Church Modesty and Militant Breastfeeding – Do They Mix?

Church Modesty and Militant Breastfeeding – Do They Mix? August 18, 2018

I get that this is a touchy subject for some women, especially nursing mothers. That being said, are we so far gone in this world that it should be a problem in the church?

Apparently it is an issue that needs to be addressed, before we get too far down this particular rabbit hole.

A case in point would be a Brighton, Michigan church – the Naz Church – wrestling with the prickly issue of mothers openly breastfeeding their babies in the church environment.

Amy Marhant is the 29 year old mother at the center of the controversy.

Back in June, Marhant explains, she was waiting to pick up her twin 4 year old girls, when her 1 year old daughter began to get fussy. To calm the child, she plopped down on a bench and began breastfeeding.

I breastfed my son. I’m a supporter of the practice, fully believing in the health benefits, as well as the bonding process between mother and child.

The line gets a bit less clear when you factor in just how much freedom should be allowed for those breastfeeding mothers in public.

In the case of Marhant, her choice to whip out a ninnie and feed her child on church property took on a controversial turn, when someone with the church reached out to Marhant about her decision.

“She said that ‘nursing fully exposed,’ the term she used, was making people uncomfortable,” the mother said.

“She told me to cover up, use an empty classroom, or go down to the main worship area, to part of the bathroom, but which has a nursing area attached to it. It wasn’t presented as an option. She told me to do one of those three things from now on.”

According to Marhant, no one said anything to her at the time, so I’m assuming she was allowed to feed her child, uninterrupted. As she says here, the church official who reached out to her did it privately, one on one, through a Facebook message.

So I’ll go ahead and give my thoughts here, based on what Marhant says happened.

To begin with, the church official who approached her in a Facebook message did the right thing. She didn’t blast Marhant on church grounds, or in front of anyone else. She explained to her why it was an issue (it made others uncomfortable), and then gave her several alternatives.

This was civil and reasonable.

This is where the militant breastfeeders usually take up arms (or something else) and begin railing against those who have a problem with open breastfeeding.

Marhant went on to say that the official that reached out to her suggested exposing her breast to breastfeed could lead to lustful thoughts in some of the men.

“Of all the places, it is most hurtful when it comes from your own church, that you are going to cause guys to lust after you,” Marchant said about her experience.

“I was told it was immodest, that it was not shaming, that (breastfeeding) can cause men to lust and stumble,” she added. “They said as long as they provided places for women to nurse, they didn’t have to allow them to nurse anywhere.”

No, breastfeeding is not a sexual act, but because most of us would not see it that way, doesn’t mean that there are none who struggle, so why take that risk?

The pastor of the church, Ben Walls, Sr., has apologized to Marhant for any embarrassment or pain she is now feeling.

“That is what we want to say — we have nothing against breastfeeding and we are in favor,” the pastor stated.

“It’s very hard because we understand that she was very hurt and we apologize to her. We’re very sorry for the embarrassment and hurt caused when she was asked to cover or use one of those rooms. We apologize for her hurt and embarrassment; that wasn’t the intention.”

That’s a reasonable and sound apology, but was it warranted?

I’m going to say it was not. At all.

Marchant is obviously thinking more of her own comfort level, than with being part of a church community and taking the feelings of others into account.

Citing the 2014 Breastfeeding Anti-Discrimination Act, signed into law by Governor Rick Snyder, she added:

“Even if I wanted to go somewhere private, that’s not reasonable when I have to watch my 4-year-old twins, and legally speaking, it’s not something she is allowed to ask,” she added.

Even if I wanted to…

So there it is. The very core of the militant breastfeeding movement. As I said, it’s about self first.

It’s definitely not about the needs of the child. I promise you, a breastfeeding baby doesn’t care if you’re in an open area or a private room. The desire to announce to the world: “LOOK AT ME! I’M A GOOD MOTHER! I CHOSE THE BREAST OVER THE BOTTLE! LOOK AT ME, I SAID! LOOK AT ME BREASTFEEDING!” is strictly limited to the ego of the mom.

