FYI (if you’re a teenage girl)

1) I appreciate her understanding of how we project an image of ourselves. And I think that this, more than anything, is the root problem for teen girls. They are desperate for attention, they are desperate to be loved. I have a theory, and I think it stands up, that girls who are loved and built up by their fathers find it the easiest to be truly modest. They don’t feel desperate to be wanted because they know they are already are. Modesty and legitimate self-esteem go hand in hand.

2) In theory, I understand her point that a man should be able to look at an unclothed woman and not lust. I agree with her that the human form is to be honored. Not all nudity must be sexual—doctors in the practice of medicine or missionaries evangelizing jungle tribes, for example. But I think that she underestimates the effects of the Fall. God Himself clothed us after the Fall and we must understand that we live in a broken world.

Ultimately we clothe ourselves, not our of shame, but out of grace. Grace toward each other—men and women alike. As a woman who has gone through childbirth, and gained the requisite pounds for each, when a young woman exposes her body (even if she doesn’t realize she is doing this) I struggle with a different kind of lust. A lust that desires the beauty that I no longer have but she does. I want it for myself. But even in this, my dissatisfaction is my issue not hers. I guess for me, modesty is best understood as a gift that we give each other. It is one way that we submit to each other and walk humbly with each other. Instead of using our bodies to rule over each other (because yes, beauty is a form of power), we use our bodies to serve one another. But the thing about grace is that it is a gift. As Christians, we must give this to each other, but if it is not given, we cannot blame each other for our own failures. If I am discontent with my body because I saw a woman more beautiful than me, I bear it alone. If a man lusts, he bears it alone.

And when we position modesty as an act of grace toward each other, it naturally expresses itself in a proper view of sexuality in marriage. Instead of being ashamed, grace tells us to give ourselves to our spouse because this is how you serve one another as husband and wife. This really is my biggest concern with Mrs. Hall’s article and what I believed to be the tenor of the discussion today. Modesty was no longer being defined by meekness and self-giving; it was being defined as any activity that could potentially incite lust in a man. And like I mentioned earlier, this definition will lead only to shame and a loss of imago dei because it positions another person as the determinant of our personal modesty. Modesty is not properly about lust. Modesty is about meekness—beauty under control.

Some might see on this thread two different perspectives: the female perspective and the male perspective. But at the risk of being labeled Captain Obvious, let me point out that the author of the OP—the one who chose to unfriend young girls who post inappropriate photos on Facebook—is a female.

[handerson]

1) I appreciate her understanding of how we project an image of ourselves. And I think that this, more than anything, is the root problem for teen girls. They are desperate for attention, they are desperate to be loved. I have a theory, and I think it stands up, that girls who are loved and built up by their fathers find it the easiest to be truly modest. They don’t feel desperate to be wanted because they know they are already are. Modesty and legitimate self-esteem go hand in hand.

2) In theory, I understand her point that a man should be able to look at an unclothed woman and not lust. I agree with her that the human form is to be honored. Not all nudity must be sexual—doctors in the practice of medicine or missionaries evangelizing jungle tribes, for example. But I think that she underestimates the effects of the Fall. God Himself clothed us after the Fall and we must understand that we live in a broken world.

Ultimately we clothe ourselves, not our of shame, but out of grace. Grace toward each other—men and women alike. As a woman who has gone through childbirth, and gained the requisite pounds for each, when a young woman exposes her body (even if she doesn’t realize she is doing this) I struggle with a different kind of lust. A lust that desires the beauty that I no longer have but she does. I want it for myself. But even in this, my dissatisfaction is my issue not hers. I guess for me, modesty is best understood as a gift that we give each other. It is one way that we submit to each other and walk humbly with each other. Instead of using our bodies to rule over each other (because yes, beauty is a form of power), we use our bodies to serve one another. But the thing about grace is that it is a gift. As Christians, we must give this to each other, but if it is not given, we cannot blame each other for our own failures. If I am discontent with my body because I saw a woman more beautiful than me, I bear it alone. If a man lusts, he bears it alone.

