Should Christians Wear Bikinis?

My last post seems to have disappeared????

@Carla Anne: Initially you asked “If you have lived or currently live in a culture other than a typical North American culture, please comment on how modesty issues are different or the same in that part of the world. If another part of a woman’s body is sexually attractive in that culture (thighs versus breasts, or necks versus bottoms, etc) what does modesty look like there?”

I have given you two extreme examples one in which modesty demands a great deal more than N. America for both mixed and single sex company and another extreme where in a very specific context, the body is not sexualized at all.

@Ronald & @Carla Anne: also in followup: If e.g. the breast was not seen in a sexual context in certain cultures, (e.g. Polynesian/African…) consider the implication of demanding “you must cover up for us” the American/European who does find it sexual? (Here I am of course making assumptions.) I still do not find any thing in Scripture that dictate what amounts to a particular fashion, if e.g. the Polynesians were perfectly modest and not ashamed before. This is of course an *academic* discussion, and somewhat off topic. But we are considering what is and what is not modest. The original post acknowledged that standards of modesty might be culturally dependent. But when culturally dependent standards are presented as widely different, they become unacceptable, based on what so far appears to be cultural bias and not Scripture.

@ Nick,
I could not find my original post. If I posted “laughed” it would have been for the reason of an implication in the text. The text implies Ham did not honor his father and part of this was talking openly about his father’s nakedness. In Exodus 20:26 we see God commanding linen drawers to be made to cover the loins to the thighs. This must be what pleases God in our dress. In Leviticus 18 we also see the Lord not wanting us to see certain members of our family in their nakedness (Strong’s H 6162, which I will leave it up to the reader to seek God about). I am wondering if a bikini (or speedo) could allow a person to visualize in their mind much easier the nakedness. It is not lust in the heart that is sin. Yes one can lust at a burlap bag on a person, but giving the occasion to sin is greater with the issue at point.

Adam and Ever were not condemned for “being naked” but because the knowledge of sin entered into their thought process, God did cover their nakedness. They of course could not have lusted, but God knowing they would have children with a sin nature covered their bodies. The covering for their bodies would have been according to how God wanted the Levites covered as God does not change. He does not have 2 standards, but 1 and that standard as mentioned is Jesus Christ.

Concerning Peter, you are right about what may have been customary (working naked), but when he seen the Lord in His glory, he deemed it to be insufficient. Again their is not a work standard and a presence of God standard…

Motivation is a huge issue and you are right with the “gold and braid.”

The analogy of praying not being sinful, but the motive of the Pharisee’s praying is, is not the same as revealing your body with no motive to cause lust in another to lust. Nudity is wrong no matter what the motive, taking the Lord’s name in vain is sin no matter what the motive, bowing down to idols is sin no matter what the motive, etc. Some things are sin just because the Bible tells us their sin.

As I posted earlier…this is an issue we must take to the Lord in prayer, humble ourselves before the Lord and work out our own salvation with fear and trembling. We cannot loose sight of the holiness and righteousness of God and His standards.

@ Jamie, I have not implied nudity is wrong for whatever motive. On the contrary, I stated “motivation is a huge issue.” God gives grace to those in the medical field to not lust and to keep their minds pure. Since I am in the medical field though, I know many non-Christians in the medical field that make sexual explicit comments about patients. Holy Spirit living in the life of a believer gives strength, power and grace to overcome the desires of the flesh (sin) and to accomplish God’s will.

The question at hand is “should Christians wear bikinis?” The reason for this question was one of causing another to lust. To throw all this other stuff in is taking away and giving excuse to sin as Paul would say “God forbid!” (we would sin that grace would abound). In fact on the contrary Paul, as well as the other epistles teach if we try to find an occasion to sin we are not a child of God, but a reprobate. God’s Word is very clear about giving up ones life to gain eternal life, dying to self and living as Christ would, putting on the new man, etc. If wearing seductive clothing is part of this new life, then then one needs to read God’s Word again and ask for wisdom concerning such issues.

Every believer is a now a priest in God’s kingdom (James). The priesthood and tabernacle are shadows of what was to come. Without holiness no man will see the Lord (Hebrews). This can only be seen through the priesthood because they were the ones commanded to teach holiness in the Old Testament. God sets principles in His Word.