This time last year, Pastor Steven Furtick’s Elevation Church, in North Carolina, faced a similar controversy, when a nursing mom decided in the middle of a service was the right time to feed her child.

Elevation Church released a statement arguing that “a volunteer had a conversation and felt both parties arrived at the same conclusion to exit mutually. We are sorry that this in any way offended anyone. We welcome everyone and anyone to attend Elevation church.”

“We have several designated areas for nursing moms at Ballantyne specifically — one private to allow pumping and it’s close to the auditorium for convenience and the other in the actual baby area with a TV to allow mothers to still be part of the worship experience,” the church added back then.

That’s a good point.

Back when I was a breastfeeding mom, if I was leaving the house, I pumped and stored the milk. When it was time to feed my son, I used a bottle.

That was a personal choice, but it was also a choice I made because it was never my desire to make my decision to breastfeed about me. It was always about my child and the reported health benefits.

Marhant’s “church hurt” over being asked to consider the feelings and comfort of others around her in the church environment is not a fault that lies with the church.

She’s refusing to go back to the church, and that’s unfortunate. She wants the church to conform to her wishes and wants, rather than doing what she can to be a reasonable, thoughtful member of the church community.

One so selfish and easily offended has a lot to learn about the Kingdom of God.

Philippians 2:4 AMP – “Do not merely look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others.”

 

 

"I think there is enough public evidence in the court filings already public to make ..."

Cohen Backs out of Public Testimony, ..."
"That presumes that Mueller's report will ever be publicly released. Remember, under the Special Counsel ..."

Cohen Backs out of Public Testimony, ..."
""Witness intimidation" (aka "witness tampering", aka "obstruction of justice") direct from Trump's twitter thumbs....making it ..."

Cohen Backs out of Public Testimony, ..."
"You're not in any box. I simply am pointing out that those white teenagers were ..."

Telling the Good Guys From the ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Politics Red
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Polarbearpapa

    Modesty is the key word here…

    23 You say, “I am allowed to do anything”—but not everything is good for you. You say, “I am allowed to do anything”—but not everything is beneficial.

    24 Don’t be concerned for your own good but for the good of others.

    1 Corinthians 10

  • IllinoisPatriot

    …and the teenage and pre-teen boys in the church needed to see her breasts why ?

    A VERY selfish and (frankly insulting) decision on her part – akin to having a guy drop his drawers then scratch and re-arrange his junk in public…..

    Intentional frontal nudity – apparently primarily for the shock value – combined with a refusal to demonstrate modesty or respect for others……

    The Church has apparently already provided facilities for breast-feeding – with the expectation that the mom may have other kids (Did she expect to actually chase her other kids (4-yr-olds) with the 1-yr-old attached to her) ? By providing private rooms or areas near the baby-sitting room, the church has realized that other kids may need to be “corralled” (or contained) during the short time of breast-feeding instead of being allowed to run freely. Taking all three to a private room and closing the door is certainly a viable solution for a mom with kids and no man to help – so is dropping the other kids off at the baby-sitting room for a brief time to go to the private room……

  • captcrisis

    A lot of American men, even into middle age, just aren’t mature enough to recognize breast feeding for what it is. They see her whip the nipple out and all they can think is “Titty! Titty! Titty!”

  • GotMyLoveGlassesOn

    That’s true, which is what the church official was trying to tell her.
    That’s why her being considerate and mindful of that would have been the right response. The church was thoughtful enough to provide places for nursing moms. She really should have taken that into consideration.

  • captcrisis

    It’s not a question of modesty, then. It’s a question of taking into account the non-very-enlightened views of others.

    In 1968 an interracial couple should not hold hands in church. That would offend the sensibilities of the congregation (particularly if it was Southern Baptist). They’d have to go apart to a separate “hands of different colors holding hands” room.