And when we position modesty as an act of grace toward each other, it naturally expresses itself in a proper view of sexuality in marriage. Instead of being ashamed, grace tells us to give ourselves to our spouse because this is how you serve one another as husband and wife. This really is my biggest concern with Mrs. Hall’s article and what I believed to be the tenor of the discussion today. Modesty was no longer being defined by meekness and self-giving; it was being defined as any activity that could potentially incite lust in a man. And like I mentioned earlier, this definition will lead only to shame and a loss of imago dei because it positions another person as the determinant of our personal modesty. Modesty is not properly about lust. Modesty is about meekness—beauty under control.

Yes, I would agree. I respect Jonalyn’s intelligence and can agree with much of what she writes but on the other hand, I can’t get past the recklessness of her viewpoint. I think there is a place for Christian feminism and much of her discussion of sexuality but I worry about where she goes with it and the conclusions she draws. It is just incredibly naive I think and if she is wrong as I suspect she well may be, what she says is very dangerous.

I lean against what would be typical traditional fundamentalist approaches toward feminism but a line has to be drawn somewhere. It has seemed in this thread that a few here (I am not including you) seem reluctant to ever hold a woman responsible for anything regardless of the part she might play in a sexual situation. That is where a lot of the angst comes from I think. It is incredibly naive to be that way and dangerous.

I appreciate the rest of your post. I am not commenting on it only because I need to think about it some more.

I’ve had to reread the article more than once, as responses reading responses here I thought I had surely missed something - or the whole point of the article.

As the mom of two (now adult) boys .. and being “boy central” for many many years .. (even now..laugh); I understand the author’s frustration.

From the post I did not get the impression it was ONE girl - but more than one.. AND I could envision the pictures as she described them..

“Selfies”

- taken in their bedroom

- taken in their bedclothes

- taken w/o undergarments

- taken in a towel

- taken in sultry poses

SO - this was not just a profile picture .. to me these were numerous pictures … and no where near ANY definition of modesty..

I felt she wrote the article in a rather lighthearted way - making a point.

I also feel the girls may NOT have “had a clue” about what they were doing .. these types of pictures are EVERYWHERE .. I have to say I see them LESS on Facebook - but when my sons were younger MySpace was the thing .. and YEP it was EVERYWHERE there… to the point where we had to voice our displeasure to the point they just stopped using it.. (and Facebook became more “popular”)

Girls seem to think that this type of thing is appropriate .. and that behavior is acceptable .. Just ask Miley Cyrus..

You can object to the method Mrs Hall has chosen all you want, but she is the one who is responsible for her family (along with her husband) and I found her message entirely appropriate. I find it really astonishing that Bible believing Christians would object to what she has to say.

Personally, her solution is what I find weak. Appealing to the good judgment of those who have shown to be lacking it by posting provocative photos of themselves may need to be done on some level, but probably won’t be very effective without a measure of parental guidance to accompany it. Even in her own family’s situation, she doesn’t rely on her boys to “unfriend” the girls in question- Mrs. Hall oversees the process herself. Why address only the teenage girls, when presumably their parents have ultimate control over their access?

We encountered a similar media situation recently as a family. My wife came across a conversation one of our girls had with a youth group friend from our church. The boy had used a term we find mildly offensive, and one our children are not allowed to use. Our solution was not to automatically “unfriend” him. Rather, my wife contacted the boy’s mother, who immediately replied, dealt with her son, and had him apologize in person the next time he saw my wife and the girls at church. The family in question are relatively new Christians, so how effective would it have been to write a letter generally addressing boys who use coarse language, or requiring our girls to remove him from their contacts? You miss a prime opportunity to mentor by not going to the parents, in my assessment. Why would it be principally any different with girls posting mildly suggestive “selfies”?

[Greg Linscott]

You can object to the method Mrs Hall has chosen all you want, but she is the one who is responsible for her family (along with her husband) and I found her message entirely appropriate. I find it really astonishing that Bible believing Christians would object to what she has to say.

