

      4. I have never defended or articulated a specific modesty standard (“don’t wear this, don’t wear that”), but you seem to keep confusing me with people from your past who have done so. I cannot apologize for these people. Nor can I defend them.

      I’ve appreciated this discussion, Ed, but I fear you and I are talking over each other’s heads.

  12. Luke, thanks for the conversation stream. You’re right — both of us are looking at this modesty issue through radically different lenses and paradigms.

    On the subject of Christians (not unbelievers) being dead to the law and sin, I would highly urge you to read at least one or more books by Pastor Dr. Andrew Farley. His first book is The Naked Gospel. His second is Heaven Is Now and his third book is God Without Religion. All three are phenomenal. If you haven’t read them, I dare you to read them as it could revolutionize your ministry.

    With the general thrust of Covenant Eyes, I am concerned that you are trying to fight a battle with no ending. There is no ending to the amount of skin and “immodesty” you see in the world or even perceive in the Church. You can try to block out all of it (or what you think it is). However, in the final analysis, it will still be there – filter or no filter.

    If you have a top of the line, steel-reinforced ladder, but lean it up against the the wrong house (the wrong goal), then the net outcome is that you will be leaned against the wrong house — no matter how good your ladder is.

    • Thanks for the book recommendation. I’ll look into it.

      I think you are right about the “thrust” of our business: it is battle that has no end, at least not in this age. That is nature of sin, however. It will continue until the end of the age. That doesn’t mean we don’t strive to live in holiness, and I believe the thousands of testimonies we receive from our customers are an indication that the Lord is using our services as tools to sanctify His people. This makes the battle more than worth it.

      Not sure what “wrong house” we’re leaning our ladder against.

  13. Luke, thank you for you work and about caring about how these issues affect the lives of believers. And they do indeed, though not always for the reasons that we have traditionally thought.

    I would submit to you one more resource for your perusal. Disclaimer: I am in no way connected with this website — I accidentally stumbled on it. But it has been absolutely transformative in my life and the life of my teenage son as I help train him in the path to purity. In order to “get it”, you’ll have to read every bit of the content on the site including external links:

    http://www.mychainsaregone.org

    Blessings,
    Ed

  14. What a great and beautiful message. I especially thank you for your words “My naked form is a thing of divine beauty.. I will not use such beauty as an opportunity for exploitation and indecency.” I struggle with self image issues, partly due to my ex husbands pornography addiction. Reading those words made me feel differently about my nude body and not focus on its imperfections for a bit. I wrote it on a note card and am placing it on my mirror for continual reassurance that my form is a thing of divine beauty.

  15. I really appreciate this wonderful article about biblical modesty. There is one area, medical modesty that many Christians and non-Christians do not really think about.

    It bothers me about how many Christians preach that you should dress modestly, but that your modesty does not matter in medical settings. It is odd that many Christians preach that young women should dress modestly to help men to stay pure, but they see nothing with male gynecologists. This is a huge cultural blind spot. I think that in general, people tend to accept almost anything that the medical industry does because our culture sees doctors as the definitive “experts” on the human body. Often Christians fall into this trap; they submit to a doctor’s methods without questioning, but often doctor’s methods go against God’s nature.

    I do not believe in situational ethics. If nudity is always wrong with the opposite sex except for your spouse after puberty, I believe it is wrong in all settings including medical. Doctors and nurses are humans like all of us and not exempt from God’s moral standards. Many Christians have fallen to the cultural blind spot that opposite sex intimate medical care is okay. I encourage you to check out some articles about this issue at http://www.truthmagazine.com/modesty-and-your-physician.

    Look at how one man’s marriage was hurt by his wife going to a male gynecologist at http://www.patientmodesty.org/modestycomments.aspx?ID=2.
    The abortion issue reminds me so much of opposite sex intimate medical care. Abortion was not performed in the bible, but infanticide was. There are plenty of bible verses that indicate that life begins at conception and that an unborn baby is human. We know murder is wrong based on God’s word so that is how we know abortion is wrong. Think about it this way: it is wrong for a man to shoot a pregnant woman in the stomach and kill her unborn baby, but it is okay for a doctor to kill an unborn baby through abortion in the name of medicine according to the pro-choice movement. Both the man and the doctor are equally guilty of murder. It is wrong for a person who is not in the medical profession to examine and touch private parts of a sexually mature person of the opposite sex she/he is not married to, but it is okay for a doctor or nurse to do that in name of medicine. It is ridiculous because God has the same standards for everyone including medical professionals.
    It is very easy for your wishes for modesty or same gender intimate medical care to be violated and this is the very reason I started Medical Patient Modesty.