  • Chicks and Balances

    There is no church that had “hands of different colors holding hands” room, you brainless αsshòle. You aren’t even remotely in touch with reality.

  • AJ

    A little history. When I was in the third grade, I needed a bra, but I begged my mother not to make me get one as I’d be the ONLY girl to wear one. But, by the time I was in the fourth grade, my mother could not be denied. “Oh, no,” she said, assessing my budding figure, “you’re getting a bra.”

    So, she took me to the local department store, and the bra Nazi saleswoman ratted me out to my mom, agreeing with her at first sight of me. Mentally, I figured, “Okay, so how bad can it be? I’ll get one of those cutesy training bras with the little bows in front.” That was, until she fitted me. Did I walk away with a cutesy pink training bra with a little satin bow? Oh, no. I walked away with a woman’s BB! Talk about horror and mortification! I was the only girl in the fourth grade wearing a bloody bra—and a WOMAN’S bra at that! My life was over at eight!

    I said all that to say this: Never in my life would I ever conceive of whipping out my breasts in public! EVER! For a girl who’s stigmatized in the fourth grade by the blasted appendages God decided to bless us with, the LAST thing I would EVER do is bare them in public. I was reared to be modest, and I’m an old-fashioned kind of girl. There’s not a feminist bone in my body. So, I CANNOT understand the exhibitionistic need/desire of women to want to show off any or all of their breasts. Because of my aforementioned experience (plus, of course, having bigger breasts than ANY of my teachers pretty much ALL of my school career!), when I was growing up, I did my utmost to camouflage my expanding chest because I was embarrassed and didn’t want the boys (who were all so very aware and curious) to notice and tease or the girls (who could’ve been jealous) to tell stories about how I stuffed my bra just to be noticed.

    It wasn’t till high school that I became proud of who God created me to be. He gave me the curves for a reason, and I was going to find value/worth in the masterpiece He created in me.

    That said, to this day, I would NEVER consider doing what so many women are doing.

    And when I read this story, my first thought was, “Why in the world couldn’t you just use a receiving blanket or some sort of shield?” If this was merely about not being able to lug her twins elsewhere because her baby was hungry, NOW, (“Even if I wanted to go somewhere private, that’s not reasonable when I have to watch my 4-year-old twins…”), then why not use something to cover yourself up?

    No, this wasn’t about the twins or a fussy baby. As Susan said, this was about the nursing mother and her desire to be exhibitionistic, her desire to whip out her breast(s) in public. This perfectly logical trend that’s arisen of breastfeeding is fine, but I think it’s given those with exhibitionistic tendencies or those with the desire to be so, the perfect excuse to tap into that character trait and show off their bodies and have the perfect comeback handy: “How dare you take umbrage at my attempt to be a good mom!!”

    There was no call for her to bare her breast(s), especially at a church. Period. She was in the wrong. However, the church was in the wrong for cowering to her. I mean, really? You’re going to apologize because some troublemaker with some weird desire to flash the world (or her small portion of it) her breast(s) throws a tantrum because someone respectfully asked her not to give the churchgoers present a soft-core-porn showing? Really?

    I think the pastor of the church (or the pastor’s wife) needs to set Miss Thang down and explain to her how it works. As a girl who’s had the attention of men all my life because of my chest, I’ve learned the hard way that men were created by God to be visual. The Bible even shows us examples of it time and again. Adam SAW Eve and said, “Wow, baby, you are flesh of my flesh, and bone of my bone, and you are fine!” Isaac SAW Rebecca from afar and fell in love, taking her to be his wife right away. David SAW Bathsheba across the way, and his body lusted after her. Men are visual. To women, a breast isn’t a sexual object; it’s how we feed our kids. To men, however, a breast IS a sexual object. The sight of one usually gets most men going. Right or wrong, that’s just the way it is. And BECAUSE that’s the way it is, you just can’t go around baring all. You may not care whether you lead some guy into lust with one glimpse of your breasts, but would you care if some other female led YOUR man into lust with one glimpse of hers? You might want to think of that before you go flaunting yours around town. The Bible clearly says that you WILL reap what you’ve sown. “Be not deceived. God is not mocked. That which a man [woman] sows, that shall he [she] also reap” (Galatians 6:7). In other words, if you go around making other women’s men fall into lust because of your breasts, then you’d better be prepared for your man to be led into lust at the sight of others’.

