FYI (if you’re a teenage girl)

The problem with the post was that Mrs. Hall wrote to the girl and directly connected the selfie to her son thinking of her in a sexual way. It presumed that her son would not think of her sexually if she had worn something else so it places the responsibility for his lust on the girl. Again by this reasoning, FB and his computer contributed at least 2% and 3% to the potential to sin as well. So maybe it’s a 85%/10%/3%/2% breakdown.

The problem with “blocking” someone is that it dehumanizes them, reducing them an object or situation to be avoided. I understand that temptation comes in all forms and that sometimes we must flee Potipher’s wife, but we’re talking about a FB profile pic that is cms high not a Proverbs 7 woman who was actively grabbing him by the neck, intentionally seducing him and dragging him away into her bed while her husband is gone. We have to recognize a difference here. If we don’t, then we’ll never be able to evangelize the unreached tribes for fear that their immodesty will make us stumble.

As an aside, do only attractive girls have the responsibility to be modest? If the girl had been overweight with bad skin and bad hair, would Mrs. Hall have worried about her son lusting after her? Would she have blocked her? It’s an unsettling question but I think it reveals that we are really only worried about modesty when we feel aroused. I think we do this because we need to shift the blame to the other person and say that they made me sin in this way. But the call to feminine modesty is universal and does not depend on whether or not I can make a man get weak in the knees. So by extension, modesty and lust cannot be dependent on each other and should not be addressed as if they were.

But wait, you said it was 100% the girls fault and 100% his fault. So by your reasoning, she should address the boys fault only?

I must admit that I’m puzzled about this. I’m going to block (and already have) any girls that posts inappropriate photos on my boys facebook page. I’m sorry, but if you don’t understand the fact that a fb photo that is only a few cms high is a source of temptation, I don’t know what to say. I could say the same thing about any pornographic picture on the internet—it’s only a few cms high!

I have also, numerous times, talked to him about purity of mind. Again, it is not either/or but both/and.

@GregH — Please don’t assume I am disturbed by your paradigm because this conversation is somehow “personal.” I am disturbed by it for very logical reasons and I become animated in the midst of a conversation that challenges my mind.

The problem with your paradigm is that reduces one party’s culpability by employing “shared” guilt. So that now, instead of a man being 100% responsible for his own lust, he is only 90% responsible for it. And in the case of the youth pastor, his sentence should be commuted by 10%.

When two moral agents engage in a “problem situation,” we must evaluate them as individuals and define their culpability, not in terms of the situation, but in terms of their own status as moral agents before God. What I mean is this: when the youth pastor slept with a teenage girl, you had two parties that are individually responsible before God for very distinct actions, not two parties that somehow combined culpability for one act. She may be responsible for immodesty, but she is not responsible for his lust that eventually compelled him to use his position of leadership to prey on a girl under his spiritual protection.

This filing hasn’t gotten much attention but it is both worthwhile and relevant to this thread.

Swimwear: From 36 square feet to 36 square inches The “36 square feet” refers to little changing houses that would be brought close to the waters edge … from which women would exit and enter the water. Also interesting in the video associated with the filing is that when the bikini was introduced, no French model would model it … the designer had to hire a stripper to model his creation. Telling!

Like it or not we have moved radically from the modesty standards of just several generations ago. I doubt we (society as a whole) can go back!

I suggest that what most men can view today online in the main street media (eg Kate Moss who regularly bares nearly all) is more salacious than yesteryear’s pornography (not that I am an expert in this!)

With regard to Facebook - and this is what I don’t like about Facebook! - the weird privacy standards often open a back door to viewing (in a semi-voyeuristic way) of other peoples’ (the friend of a friend of a friend) private lives. One is not many clicks away from photos of women at the beach in less than modest attire.

On of my own kids is ready to ditch Facebook for this very reason.

@GregH—I posted my last response just after your most recent one, so read this is in response to the latest one.

I didn’t say that it is 100%/100%. What I’m saying is that immodesty and lust are not connected issues and should not be addressed in the same post at all. There is no shared culpability.

Here’s the point:

Boys: Avoid lust triggers, but don’t dehumanize women to point where you only see them as triggers. See them as people. Teach your sons to live godly in a crooked and perverse generation. Don’t blame the generation.

Girls: Dress Modestly. Veil your glory. Live in meekness and humility not flaunting your physical beauty. You are not an object so don’t act like one.

Also, in order for a FB profile picture to be a source of lust, a person must engage it—he or she must devote attention to it. They must gaze at it—not just to “see” it but look at it. Case in point, do you block immodest unattractive girls and women? Your overweight 40yo neighbor who takes pictures of her Florida vacation in which she is wearing a bikini? Is it because men won’t lust after her? If you don’t block her, then the issue isn’t modesty at all, but lust.

It behooves each of us to use the tools at our disposal intelligently and responsibly. Facebook allows for quite a bit of personalization, so that if one chooses, one will not see anything they don’t want to see. You can friend people and then limit what you see- you can choose to not see any pictures in your feed.

