The Following is actually a series of comments on a former blog, Phone Call. Joseph is a man who works in the KidStuff ministry, a friend who thinks very differently than most and, therefore, often teaches me, no matter what he is saying.
I have never ever ever in my life ever thought or heard such an argument- or not that took to my heart, at least. But I’ve been REELING over it, so I wanted to share.
“1 | Joseph
Something that may be interesting, though, perhaps, only peripherally related.
We know the claim that there is no greater love than that which is in Christ. Yet we cannot see his face. Yet we cannot converse with him, not in the normal sense. Because he loves, he has given us life. Yet everyone we know is dying.
What kind of love is this, that would deny?
This is the kind of love that is too much for us. We can’t look into the eyes of our Love because we would go blind and drop dead. We are not yet ready. What our Love has to lavish upon us is more than we can ask for, it’s more than we are capable of imagining. But we can’t have this now, not before the wedding because we can’t take it now, it’s too much. So now we see through a glass dimly.
So, with this love, there is a divine modesty. This modesty is for our protection. This is the way that Christ loves.
What I find interesting in this context is that, when the Text talks about how a man ought to love a woman, it says that he ought to love her like Christ loves him. Of course this means many things, but perhaps there is a modesty found here too.
Given this, perhaps you suppose too much regarding how men are capable of loving, given that the man seeks to be like Christ. Know that your Savior contains a love that is great enough to destroy you, but it is bridled for your sake until your wedding.
Can you explain “perhaps you suppose too much regarding how men are capable of loving.”
do you mean specifically male? and what am I supposing? I’m glad you think so differently than I.
So that is my reasoning, here is my complaint. Now I don’t mean to say anything about you, I don’t find that interesting and also I’m not talking about you. I only mean to say what I have seen while living.
There is a gross immodesty in this day. Of course it is true that, commonly, girls will now dress how only strippers would dare to dress just 60 years ago and go to church in the same day, though not in the same attire, and think that they have done nothing wrong. And you can’t argue that strippers were more modest back then. But I’m not talking about that immodesty because that is not this context. I’m talking about the immodesty of men, I’m not talking about clothing.
Thinking of clothing may be helpful here, though I’m not talking about clothing here. There is a sense of modesty that veils, that hides for the sake of not harming others. This is not the modesty that people are interested in, they are interested in a modesty that protects themselves. But this is the modesty that, if you do not care to follow, you violate Christ (1st Corinthians 8:9-13), there’s no such thing as liberty.
In light of this and from what I have seen, I think that I argue that a woman ought not to know with what intensity a man can love unless that woman is married to that man. Outside of this, the man ought to have some veil over his love, just as the woman ought to have some veil over her body. See I have, without fail, seen too much love unveiled cause harm, these are the men, and women, who violate Christ.
I am often shocked by what girls have reported to me that men have said or demonstrated to them. There is little sense of any kind of modesty in this time.”