    The Bible counsels us to be respectful of ourselves and each other, to love others as we love ourselves. As some have written (below), we may be able to do anything, but not everything we do is RIGHT for us TO do. Jesus admonishes us to be careful that we don’t lead others into sin, and He said that for a married man to look at a woman with lust in his heart was adultery—well, that should tell us that lusting is a sin, whether married or not. So, by baring your breast(s) in public, you’re at risk of leading others (men) into sin. And God WILL hold you accountable for your actions.

    And then there’s this little pearl of wisdom from Solomon: “As a ring of gold in a swine’s snout, so is a fair woman who is without discretion” (Proverbs 11:22). Discretion includes covering up your breasts while breastfeeding. Yes, Merriam-Webster says that “discretion” is “the right to choose what should be done in a particular situation…” and this woman could argue that her right (and, apparently, the law) was to whip out her breast to feed her hungry child. But, if you’re a Christian, you must also live according to God’s Word (OUR Law), which trumps man’s law, and God says we shouldn’t make others sin. The second part of “discretion” goes on to say: “…the quality of being careful about what you DO and say so that people will not be embarrassed or offended: the quality of being discreet” (emphasis mine). And it sounds to me as if she was specifically told that her actions were causing embarrassment and offense. And she should’ve known this would be the case because the church provides places for women to go to nurse—and even if they didn’t, it’s called a BATHROOM!

    Finally, as a woman, I’d just like to say: Regardless of how men could be led to sin seeing your bare breast(s), lust or no lust, sin or no sin, I’m a heterosexual female, and I [please read that with much emphasis] don’t want to see your breast(s) either. I have the same equipment, yes, but, good lord, honey, I don’t need or want to see yours! So, please, stop trying to indulge in some convoluted striptease and use a blanket. And if you leave the house without one, ask to borrow a jacket or something, huh? Give the rest of us a break.

  • Mother124

    A friend and I had this discussion not long ago, about a woman breastfeeding in church but completley covered up.

    Her reaction was “I think it’s beautiful.”

    I personally have no problem with a woman breastfeeding anywhere as long as it’s done modestly. But I agree with Ms. Wright about the self-sanctification of some women who breast feed.

    My response to my friend was “why can’t I just think it’s normal, and fine…..why do I have to think it’s BEAUTIFUL????

  • Just as Muslim women are told to cover up to protect men from lustful thoughts, it seems Christian men are just as weak.

    In Victorian times women breast fed in church. Why is it a problem now but not then?

  • 1FloridaMom2

    Nothing is wrong with breast feeding in public if you have respect for others. Is it really to much to ask the ladies to try to cover up with a small blanket while breast feeding. Lets not ruin it for all women, just because a few women decide to try to prove a point. Have some class & cover up

  • Don

    Jonathan of Ponder Anew feels that women should be able to breastfeed in public and bare their breasts for everyone to see. His suggestion is just turn away and let the women do what they want. He really supports the feminist gospel in the Christian Church. His Ponder Anew blog really belongs in the Progressive Christian section and not the Evangelical Section.

    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/ponderanew/2018/08/21/breastfeeding-in-peace/

  • Don

    This guy would tell you to turn away and let the woman bare her breast to feed her child. She does not need to cover up.

    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/ponderanew/2018/08/21/breastfeeding-in-peace/

  • 1FloridaMom2

    No class

  • GotMyLoveGlassesOn

    I think brother Jonathan has a lot of issues that are out of line with godliness and grace.

