Women and men – are there responsibilities the other way?

Bear with me, I’m about to step into a potentially explosive minefield.  If there’s anything that is likely to cause a lot of heat on social media it’s someone writing about how people dress and act.  A little while back a pastor went on a bit of a rant about women wearing yoga pants (leggings to us Brits) and how this was disgraceful because it encouraged men to think lustful thoughts.  There was swift outrage from others along two lines.  First because it excused men of responsibility for what they thought, said and did. It implied that men were completely helpless in the face of lust. Second because it seemed to come from a place where women were to be controlled and managed. What they said/did/wore was to be policed for the well-being and benefit of men.

A lot of the discussion turned on these words from 1 Peter 3:3-5

³ Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as elaborate hairstyles and the wearing of gold jewellery or fine clothes. ⁴ Rather, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God’s sight. ⁵ For this is the way the holy women of the past who put their hope in God used to adorn themselves.

Now it is worth observing that although pretty much every application I remember hearing of those verses in youth and student groups placed the emphasis on not wearing short skirts or tight fitting clothes (and in some particularly conservative cases no make up) that such things don’t seem to be in view in the passage. It’s as much about wearing things that are lavish, expensive, showy.  Peter may have in mind those who dress provocatively but his context suggests that concern was as much about showing off wealth and status as anything.  This would mean that it is possible for both men and women to outwardly project wealth, status and power today without crossing the kind of sexual modesty lines that a lot of modern commentators are concerned about.

So, we should be wary of those who seek to use such Bible verses to police what women wear and how they act.  This is crucial in a society where victims have too often been blamed with the attitude that “she was asking for it” because of what they were wearing, where they were and the time they were there. 

Let’s be clear. When horrific crimes are committed then it is the perpetrator who is responsible. There is no excuse for crime.  This also means that there is no excuse for sin.  Jesus’ words in the sermon on the mount about lust and adultery remind us that our thought life is as important as our outward actions. 

One good reason to challenge the “modesty/purity culture” I refer to above is that it fits with a culture that objectifies women. The presumption seems to be that the main and perhaps only reason behind what a woman wears is that she wishes to signal sexual availability. That’s a demeaning and to be frank narcissistic outlook. 

The responsibility lies with men to put to death sinful desires and one aspect of doing that is by learning to see women as sisters in Christ as whole, multi-dimensional people.  It means as well that we do not make excuses for lust, treating it as some unavoidable, uncontrollable temptation. 

There is though, I think another side to this.  It is right to challenge the kind of hypocritical legalism I’ve described above. However, if we are brothers and sisters in Christ, then women, not under compulsion and not from a place of control but out of a place of sisterly love will want to think about how they dress, speak and act too. 

Part of this means a re-orientation of heart motives and this by the way is crucial for men as well as women.  We should always be thinking about all aspects of our life not just about what gives us enjoyment and helps us to feel worth but how everything we do, what we wear, eat, say etc should first of all glorify God and secondly be helpful and encouraging to others. 

Part of it also I think does mean that whilst some people have been quick to draw the lines very narrowly in terms of what is permissible that clothing isn’t completely subjective.  Whether or not we like it, in a sexualised culture that objectifies women, some clothes are designed primarily for sexual allure.  We may not like this and we might argue strongly that this is not the intent of individual women when they are choosing their outfits.  However, we need to be alert to the intent of designers and marketers too and the result of how things appear in the context of our culture. Notice too that this means context matters. 

So whilst men are responsible for self control, for putting to death sinful desires and whilst there is no place for victim blaming, in a church where we love one another and put each others’ needs first, we will be thinking about the impact of our decisions and actions on each other as we seek to encourage and build one another up in Christ.