You said we are to seek understanding in God’s law. Let us seek understanding in “being holy because He is holy.” What does this mean concerning wearing bikinis?

These small posts are not conducive to teaching (discipleship). Sometimes principles have to be searched and word studies done to bring understanding. Christians not wearing bikini’s is right on the money concerning God’s holiness. God’s intention after the fall was to cover the body to keep us from sexual impurity, as well as for other purposes. This is clearly a principle in the Holy Bible as well as, not allowing space for one to stumble should or cause one of the least of His to sin should be taught.

I will add again, we all have to work our salvation out with fear and trembling and stand before a holy and righteous God. We are only fruit judges, Holy Spirit judges the intent of man’s heart.

@Ronald.

Where is the basis in Scripture to draw this distinction: “The mindset for “nudity being wrong for whatever motive” would have been pertaining to context of “should Christians wear bikinis” and was not thought out to the point of healthcare.”

The reasons given in this thread for not wearing a bikini, (not *potentially* causing another to lust or being immodest) can also be applied to a health care provider. And how do you define health care provider? Physician, nurse, physical therapist, massage therapist, accupuncturist? All treat with different modality.

You also suggest that even some medical providers see patients in a sexual way, but nonetheless, you do not seem to require the same level of modesty in that setting. If there is a different level, then personal motivation and context provides the distinction. Do you believe St Peter was immodest while he was working? There is nothing in the text from which to conclude he was (and I concede he was not) so while he was working. But, St Peter having “stripped for work” is treated matter of factly.

The argument I am making here is against the attempt to set an objective standard of modesty for N. America, based upon personal preference and dubious science. Differing cultural levels of modesty are dismissed with unsupported broad statements of cultures being sinful or non-Christian. If personal motivation and context provides a distinction, that applies to the clinic, the beach, the home, the sauna.

@Jamie

I read the treatise on lust. (which is only a link) I’ll have to read it again in more detail. The author appears to argue that Jesus was explaining the rationale behind the 10th commandment in reference to the 7th? without making either redundant? I’m also taking away (and simplifying) that “lust” (as “desire”) takes on an immoral quality only when one “lusts” after what one cannot “have” i.e. someone else’s spouse or property. Is that your understanding? How would you apply that to the discussion at hand? It does seem to change some of the fundamental perceptions if I’ve reading it correctly.

@Jamie & Melissa

If I’m understanding correctly (and I’m going to assume that “covet another man’s wife” also means “covet another woman’s husband”) there is no immorality in lusting after my own wife if I am married, or a new BMW, or the single woman on the bus next to me (if I am single) but is is immoral if I lust after my neighbor’s BMW, or the woman on the bus happens to have a wedding ring? Or is that an oversimplification?

@Carla Anne et al

I’ve used up a lot of space. But I want to restate my position. You are saying it is immodest to appear in a bikini on the beach, or nude in a Finnish sauna, because Scripture says to be modest and also to not cause another trouble. But what in Scripture provides the exception if you are seeing your doctor? There isn’t one. If there isn’t one, then what matters is *why* and *where* someone is wearing or not wearing something, not *what* they are or are not wearing, and I think Scripture supports this position as I’ve indicated above.

A man must bare his genitals for an hernia exam, but he need not do so to enjoy the beach in N. America. His modesty is therefore determined by the circumstance, not an absolute rule against baring certain body parts.

Even assuming a “traditional” view contrasting to Jamie’s above, if the Finns are not lustful in the sauna, despite being totally nude, there is no sin and no immodesty, no more so than the man above with his physician.

Note, I am not disagreeing that certain swimwear could be immodest in N. America, but as I’ve stated, even what may be acceptable by you or me as ‘modest’ in N. America is immodest elsewhere in the world. It is therefore impossible to make an objective measurement of modest vs. immodest. Change the circumstance and what was modest isn’t and vice versa.

IIRC the the Celts and the Romans argued over how monks ought to shave their heads. I see what to wear at the beach as a similar argument.

@Carla Anne

Late response to the post above.

I apologize for the cross posting a reply to your 1/11 post. I overlooked the
blog threading.