    Misty

  16. Loved your article Luke :) Just wish there were specifics for things like bathing suits! I am a fitness professional and rely heavily on people trusting me that “working with me works.” Before and after pictures are key. I posted one such picture and received an email from a brother in the Lord appalled that I would post bikini pics. I had cropped off her head and they weren’t frontal shots (from the side and behind) but it did grieve me that I may have caused him to stumble. And honestly I am always hoping people will think I look nice in the clothes I wear. Not lust after me but I love compliments for sure. I just wish the Bible was as specific about dress as it was about the tabernacle. Give me a rigid set of definitions! Am I missing the point? maybe lol! It is possible to wear a bikini and be modest if the purpose is not to cause lust? maybe that is the better question. Are there some clothes that are just on the no-no list? that would be so helpful! Thank you, doing research and seeking a sincere answer. My heart just wants to please God.

    • You’re asking some great questions, Annabella, and I wish these things were more cut and dry as well. God was wise to write the Bible in such a way that it can fit into any culture, language, and ethnic group. Modesty, like it or not, will mean different things to different people.

      Braided hair, for instance, is the example Paul gave, but the application is not about women braiding there hair now, but about what braided hair meant in the Greco-Roman culture of Paul’s day. Using wisdom, we need to look at similar situations today.

      I see similar situations on a website that my wife manages for breastfeeding moms. Often pictures are needed to show positions and techniques. Should a man find this site, he likely would get an eye full of flesh, which I imagine could cause some to stumble. We reconciled this issue knowing that the site clearly advertises itself as a breastfeeding website, trusting that men who are attempting to guard their eyes will probably steer clear, and men who are looking to lust will do what they want to do anyway.

      Perhaps there are ways you can set up some “gateways” on your website that allow men and women to self-select the before-and-after photos they want to see. Men who want to see photos of only men can do that, and women can see photos of only women: they choose what images they want to see. That would at least put up a barrier for those who are trying to be pure.

      Perhaps instead of bikinis you could show the sections of the body you most want to feature, like the mid-section, rather than showing breasts and all. That may not be feasible, but perhaps it will help the situation some.

  17. This ia an enlightening piece, Luke. I am a Muslim lady and I cover up but this is the first time I am stumbling upon anything Christian that talks about modesty. I had always thought only Islam emphasizes it. I am a Nigerian and I have a lot of christian friends and family but they all leave there are no rules binding them. the only Nigerian christain ministry that dresses modest are called fanatics cos of their strict rules concerning dressing. I think more Christains need to be Enlightened abiut this so the world can be a better place and they can stop seeing muslims ladies that cover up as freaks. i also want to ask about male modesty. shouldn’y we have something as such?

    • Hello Maryam,

      Many Christian communities throughout the world have their own modesty standards, and I believe many Christians in general place a premium on modesty. There are, of course, exceptions. I will say, however, that modesty standards in Christian churches tend to be based other cultural factors: so what is modest for a Christian in Nigeria might look different from what is modest for a Christian in America or the UK. As my article states, there are sexual cues that get culturally attached to clothing styles in different cultures.

      I also alluded to the idea of male modesty in the article, and you are right, it is an increasing concern. I will say, historically speaking, it is fairly new discussion in the world. Of course, there have always been men who act sexually inappropriate, but conversations about that tended not to be lumped into the “modesty” category. Today, however, there is a need to address this because we see men sexualized in media right alongside women.

  18. The Scripture 1 Timothy 2:9 is not about lust or temptation at all. Paul was not uneducated, if he wanted to speak on lust, he would have. But he didn’t. He spoke on modesty. This Scripture is often used in reference to men lusting after women or women seducing men, that’s not what it’s about. It’s about Believers putting their attire and their adornments above God.
    That being said, those who put great emphasis on “veiling” themselves are just as guilty of being immodest as those who put great emphasis on wearing booty shorts and belly tees.