I would have to go looking on purpose for inappropriate pictures on people’s timelines and photo albums.

After the furor about her boys’ scantily clad pics on her blog, the author replaced those pics and posted this prologue-

Readers, two days ago I wrote this post for my normal audience, which is usually very small. That said, I included recent pictures of my kids at the beach, and many new readers found that to be a grave lack of discernment, considering the topic. I agree, and have replaced them with different photos than the original post. Thank you for your counsel.

So, it was OK for her to post pics of her shirtless boys online because her noraml audience is usually small. The problem is that new readers found this to be a grace lack of discernment, and bombed her with comments about it. So she blocked comments.

Why doesn’t she chastise herself with the same shameful fervor she reserved for young girls? Why didn’t she think that viewing half-naked boys can affect the young girls as much as girls-in-pjs could affect her boys? Or are we back to that old saw that “men are affected by what they see, and women by what they hear”… which is utter baloney.

If we are going to hold others to a certain standard, we need to double-check that we are holding ourselves to that same standard, and stop framing our faults as ‘mistakes’ while others’ faults are moral failures of a magnitude which require virtual shunning.

[handerson]

@GregH — Please don’t assume I am disturbed by your paradigm because this conversation is somehow “personal.” I am disturbed by it for very logical reasons and I become animated in the midst of a conversation that challenges my mind.

The problem with your paradigm is that reduces one party’s culpability by employing “shared” guilt. So that now, instead of a man being 100% responsible for his own lust, he is only 90% responsible for it. And in the case of the youth pastor, his sentence should be commuted by 10%.

When two moral agents engage in a “problem situation,” we must evaluate them as individuals and define their culpability, not in terms of the situation, but in terms of their own status as moral agents before God. What I mean is this: when the youth pastor slept with a teenage girl, you had two parties that are individually responsible before God for very distinct actions, not two parties that somehow combined culpability for one act. She may be responsible for immodesty, but she is not responsible for his lust that eventually compelled him to use his position of leadership to prey on a girl under his spiritual protection.

Again, we are talking past each other because we are talking about two different perspectives. I don’t deny your perspective (both are 100% individually responsible) but unless you are willing to acknowledge my perspective (guilt may be shared in regards to a specific situation), I don’t know what more to say at this point.

@GregH: If the “specific situation” you are talking about is lust and/or sexual misconduct, then there is no 100%/100% paradigm. It’s 0%/100%, with one.hundred.percent of the guilt falling on the head of the person who is lusting/the sexual predator.

To think otherwise is disturbing for two reasons:

1) It’s completely unscriptural.

2) It’s the mindset that underpins much sexual sin (esp. in Christian circles) today.

(And please know that I have no idea who you are, so my comments are not intended to say anything about you personally. But this blog is called “SharperIron” for this very purpose—so that we can help refine each other’s thinking.)

I think at this point the burden of proof falls to you to show anywhere in Scripture that God splits the accountability for one person’s actions, especially sexual misconduct.

Are they dependent on each other? Absolutely. Categorically, Undeniably, in any way shape or form, NO.

And yet both Jesus and Paul believed that one person could cause another person to stumble. That seems to be getting overlooked here. It is true that the person who sins is responsible, but the person who caused it should have a millstone hung around their neck and cast into the sea, or at least not eat meat anymore. That does not sound like innocence. Jesus did not completely blame only the one who stumbled. He blamed the one who caused it.

So in light of what Jesus and Paul said, it would probably be good to stop after “absolutely.” They didn’t seem to believe the answer was “no.”

The reality that is we live in community where we have responsibilities to each other. I don’t know why that is hard for some to accept. My bet is that Hannah, Steph, and Susan would both keep children away from certain things, even while teaching them to control themselves. And if you would, then you aren’t any different than this mom.

To call it “slut-shaming” is rhetoric with no attachment to reality. To teach about modesty is not slut-shaming. It’s teaching about modesty. It seems to partake of the notion that if we can make up an ugly enough name for something, we don’t have to deal with the reality.

confessing that lust is 100% his own heart problem, not an environmental problem or partially the fault of anyone else. … Identify things that increase your temptation levels, and avoid them. And recognize that your boundaries will most likely not be the same as anyone else’s. And don’t be ashamed of that. Flee also youthful lusts …

Notice how in one sentence it is claimed this is not environmental, and in the next it is admitted it is environmental. I think this kind of speech betrays the complex nature of life. It is true that lust is a heart problem. It is also true that it is connected, at least in some ways, to environment. This overly simplistic view is dangerous, and not helpful. I would urge against it.

The truth is that we have responsibilities to each other. There’s nothing wrong with that. It’s the way God created the world to work.

@Larry: I think you are conflating a few ideas here: stumbling blocks/temptations and sin/who bears the responsibility for sin committed after temptation.

Stumbling blocks exist—pretty sure we all agree on that. And they’re egregious—Christ is clear about that (as you noted). And those who tempt others and those who are stumbling blocks will answer to God for tempting but not for causing others to sin and certainly not for the actions others.

