A Parapet Round The Roof

[Poimen]

Shannon Muller, a male believer, age 22, wrote in response to the Modesty survey...

"Deuteronomy 22:8 says, “When you build a new house, you shall make a parapet for your roof, that you may not bring the guilt of blood upon your house, if anyone should fall from it.” My sister has often heard from other girls, “It seems the whole point to this modesty thing is to try and hide the fact that I’m female. If I do that, how will a guy ever notice me?”

In my opinion, modesty is no more about hiding the fact that a woman is a woman than having a parapet around a roof is about hiding the fact that the roof is a roof. The primary purpose of the parapet is so that no one falls off the roof and dies, bringing guilt upon the homeowner. One primary purpose of modesty is to prevent men from “falling” on account of a woman’s unguarded body.

“But won’t certain men lust no matter what?”

Yes, just like certain men will jump off a roof, despite the parapet. If a man wants to jump, you should do what you can to stop him. But, if he forces his way past and jumps anyway, the guilt is on his head, not yours. The parapet is there to keep men that don’t want to jump from falling. It’s the same with modesty.

“But how do I know what’s modest and what’s not?”

This question can be likened to asking: “How tall does the wall around my roof need to be?” Some people judge this choice by asking, “How low can I make the wall and still fulfill the requirements?” While others ask the better question, “How tall should the wall be so that it will protect those on the roof?”

The “how-low” group might build a 12-inch railing or a fence with four-foot gaps between the posts. Technically speaking, the roof has a parapet either way. The problem is that these railings might actually do more to cause someone to fall off the roof than if there was no wall at all. There is no safety.

The “how-tall” group of people might build a nine-foot-tall, solid-brick wall ensuring that even Goliath would have a hard time forcing himself over the railing. This would certainly fulfill the requirements, but it’s obviously overkill. Instead of a roof with a parapet, you’ve got a two-story house with no roof at all.

Conclusion: In Modesty, You Are Protected

You don’t have to hide the fact that your house has a roof or that you are a woman. You don’t have to build a nine-foot wall or wear a gigantic paper bag over your body. But you do have to do what you can to protect the lives of your guests and the purity of your brothers (the Modesty Survey should be a great help with that).

In this, you are protected. If someone falls, the guilt is not on your head. You show love and honor to your God, your father, your husband, your children, others around you, and yourself. Your modesty shines. Even if a guy doesn’t know what it is exactly, he will notice you and that there’s something different about you. That’s the right kind of attention."

[Pastor Gary]

Conclusion: In Modesty, You Are Protected

Or, a good dose of good old Wesleyan entire sanctification for men obsessed with becoming the Christian Taliban would do wonders.

[EagerBeaver]

Poimen for the love of God Himself and for the sake of your own credibility can you stop beating this beautiful horse...it's almost dead.

[Poimen]

Poimen for the love of God Himself and for the sake of your own credibility can you stop beating this beautiful horse...it's almost dead.

Well, I was hoping that better men and women of God than I, who have shared more effectively what it is I am trying to communicate, would be more beneficial to our "free wheeling" on the issue of modesty and be perceived less hostile -- permitting a more healthy and reasoned discussion of the subject.

I genuinely believe it to be an important one, a primary error of failure on the part of the Church in America and Western Civ.

[dolfan]

Poimen, no one here is against modesty. No one is suggesting that immodesty is alright. No one here wants to set people up to fall. And, no one, including you my brother, has managed yet to make the point that what this young woman wore to Rahab's church's baptism was immodest. You and Oletimer stated opinions on it, but have treated the woman's appearance as self-evident immodesty. It isn't. And, by picking apart that one feature of her appearance -- a two-piece swimsuit -- and trudging headlong into claims of immodesty, you have turned this discussion into a matter of degrees (how much of "X" is right/wrong?) instead of a matter of quality and kind. It is precisely that kind of issue, not a matter of degrees. You're simply missing the point.

[macgulley]

[Poimen]

You and Oletimer ... have treated the woman's appearance as self-evident immodesty. It isn't.

I wholeheartedly believe it is just that -- self evident immodesty.

No one (generally speaking) should see that much of another persons body or form EXCEPT their spouse and/or immediate family. It should typically produce shame or embarrassment to be seen that way, whether intended provocatively or not. Hence the word shamefacedness.

We may not agree on that, but it is what I believe to be truth. Yes, it is my opinion, but because I believe it to be BIBLICAL. I can admit no other, and will use my voice to speak against it and/or to encourage greater awareness and practice of modesty among believers.

I believe this to be much more serious an issue than most do or admit.

[dolfan]

Well, we're never going to see eye to eye on that, then. For the life of me, I just can't see what you see there. It is no use in trying to convince one another that this is or is not as each of us says.

On the question of self-evident immorality, though, I think there's a discussion worth having. What makes something self-evidently immoral? What are the qualities of something that make it, standing alone without the necessity of any accompanying circumstance or suggestion, immoral in and of itself?

And, by that, I don't mean coming up with examples of what we think meets that definition. We could do that, but it wouldn't be very useful. We'll wind back up where we are, even if we're on the same point of view about. I could say, "Slavery is self-evidently immoral." Someone might respond, "It could not be, because Paul admonished slaves to submit themselves to their masters and for masters to deal kindly with their slaves. Therefore, slavery is not immoral since Paul would not teach people to do something inherently immoral in a more moral manner." And, the argument would be on about how moral or immoral slavery is or might be or might not be and can't be. But, nothing about what makes it self-evidently immoral would probably be reached in the discussion.

The thing with stating something is self-evidently immoral is that it relieves the proponent of that from proving it and puts the opponent of that argument on an automatic defense against no particular part of the proposition (what is it he's opposing?) and it also, by merely stating that it is self-evident, reduces the opponent to a position of misunderstanding or else being an immoral cad. So, it comes with consequences to assert that something is self-evident at all, and those are really loaded ones if the thing being discussed is the morality of an action or thought.

On the other hand, if we assert that something is self-evident without saying why or how it is so, it is very hard for the person hearing you to distinguish that from a supposition. The whole thing becomes dog-chases-tail.

I wonder whether you really think it is self-evident, or if you think it is just obvious, in the case of the immorality of the swimsuit baptizee here. What do you think?

[Poimen]

I wonder whether you really think it is self-evident, or if you think it is just obvious, in the case of the immorality of the swimsuit baptizee here. What do you think?

Not to sound too over simplistic, but I didn't realize there was a dime's worth of difference between self evident and obvious. To me they mean virtually the same thing (depending on context) -- are synonymous (a quick check of the thesaurus confirms my suspicion).

[dolfan]

Obvious means it doesn't need any further explanation, that you can get your mind around it with ease or with understanding. Once, observers thought the Sun revolved around the Earth, but that was later rejected in light of better knowledge. It became obvious that the Earth orbited the Sun. A truth can be obvious, such as this, but require proof.

Self-evident is self-proving. It relies on nothing else for it to be so. It simply is. Something can be self-evident but not obvious. It may take reflection or observation to discover it. Apparently, you think the baptism swimsuit is both. I can agree with you that, to you, it is obvious. I disagree that it is self-evident that the swimsuit is immodest.