  • GotMyLoveGlassesOn

    Modesty?
    How about consideration for others?
    Imagine you’re the parent of a curious 4 year old… one of those 4 year olds in the class with her other children, perhaps.
    They’re going to look. They’re going to stare. They’re going to have questions.
    Do their parents not have the right to introduce their child to those issues at their pace and in their timing, or is Mrs. Marhant the center of the universe?
    Seriously. It really is about respect for others. That child wasnt starving to death, I’m sure. She could have taken the extra moments to go to another room, or to just lightly lay a blanket or some other cover over the nursing child. She didnt want to. She wanted it on her terms. Period.
    That was just being rude, and as I said, militant. It wasnt being godly or graceful.

  • earhartam

    Lustful thoughts are the male’s cross to bear not the breastfeeding mom or any other female. That argument from some here is outdated and offensive.

    Secondly, I am a strong proponent of breastfeeding, but doing so in public as Susan points out is pragmatically unnecessary and uncomfortable for most people.

    A couple of years ago I hired a crew to install siding on my home. When an unexpected new hire to the crew showed up at my house, I was greeted by his wife, promptly stepping from their minivan, plopping down on my lawn and whipping out her breast with no attempt to cover herself. I was stunned. I was like, Dude please tell your wife to put her breast back in her shirt!

    Just dont see when this would be appropriate.

  • Cute one, Don.

  • captcrisis

    I think it’s a lot better if the child is 4, instead of the first time being when the child is 13 (particularly if it’s a boy). It’s a fact of life and you can’t choreograph how the world unfolds so that things happen only when you’re ready to explain them.

    A great deal depends on how the parent reacts. If you react like it’s shameful, or the woman has no right to do what she’s doing, it’s bad for the child. If you calmly treat it like a fact of life and explain it dispassionately, like it’s no big deal, the child will have a healthier understanding. He/she is less likely, as an adult, to think “Titty! Titty! Titty!” when he/she sees it happen again.

  • Nathan Walter

    “akin to having a guy drop his drawers then scratch and re-arrange his junk in public…..”

    No. It’s not remotely similar.

    We treat this like the woman just whipped out her breasts like she was vacationing at South Padre on spring break. Intent and purpose matters.

    Also, nursing rooms are great, but they are often inconvenient. If some baby starts crying incessantly during communion, during a baptism, or some other part of a worship service, are you honestly going to tell them to get up, leave, and go to the nursing room? You would force them to miss a very crucial part of worship. I find that wrong.

    Babies don’t get hungry on our terms or schedules. To create a black-and-white policy will likely interfere with the spiritual growth of the mom at some point. Are you willing to have that happen?

  • Nathan Walter

    “Don’t be concerned for your own good but for the good of others.” This is a wonderful verse. Your use of it is awfully convenient to you. Because you think that everyone should be looking out for YOUR needs. That sounds like a great life verse when we translate it that way.

    But Paul wasn’t using this verse to create expectations for others around us. He said it because we have an expectation for ourselves, as people who live out God’s love and grace.

    To use the verse to say, “I’m uncomfortable, stop what you’re doing”, is selfish, don’t you think? And it flies in the face of what Paul said in this very verse.

  • Polarbearpapa

    Boy ..You had to twist that up in a knot to come to that conclusion ..

    ..It meant just what it says…she should have been less concerned for her freedom to do whatever she wanted and more concerned that she may offend others with her actions…especially when there is a place provided by the church for her to feed her young’n…

    I think you missed the more than nice way that the church handled the situation…

  • Nathan Walter

    No.

    The point is that Paul is talking about YOU, not them. He’s saying “YOU be concerned for the good of others.” Not, “make sure THEY are concerned for the good of others.”

    In fact, if the church is using this verse as it’s meant, we’d look at the situation and say, “yes, I’m uncomfortable, but what are HER needs? What is the ‘good’ for that mom?”