Personally, her solution is what I find weak. Appealing to the good judgment of those who have shown to be lacking it by posting provocative photos of themselves may need to be done on some level, but probably won’t be very effective without a measure of parental guidance to accompany it. Even in her own family’s situation, she doesn’t rely on her boys to “unfriend” the girls in question- Mrs. Hall oversees the process herself. Why address only the teenage girls, when presumably their parents have ultimate control over their access?

We encountered a similar media situation recently as a family. My wife came across a conversation one of our girls had with a youth group friend from our church. The boy had used a term we find mildly offensive, and one our children are not allowed to use. Our solution was not to automatically “unfriend” him. Rather, my wife contacted the boy’s mother, who immediately replied, dealt with her son, and had him apologize in person the next time he saw my wife and the girls at church. The family in question are relatively new Christians, so how effective would it have been to write a letter generally addressing boys who use coarse language, or requiring our girls to remove him from their contacts? You miss a prime opportunity to mentor by not going to the parents, in my assessment. Why would it be principally any different with girls posting mildly suggestive “selfies”?

I agree that her solution was weak .. in fact as I was reading it my thought was how many of these girls actually read a “mom blog” ..

Addressing with the parents would be the appropriate solution .. but that is sticky too .. as I implied above - this stuff is rampant .. I think we’re working on the assumption that all parents / families are Christian with like values.

I did want to make one comment on my above post - in no way I feel ALL girls are doing these things .. in fact most (if not all) teenage girls / young women I know on FB wouldn’t post pictures like that in a million years …

I think the blocking solution IS appropriate - just like being selective in television shows or movies .. of course with a HUGE discussion with the son’s as to WHY these types of pictures are inappropriate.

The other thing to remember is we raise our children with what ever values we’ve chosen to follow .. As a Christian thankfully we have guidance in the Word. BUT now as a parent of adults I realize that our children have to make the choice on their own to follow those values .. and sometimes they may disappoint us .. Thankfully so far mine have kept close to those values - but they HAVE made a few choices I would not have made for them - Yet somehow they manage to “come back home” ..

I think the blocking solution IS appropriate - just like being selective in television shows or movies .. of course with a HUGE discussion with the son’s as to WHY these types of pictures are inappropriate.

Maybe at some point- but I still say that it should not be automatic and immediate. We have soon to be 14 and 15 year old daughters… We can identify every single person on their friends list, and we have access to everything that they post. While not every one of their friends has the same level of supervision, we have enough awareness to feel comfortable approaching the appropriate people if there is a matter of concern, rather than quietly blocking and letting the matter go un-addressed.

Or do we adapt Matthew 18:15 for the internet generation to read “Moreover if your brother sins against you, block and unfriend him, avoiding personally awkward confrontation…”?

Greg, how does Mt 18 govern internet? What discipline do you take and by whose authority to the one who doesn’t listen? I know this is a side issue, but Mt 18 has a context to it.

I understand, James, that not every FB friend is going to be a member of your local church. At the same time, the principle of confronting a fellow believer is one that has application beyond just those you share local church fellowship with. Paul tells the story of confronting Peter in Galatians. I don’t think we would conclude they were member of the same congregation when that occurred. Yes, this is a far different kind of situation we’re talking about. And yet, is it Biblically inappropriate to bring concerns to the responsible party? I’m thinking not.

[Greg Linscott]

Even in her own family’s situation, she doesn’t rely on her boys to “unfriend” the girls in question- Mrs. Hall oversees the process herself. Why address only the teenage girls, when presumably their parents have ultimate control over their access?

I haven’t gone back to the original article to check, but as I remember, it seems to me that the family had just one FB account which they all shared. Parents, of course, would supervise. Regardless, I am astonished that you would have a problem with that. It sounds to me like she is a conscientious mom. Good on her.

Also, I don’t think she was ‘unfriending’ the girls - just blocking them.

She isn’t responsible for the upbringing of the girls from other families, but she is responsible for guiding her own children.

[Greg Linscott] We encountered a similar media situation recently as a family.

Doesn’t sound all that similar to me, but others may agree with you.