    The Scripture 1 Timothy 2:9 is only Paul’s opinion. In the KJV he says that he “will’s” for women to dress modestly. Meaning, he wishes for them to dress in that manner. It’s not a commandment from God…that’s still not to say that women shouldn’t dress modestly. More importantly, it’s saying that women who give more care to their clothing and their adornments should dress modestly so as to not distract or disrupt their own spirit. NOT the spirit of others.

    If modesty was an issue for ALL women EVERYWHERE, Paul would have mentioned it in his letters to EACH individual church. Instead he mentioned it specifically to the Ephesians, why? Because it was a problem amongst the women specifically in Ephesus. Why didn’t he mention modesty to the men of Ephesus? Because the men of Ephesus struggled with anger and doubt, as he also mentioned in 1 Timothy 2:8
    “I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting.” (‭1 Timothy‬ ‭2‬:‭8‬ KJV)

    Modestly is still a problem for some today, however, the notion of how Christian women, or Christian men for that matter, should dress is not defined by this Scripture alone. As stated in the article, modesty is defined by our behavior, not merely our attire.
    If a Christian woman went to the mall and wore skin tight jeans with “Juicy” printed on the behind, she wouldn’t be guilty of “treating sin lightly” that’s like saying a man who takes his shirt off at the gym is hell-bound for his lack of shamefacedness.
    Wearing something that shows off your body, male or female, is not being insensitive to sin. Because you will always have someone lusting after you, whether you’re covered from head to toe or walking around stark naked. If being sensitive to sin was the point of modesty, beautiful individuals would have been commanded to stay indoors. Their mere faces would have been an insensitivity to sin.

    • Thanks for weighing in on this. I have a few thoughts…

      1. I agree that Paul isn’t directly talking about lust or temptation in this text. He is talking about modesty. However, given the specific fashion options he mentions, associated with opulence and sexual prowess, it seems to be clearly one of the reasons why he is mentioning modesty.

      2. Obviously, Paul is giving his opinion, but the question for the careful interpreter is whether he is knowingly stating something that is merely his opinion or something he believes God thinks as well. Look at the connecting phrases. When he says he desires men in every place to pray (v.8), is that merely his opinion, or something God also wants? The context is clear: he is saying this because of the above comments about “supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings” being made for all kinds of people (v.1) which is not merely something he personally urges but because “it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior” (v.3). Flowing from this premise, he tells all men to pray (v.8), and then in the same breath, tells women to be modest. In fact, he uses the same verb (βούλομαι, i.e. I want, I will) for both actions: men praying and women dressing modestly. It seems clear from the context that modesty isn’t merely his opinion any more than prayer is.

      3. It is a superficial logic to say that if Paul thought modesty was an issue everywhere he wouldn’t have mentioned it everywhere. Paul only mentions the Lord Supper in one letter. Does that mean that he doesn’t think other churches should do it? Paul only mentions the qualifications for elders in two letter. Does that mean none of the other churches should follow similar qualifications? For that matter, all of Paul’s letter show unique qualities and content. This is the beauty behind God’s design for Scripture: even though each letter and book is addressed to individuals and specific groups, taken as a canon of inspired literature, they are meant to be used by the church universally (interpreted rightly and contextually, of course).

      4. I agree with you that modesty is not defined by this Scripture alone, and I say as much in my article.

      5. It’s a good question once we start comparing issues of male and female modesty. I’m not sure what to do about the man at the gym example, but that’s only because I’m not sure what cultural cues are associated with that (say, compared to a woman with “juicy” written on her back side). If a shirtless male invokes a cultural image of sexual prowess and seduction, then I would say the man should probably be more discrete about where he takes his shirt off.

      (And for the record, I don’t think anyone in particular is “hell-bound” because of modesty issues. If modesty is a matter of the heart and someone is being deliberately and sinfully immodesty, then yes, that person is offending God, but not in a manner that can’t be forgiven.)