    I’d tell the complaining party to consider the needs and the good of others.

  • Polarbearpapa

    They(the church) did try to meet the needs of the woman..they provided a place for her to breastfeed her child…

    She was the one who did not understand that what she thought were her freedoms..were actually offending others by her lack of(the key word here) modesty …

    She is in the wrong…not the church …

  • IllinoisPatriot

    Clearly you’ve not been in Churches that have nursing rooms or infant rooms. In all cases where I’ve found such rooms, there are speakers slaved to the PA used to address the main congregation so the adults back there can hear the sermon, and other aspects of the worship. Communion is ALWAYS served to those in the nursing and infant rooms. No one is “denied” because they choose to babysit the children that are too young to sit quietly through a worship service.

    There was nothing said about the mother necessarily being discreet either – I’ve seen nursing mothers that (in extreme cases only) will use a baby diaper to cover themselves and their baby’s head while nursing. Such mothers would always choose to nurse in private rather than to simply “plop down and whip it out”.

    Nice attempt at defending this woman’s offensive actions though. It DOES show that you are totally ignorant of Church practices and accomodations routinely made to nursing mothers.

  • She actually is free to nurse anywhere she deems appropriate.

  • Don

    Thank You Russell from Fat Albert. Even if Bill Cosby was caught being a jerk.

  • Don

    As Russell would say to Rudy on Fat Albert, you have “No Class.” Even if Bill Cosby did not really have any.

  • Don

    Like or not Jonathan your an advocate of Free The Nipple. Also your cause to kill CCM which I still support myself is only going to be hinder…at least by you. It will take someone with a conservative bent that is burned out on CCM like myself to take up this fight.

  • Polarbearpapa

    Modesty rules in most congregations..

    Apparently…she was too open with her nursing…. and the modesty rules kicked in …

  • Nathan Walter

    ‘Clearly’ you know nothing about me. That’s about the only thing you ‘clearly’ know.

    I actually work at a church that has a nursery in which we have the service playing through a speaker. This is not the same as participating in corporate worship, which is extremely vital to one’s spiritual maturity.

    And no. Communion is not ALWAYS served to nurseries. Your anecdotal experience is not enough to suggest this is a fact, and certainly not enough to call someone ‘ignorant.” I can’t recall a church I’ve attended or worked for that serves communion to a nursing room. Do they exist? I’m positive they do (you say there are some out there, so I’ll assume it’s true). But they ‘clearly’ don’t exist in all cases. To say this is a Church (I assume the capitalization is intentional?) practice is an overstatement.

    And also, if you knew anything about me, (which you clearly don’t) you’d know my opinion is that mothers ‘should’ cover up when they feed in public. My wife uses a cover when in public. As a pastor, there is a good deal of pragmatism involved… mostly, it decreases the likelihood of me fielding angry phone calls and emails. It also just seems like the right thing to do.

    But at the same time, there is nothing sinful about nursing a child, regardless of how “open” they may be. And I’m certainly not going to ask, or have any of my leadership, ask or demand that the woman moves somewhere else. Because there is nothing sinful or wrong about what she is doing.

    But maybe at your church, which I have to assume is called St. Donna’s of the Perpetually Aggrieved, the congregants go out of their way to find things that offend them. At my church, we leave mothers to feed their children in peace. No doubt, there are some who might be uncomfortable, but they know that they can just ignore it and move on, you know, like adults.

  • Nathan Walter

    You know, papa bear, I guess if the church has ridiculous rules about how and where moms can breast-feed, and she violated them, then I guess she is in the wrong. How dare she. I think they ought to consider burning her at the stake for being so inconsiderate and inappropriate.

    All kidding aside, forcing a mom to go to a nursing room is providing a need as much as putting all the homeless folks to a prison so they can get three meals a day.

    The church likely doesn’t give a crap about the mom. They care about the grumps who are far too immature to recognize the fact that a mom is just feeding her child.

