However, I overall agree, some parts I disagree. If you wear anything that can cause someone to lust or produce some type of desire, that is immodest. So the amt. of skin does have something to do w/ it.
LILLY:
Actually, we may agree on more than you think.
The only point I have been trying to emphasize up till now is that skin exposure is not
intrinsically evil (i.e., sexually provocative). In other words, the "very good" human figure that God created is not of itself a stimulus to lust.
However, I do agree that when a culture (like ours) succeeds in twisting and perverting our perception of the human body by shaping it into a sex symbol, so that people cannot think of nakedness without thinking about sex, then Christian women walking around in that kind of society need to avoid wearing outfits that are generally considered provocative.
However, in another environment altogether, public nudity may be perfectly fine and appropriate. For Christians given to renewing and reconditioning their minds about nudity, nakedness ceases to be a stumbling block. In a "nudist" or "naturist" setting (like swimming, enjoying a clothes-free beach, or whatever), skin exposure ceases to be an issue because the people-group in this environment do not have the same psychological hang-ups that "outsiders" have.
The naturist environment, in other words, constitutes a completely different culture. So modesty is very much dependent on cultural outlook. And so my reason for agreeing with you also dictates for me the recognition that when Christ adjures us to guard even our thoughts, lest we commit adultery in our hearts, He is not enforcing a modesty "dress-code", but rather making a general warning against perverting the goodness and beauty of creation by desiring "ownership" of what is not ours.
Now, no one is saying by this that naturism makes naturists cease to be human. No one can cease to be human, and part of that natural humanness is the recognition of beauty and attractiveness in the opposite sex. Like anyone else, a naturist can fall into sin by lusting. Our point is simply that nakedness for us is no more an obstacle to purity than a beautiful, fully-clothed female (or male, if you're a woman).
The point is, as long as there is sin in the world, lust will always exist - regardless of what we wear or don't wear.
As James writes, sin is always conceived in the heart -- there is nothing intrinsic to the atomic or molecular make-up of something that "causes" sin and lust. Rather, it is the spiritual "psychology" of a culture that ultimately determines whether or not it will have a wholesome or perverted perspective on nudity.
There was a time when my wife and I would have been shocked to think that we would ever embrace this point of view - and now we are talking about making our first trip this spring to a nude beach!
We are REALLY looking forward to the liberating experience of having the sun, wind and water on our bodies without the unnecessary constraint and encumbrance of fabric.