Temptation is not the same as sin. Temptation does not *cause* sin. The person who tempts bears responsibility for their temptation. But that is not the same as bearing responsibility for the sin of another.

I think a verse we all know well sums it up:

No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your ability, but with the temptation he will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it.

And are we responsible to each other? Absolutely. Categorically, undeniably, in every way YES. Great point! That’s pretty much the second greatest commandment (i.e. a summary of God’s law). But being responsible to each other is not the same as being responsible for the sins of each other.

So, it was OK for her to post pics of her shirtless boys online because her noraml audience is usually small. The problem is that new readers found this to be a grace lack of discernment, and bombed her with comments about it. So she blocked comments.

Susan, if we actually read what she said, she said she agreed with those who found her pictures problematic. So it appears that it wasn’t “OK for her to post pics of her shirtless boys online because her normal audience is usually small,” contrary to your claim here.

She also said that the reason she closed the comments was not because of their content, but because she was unable to moderate them.

I thought she handled that well. I think you misrepresented what she said. I would encourage you to go back and look at it.

It seems to me that the reason she changed her pictures was to make sure that she was “holding ourselves to that same standard” (to quote you).

[Steph L]

@GregH: If the “specific situation” you are talking about is lust and/or sexual misconduct, then there is no 100%/100% paradigm. It’s 0%/100%, with one.hundred.percent of the guilt falling on the head of the person who is lusting/the sexual predator.

To think otherwise is disturbing for two reasons:

1) It’s completely unscriptural.

2) It’s the mindset that underpins much sexual sin (esp. in Christian circles) today.

(And please know that I have no idea who you are, so my comments are not intended to say anything about you personally. But this blog is called “SharperIron” for this very purpose—so that we can help refine each other’s thinking.)

I think at this point the burden of proof falls to you to show anywhere in Scripture that God splits the accountability for one person’s actions, especially sexual misconduct.

I do not find you “disturbing” Steph but I do find you perplexing ;)

To start with, I never once said that God splits the accountability for one person’s actions among various people.

What I said was that in a specific situation, both parties may be at fault and to varying degrees. Maybe one is at fault for a different reason than the other such as dressing provocatively while the other is at fault for lust. But both are at fault.

In the particular situation where a girl dresses inappropriately and a man lusts, both are at fault though for different things and quite possibly at varying degrees. I certainly agree that neither is responsible for the sin of the other.

This is not complex and for the life of me, I don’t see where the controversy is.

And those who tempt others and those who are stumbling blocks will answer to God for tempting but not for causing others to sin and certainly not for the actions others.

Just remember that Jesus and Paul do not talk about temptation but about cause (skandilizo—to cause to stumble or sin). So when you frame it as “temptation,” you are not framing it the way the Jesus or Paul did.

My point is that the sin of causing it is just as much sin as the sin of doing it. Jesus does not let someone off the hook merely because they caused it. He says they should be drowned with a millstone around their neck. That’s pretty serious, much more so than it seems some here want to make it.

So a Christian guy comes in to my office and admits he has a problem viewing porn on the internet. How do I counsel him? Do I say to him, “It is 100% your fault, so all you need to do is stop lusting.” I absolutely do tell him to stop lusting through the power of the Gospel using such means as the Word of God and walking by the Spirit. But you know what else I also tell him to do? Do everything he can to remove the sources of temptation—get internet filtering/reporting software, block certain sites, stop using certain apps. And if he has women as facebook friends that are posting inappropriate photos, I would most certainly tell him to unfriend them.

But according to the logic presented above, I would be wrong to tell him to remove the source of temptation. “Don’t worry about what is on your computer or where you go on the internet, just be sure you don’t lust. It’s not the fault of those women that you’re doing that.”

Again…not either/or, but both/and.

[Larry]

So, it was OK for her to post pics of her shirtless boys online because her noraml audience is usually small. The problem is that new readers found this to be a grace lack of discernment, and bombed her with comments about it. So she blocked comments.

Susan, if we actually read what she said, she said she agreed with those who found her pictures problematic. So it appears that it wasn’t “OK for her to post pics of her shirtless boys online because her normal audience is usually small,” contrary to your claim here.

She also said that the reason she closed the comments was not because of their content, but because she was unable to moderate them.

I thought she handled that well. I think you misrepresented what she said. I would encourage you to go back and look at it.

It seems to me that the reason she changed her pictures was to make sure that she was “holding ourselves to that same standard” (to quote you).

The tone and content of her rebuke to young girls is not the same as how she dealt with her own ‘lack of discernment’. How many girls and women did she cause to lust for her sons by posting those pictures? What was she trying to do? The young women who saw those pictures can’t unsee them, and now they will continue to look at her sons in a sexual way?

What’s more- would she have left those pictures up for her ‘normal’ audience if there had been no backlash?

I only offer this to show that the reason that some perceived her initial post as being heavy-handed was because of how it was presented. Now her post looks much different and seems more balanced because everyone has clothes on. But obviously, she and her family have no problem going to public places half-dressed, such as the beach, thereby causing others to stumble.