We are not fundamentally disagreeing. But please consider these three
points: (obviously there are exceptions.)

1. I think we agree that the male medical provider has trained himself to see
his female patient’s body differently. His “normal physiological response” may
very well be the same in both situations, but his learned response is
very different. If it weren’t, he could not do his job.

Consider the pre-colonial tropical male. He has grown up seeing his
mother’s breasts. Saw her nursing his siblings, saw neighbor women do the same,
his sisters nurse their own children. He may even remember his own
suckling. Regardless of his physiological response, he has been trained to view
the breast when exposed in his everyday life in a non-sexual way **just as the
medical provder does.** His learned response is the same as the medical
provider. You accept the years of training of the one, yet easily
dismiss the generations of training of the other.

2. We can both imagine a bikini swimsuit which would be immodest on a N.
American beach. What does that mean to the person wearing it? We can’t know
for certain, but ultimately if the goal is to “look sexy”, the costume reduces
the female body to an object of lust to be displayed. One problem I’m trying
to point out is the long sleeve/knee length skirt also reduces the body to an
object of lust, this time to be covered up in shame. Both gather attention, I
contend both are immodest for that reason, and both demeaning under the
circumstances. Focusing solely on “don’t wear this or that” risks that kind of
outcome, which I think can be equally damaging to a person, as the
possibility of causing someone to lust.

3. The sauna participants also have a learned response, again one that goes
back *generations*. But even in that setting, there are still standards of
modesty: a particular body position or a loud conversations become immodest.

Finally, Ronald has indicated his departure from this discussion. But I do
take offense to his implication that if he is wrong, he’s only missed out on
60 years of lust, but if I am wrong I will have to answer for causing others to
sin, presumably at the peril of my soul.

Those statements are irresponsible, and have no place in a discussion of faith.

I appreciate the dialogue. I’m not sure I agree or not with all Jamie’s position,
but do find it thought provoking. Nor am I arguing about the “right”
to wear what you want. Again, we fundamentally agree on admonishment to act
with modesty. I think a subject like this, as simple as it may seem, needs
to be addressed in much deeper terms. I do agree that we need to look at the
spirit of the law, which is why I’ve taken such great steps to point out
inconsistencies. The spirit of the law requires us to also consider where we are and what we
do. In the clinic, we can’t cover up, but we can avoid, e.g. making the provider uncomfortable
by our own dignity. A rule can’t do that. Our principles should guide our decision making, not make decisions for us.

I am a Christian……..and i don’t agree to this…..

Women respond to naked bodies just as much as men can. Your “biblical sources” are refuted through science. Sounds like a political mindwashing madness men created in the bible. And the women and men that buy this crock are slaves willingly. What a sad thing religion has created.

And for the record, this “God” you speak of never ever requires anyone to lower other’s who differ from your views. This is the type of Christianity people stray away from because all you do is dictate dictate dictate through your sexist views. I bet in your opinion, because men cannot control their “lust” it is women’s fault for being raped. Because those men are just “wired” to lust for naked bodies. And when were clothes equivalent to a naked body?

Just a thought. Take a science class.

@Alix & @CarlaAnne: I think this re-enforces my point that modesty must be referenced to specific cultural norms, not a fixed standard. If e.g. breasts are not considered sexual in a particular society, why should they be covered ***in that particular society*** if having them uncovered is common and consistent with cultural norms? To date no one has really responded to that proposition. If uncovering your thighs in Uganda is immodest, the Christian should cover the thighs.

@TheScientistWhoBelieves: IIRC Carla Anne relies upon a particular university study for her position. While I have serious doubts about the overall scientific value of the study, (as far as I can tell, a very small demographic was tested: college age, heterosexual, American males, and as far as I can tell predominantly white upper class — and the demographic questionnaire presented a rather narrow choice of women’s role as a baseline for “benevolent” or “hostile” sexism– but sexism regardless) nonetheless she does rely upon science. Have you read the other posts in this thread? The debate began as a discussion of modesty (and granted from the position that we should act with modesty) the topic of lust became relevant that discussion.

If as you say, science has refuted her position (on modesty and lust, and the male response to the female body) I’d be interested to learn more.