    Is she “too open” about it? Maybe. Sure. Does it really matter? Have some maturity, take up some grace, and move along. And try to be less offended for crying out loud.

  • Nathan Walter

    This here, folks, is what we call argumentum absurdum.

    Connecting the idea that a woman should be able to nurse in public to a silly, stupid movement that promotes public nudity is remarkably absurd. And I think I’m being awfully generous by calling it absurd.

    At best, it shows you’re completely ignorant to any point being made. At worst, it’s an intentional connection, in which you are tying it to an objectively stupid and immoral movement to try and demean his argument. Somewhere in between is the adult equivalent of covering your eyes and shouting “LA LA LA LA LA!” so you don’t hear an opposing thought. I’ll let you pick where you sit.

  • Polarbearpapa

    Their are rules that everyone lives by…even nursing mothers…

    If she had considered others more than herself…

    She would have just stepped out of the main area of the church and gone to the breast feeding room and all this would have been avoided …

  • Nathan Walter

    Papa bear,

    I forgot, everyone exists to serve your arbitrary rules. But of course, SHE’s the selfish one. How dare she not know the rules! Again, I say we burn her at the stake for being so selfish by not following YOUR rules.

    She should always be looking out for your interests, Oh Mighty Papa Bear!

  • Don

    They just don’t care. They want to express themselves.

  • GotMyLoveGlassesOn

    In my church, we have a nursery, so the parents can enjoy the service. If they do bring their babies in and the babies become fussy, the pastor politely asks them to step outside, so that the service can continue.
    Guess what?
    It’s about the message and hearing the Word of God. It’s not about you and your baby becoming the center of attention.
    and yes, in every room, including the foyer of the church, there is a PA system so you can listen to the sermon.
    We actually have screens in the foyer to watch the service, so nobody is missing anything.

  • GotMyLoveGlassesOn

    And church is about the Word of God, not the vain controversies that people want to whip up, like the woman who decided that she should have the final word about whether the church saw her exposed breast, not the church family.

  • Nathan Walter

    “Becoming the center of attention”

    Geez, Susie. This is really what you think about breast-feeding in public? That the moms are just selfish jerks who only care about making a scene?

    You know, with a gracious and understanding attitude like that, it just baffles me why the young families in our community aren’t flocking to the church!

  • thestatbook

    Susan,

    Let’s say you wear sandals to church.
    Now, let’s say there is a man who has a foot fetish that he struggles to control.
    You are causing him to stumble.

    Would you be okay with someone telling you that you need to worship in an isolated room because your “lack of modesty” is causing someone to stumble?

    Causing someone to stumble is not valuing someone else’s needs above your own and is selfish. Thus, wearing sandals to church could be seen as selfish.

    Your stance is on this issue is about as comically absurd as the scenario I created. And if you’re not careful in church leadership (are you even in church leadership???), it could be a situation you trap yourself into.

  • “No, breastfeeding is not a sexual act, but because most of us would not see it that way, doesn’t mean that there are none who struggle, so why take that risk?”

    Hiding women and children in a back room is one approach to take, I suppose – but why not choose a healthier one which actually makes things safer for everyone? Instead of demeaning men by reducing them to animals driven purely by their sexual urges, how about teaching them to take every thought captive to Jesus; to treat women as mothers and sisters with “absolute purity” (as Paul phrased it); and to understand that self-control is a fruit of the Spirit which is absolutely available to them, too!

  • Don
  • Don

    Do you know if it was done IN PUBLIC spaces smarty pants????

  • Never mind, Jesus had this sort of situation covered 2,000 years ago. His solution? If your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out. There, problem solved.

  • Don

    Your such a jerk Liminal. Meanwhile women can bare their breasts, burn their bras, and encourage their sisters to become harlots.

    Modesty is so hard.

  • Seems that taking responsibility for your own behaviour is even harder.

  • Don

    Can’t tell if your man or a woman.

  • What difference does it make?