MInTheGap

Standing in the Gap in a Society that's Warring with God.

Because of ISIS or Because of Masculinity?

November 19th, 2015 Viewed 1638 times
You have to admit, they are trying really hard to say that it’s anything but ISIS:
University of California–Merced hosted a “teach-in” to explain that a student who went on a stabbing spree before being killed by a campus police officer did so because of his masculinity – and definitely not because of Islamic extremism — despite the fact that he a photo of an ISIS flag was found among his belongings. Faisal Mohammad also left behind a manifesto including descriptions of how he would like to behead classmates and reminders to pray to Allah. You might be tempted to think that all of this suggests that his violent attacks just might have had something to do with Islamic extremism, however, a flyer for the school’s teach-in on the event made no mention of it. Instead, it said that discussion questions would include: “Why are men more likely to be perpetrators of violence?”

Read more at: UC–Merced ‘Teach-In’: Kid with ISIS Flag Pic Went on Stabbing Spree Because of Masculinity

But Women Don’t Wear Hats Anymore!

July 5th, 2007 Viewed 8561 times

One of the most difficult things to address in terms of modesty and what to wear is the fact that fashion and what society wears changes over time.  We’ve previously discussed the concept that men have not always worn pants, and the cultural bearing on what we wear, but I’d like to look deeper into what’s going on in our world today.

The Sexualization of Society

I find it interesting that the very first thing that happened when Adam and Eve fell was that they found out that they were naked.  Certainly this had to be a strange thing for them– they probably expected to die from eating the fruit, but instead they were overcome with shame and wanted to cover their bodies.  This is one of the things that I find interesting about evolution.  If we’re all descended from animals that don’t have shame nor do they cover, why do we?  How did we evolve shame?  But I digress.

From that time until this, people have had a natural desire to hide their shame and cover their bodies.  Now, granted, each time period has things that they want to show, for different purposes at different times, but that doesn’t stop the natural inclination to cover up.

There has been, through time, clothing that indicates the intent of the heart.  As early as Jacob and Tamar we see that if a woman covered herself and wore a veil that it signified that she was a prostitute looking for “work”.

Today we have seen sexual desire– a very powerful and good thing within marriage– being used to sell beer, cigarettes, auto loans, Internet domain names, and even used to get people to church!  It seems that sex sells everything– and it’s gotten to the point that the image of the woman that is baring it all is reinforced from all corners.

Beauty vs. Body

The difference is that every woman is given a body, but not every woman is given true beauty.  You see, just like Tamar looked the part of the harlot– which attracted Jacob physically– she could also dress the part of the widow and carry sobriety and reflect her true person.

What you wear has the effect of telegraphing the message of what you are inside.  Just like the bride’s gown shows that she’s about to or just has gotten married, what you wear and how you carry yourself have a big impact on what you are advertising– more so than you would imagine.

You see, to me, a lot of the conversation in this area has to do with “how long a skirt should I wear”, “how tight is too tight” and “does this blouse go down too far.”  Those are really the wrong questions.  For one thing, if it’s so close that you’re asking, don’t wear it!  Secondly, a lot of things that could be borderline can cross simply by who you are on the inside.

This is why you get questions like “Can Pants be Considered Modest?”  The answer is more obvious than is seems– it depends on who the woman is that is filling them.

Attitude is Half the Battle

Brunette ModelTake, for instance, this picture on the right.  By all accounts this could be considered to be a modest top.  The sleeves are capped so no shoulder is showing.  There’s no obvious cleavage, though it does show a lot of chest.  This would be borderline in my book.

And yet look at her eyes and her face.  Obviously this is the look the woman was going for– a “come hither” look.  And that’s what makes something that could be considered borderline go over the edge.  Now this picture says to me that the girl is teasing, and is going too far.

But I’m Just Trying to Stay in Fashion!

Have you ever really taken a look at what’s coming down the runways.  I’m sure there must be a blog somewhere poking fun at some of the more ridiculous things that people wear that’s declared high fashion.  Some of it I’m sure they’re only able to squeeze into once!

But I know what you’re saying.  No woman (or man for that matter) wants to look like his clothes are frumpy.  However, we must have these things in mind when looking at clothing:

  1. They’re selling clothes to make women think they are sexy.  They are selling the tease.
  2. They do not care whether or not you are modestly dressed, whether it fits, or what body parts are displaying.  They are interested in sales.
  3. We must search for things that are modest without question.

If we keep these things in mind, and cultivate a pure heart, we will be radiating the beauty from within– and any attention that we get will go to the One that made us.

Jefferson’s Creator

March 31st, 2007 Viewed 1984 times

One of the arguments that Christians like to try to use is that the acknowledgement of the Creator is in the Constitution.  It isn’t.  It is in the Declaration of Independence– and regardless of its location it has a lot to tell us about what the founders of this country believed and the framework from which they conceived this great country.

The arguments that people are trying to use today is that the Declaration of Independence can mean any Creator God.  The problem is, Jefferson knew exactly who his audience was.  To quote Benjamin Hart,

There were no Moslems, Buddhists, Confucianists, or Hindus present at either the signing of the Declaration of Independence, or eleven years hence at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia.  Jefferson was addressing Christians.  His entire argument about people having “unalienable rights” is contingent on the existence of God, and One who cares deeply about each and every individual.

Jefferson is the origin of the logic that I’ve used many times here– if God is not the originator of liberty (if they are not gifts of his) then the state is the highest moral authority and has the rights to determine what is right or wrong based on the whim of those in power.

Should a Church Be Incorporated?

September 30th, 2006 Viewed 5238 times

Harry Bethel has the following as part of his checklist to show us why there are no God-Ordained ministers in our churches today on his site BethelMinistries.com:

A God-sent pastor would accept and apply the doctrines of separation from the world and would not seek a charter from a state or other government, nor would the “church” be incorporated. We are in the world, but we are not of the world and the civil governments should have no control over, or sanction, a scripturally organized local church.

Certainly he’s right when he says that we are in the world but not of it.  However, there’s also this interesting passage in Romans 13:

Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves [dang]ation.

For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:

For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to [execute] wrath upon him that doeth evil.

Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.

MInTheGap

Standing in the Gap in a Society that's Warring with God.