  19. Let’s look at some verses that show a little of God’s heart and mind in the matter (since Jesus Christ is the same yesterday today and forever (Heb. 13:8; and perhaps Malachi 3:6), I think these are safe):

    He asked the priests to cover their thighs Exodus 28:42

    God related shame to the thighs and buttocks being exposed Isaiah 47:1-3 (I think there are other references to exposed buttocks and thighs as relates to shame.) I don’t think that shame was “in your culture” but more God’s definition and distinction between shame and honor.

    Ex 20:26; Ex 32:25 (pharua – naked) other verses too

    I Corinthians 12:23 speaks of the Body but there is an interesting reference to modesty as refers to clothing: cover unpresentable (parts); some say private parts; bestow clothing (peritithemen Greek 4060)

    Modesty is an issue of the heart AND body. I have observed that we have abandoned physiological principles put in place by God. It is very weak of us to make constant references to the state of our heart when we wear clothing that is form fitting (or just clothing bare necessities). I firmly acknowledge those who know they are not trying to be seductive but believe there is ignorance and a lack of a reality check when we go forward with bare minimum and skin tight clothing; this is not a whole recognition of reality. Saying “my heart is in the right place” is only half the puzzle though a big one if not the biggest one.

    We are not responsible for someone else’s sin thoughts but we are responsible to please God, which takes a contrite (repentant) heart or even a boldly curious one. Moments of quiet. Reading the whole Bible and not chucking out the Old Testament where so much of God’s heart is exposed. After having been at a legalistic college and fed up with that kind of approach, I asked God to always let me see his heart when I read the Bible. That means his motives and his long term plan as well as his short term plan. List checking is dangerous. His heart is clear in the Bible many times over. We remember Jesus’s statement: Oh, Jerusalem, Jerusalem. Matthew 23:37. How he Longed. He has desires. Reasons. Hopes for us. Clothing is actually in there if we can discern and leave behind the legalistic but see the heart of God. After 25 years I was able to weed out the lists and verses that were misapplied and see that the amount of clothing is a part of modesty undoubtedly. It is NOT just about what we wear and where we wear it though that is a part of it. So we cannot say that it would be inappropriate to wear thus and such to church but it is okay to wear it by a body of water. There are some bottom line standards that need addressed.

    My latest “revelation” is that 1mm of clothing does not constitute covering. Logically, it does not.

    Regarding lust, I heard it best like this: a man can lust after a woman even if she is wearing a burlap sack. That is true. But what do we do? Since there is not a chapter on the definition of clothing it is our duty to then search for the heart of God in the matter without being legalistic, reductionistic or lacking care. He is amazingly silent on the issue as far as lists go but his thoughts can be seen if we look with the goal of hearing Him just as we learn of someone else we love from little tidbits here and there.

    If we even take the thought in I Corinthians 12:23, we can give great respect to our body. That is the emphasis: our body is deserving of great honor.

    p.s. I am a great proponent of breastfeeding. It is my belief that a breast giving nourishment is still a breast and the sexuality of a breast and the function of a breast ARE NOT mutually exclusive. Our “private parts” deserve the honor of covering (except in the company of the husband, and women and to clarify, that is women who would not be tempted to lust. This necessarily excludes posting photos.) There are local groups and specialists, or neighbors or family who can address the issues and relying on the internet as a means if it violates the standard of “covering” is a compromise though well intended. Again, that is “our hearts are in the right place” which is undoubtedly true, vs, we bestow honor to our bodies by covering them. The internet doesn’t have to be the means. When I didn’t know what I was doing, I cried (literally) out to God and through a series of events I ended up talking to a lady who had been a nurse who drove to my house at 10 at night and stayed until 1 in the morning to teach me what I needed to know. I still remember that as a bold move of God in my life since that kindness was unusual, but an answer from God. Learning can be accomplished without turning to posted actual photos. Present the challenge to God and see the amazing ideas that will come about.

    Still searching for God’s heart.

    My compliments to you for addressing this topic.

  20. I am a new youth and young adult minister and would love to link this on our Facebook/Blog page. Is there an easy way to do that? Is it posted to the Covenant Eyes Facebook page? I do not see a “Share” option.

    Thanks for helping me understand.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>