I have no problem with the supervision… My issue is blocking the girls without at least alerting parents. If it is such a problem, why only protect your children, while the offender exposes herself to everyone else on her list?

[Greg Linscott]

You can object to the method Mrs Hall has chosen all you want, but she is the one who is responsible for her family (along with her husband) and I found her message entirely appropriate. I find it really astonishing that Bible believing Christians would object to what she has to say.

Personally, her solution is what I find weak. Appealing to the good judgment of those who have shown to be lacking it by posting provocative photos of themselves may need to be done on some level, but probably won’t be very effective without a measure of parental guidance to accompany it. Even in her own family’s situation, she doesn’t rely on her boys to “unfriend” the girls in question- Mrs. Hall oversees the process herself. Why address only the teenage girls, when presumably their parents have ultimate control over their access?

We encountered a similar media situation recently as a family. My wife came across a conversation one of our girls had with a youth group friend from our church. The boy had used a term we find mildly offensive, and one our children are not allowed to use. Our solution was not to automatically “unfriend” him. Rather, my wife contacted the boy’s mother, who immediately replied, dealt with her son, and had him apologize in person the next time he saw my wife and the girls at church. The family in question are relatively new Christians, so how effective would it have been to write a letter generally addressing boys who use coarse language, or requiring our girls to remove him from their contacts? You miss a prime opportunity to mentor by not going to the parents, in my assessment. Why would it be principally any different with girls posting mildly suggestive “selfies”?

You apply a great solution - for the context you describe. Would you have done the same with someone who was not in your church, someone you didn’t have relationship with? My oldest is in 7th grade and just entering the youth group. She doesn’t have a facebook page, but if she did, she would conceivably have contact with a number of children in our youth group who come to church by themselves. Some have made professions of faith; some have not. While I would handle a situation with a family in the church just like you did, I would not do the same with parents I have never met who do not profess Christ but simply allow their child to come to yuth group with some friend from school. In that case, I (or my wife, depending on the situation) might simply post (or have my daughter post) something lighthearted but firm similar to the post under discussion here.

I understand what you’re saying, Chip… and yet, if my daughters were loading up on a lot of FB friends who were boys we didn’t know (much less their parents), we’d have an issue, provocative selfies or coarse language aside. Same if I had sons who were “friending” girls we were unfamiliar with- regardless of content said people posted (or not). In other words, this platform is meant for personal interaction, with people who know (or will eventually come to know, if we are doing our job) the principles by which we order our lives as followers of Jesus Christ.

Still agreeing with you Greg, just not being clear. Maybe that’s because no one in my immediate family is actually on facebook. My reference was to kids I know whose parents I don’t. We have a number of teens who come regularly to our youth group, but whose parents do not participate in anyway with the church. Some of the parents, I have never even met in passing, but my daughter knows the kids as do I.

If Mrs. Hall speaks as a mother, as she does in the piece, the best strategy to to direct it to mothers, encouraging them to take their mothering seriously and rein in their daughters who toy with things they know not the full ramifications of. If she really wants to connect with the girls themselves, presenting herself as the mother of boys is not the best… She might have the moral high ground, but the stereotype of the wife competing with the mother-in-law exists for a reason. Her point might be right, generally, but since her argument is basically grounded in common sense (there is no overt reference to Biblical principle in the article), it is very easy for an offending teen girl reading it to dismiss her as condescending and jealous because she is old and past her prime (whether that reasoning is true or not).

The rub here is that Mrs. Hall (and many of the people who re-posted) tend to think of things like Facebook like we do about something like television or other mass media of the past- very impersonal. You can be a fan and follower, but expressing your opinion about something you like or didn’t is not usually likely to generate meaningful change. New media is different. You engage people you know on places like Facebook, or a place like here where you get to know real people rather than calling in to a professional personality on a call-in show. The is not some “vast Facebook conspiracy” gathering selfies of unsuspecting young ladies and posting them on your son’s feed, or a collective group that elected to do so in a board room somewhere. These are individuals making individual decisions, and if there are “offenders” on your list, it’s better to deal with them personally rather than collectively.