Hermenuetics

Comments

Just a heads up: Kylie Kofoed is Miss Idaho, not Miss Utah.

Posted By: Laura Ziesel | January 20, 2011 10:38 AM

Thank you, Laura! Correction made.

Posted By: Katelyn Beaty | January 20, 2011 10:56 AM

As a participant in the Miss America system and a devout evangelical Christian I couldn't disagree more with this article. Just because she didn't perform a religious talent and she wore a two piece doesn't mean that she didn't express her Christianity. Teresa's talent (she played the piano beautifully) exhibited her discipline and dedication to her work. Discipline is a gift from God, skill of her level is a gift from God. Just because she didn't get up there and play "Amazing Grace" doesn't mean she made a mistake. The purpose of the "swimsuit competition" as everyone wants to call it is to exhibit fitness, confidence and a commitment to health. These are all Christian ideals, upholding the fact that your body is a temple and you should treat it as such and the idea that God created you beautifully no matter what you look like. She could have been very open about her faith in her full length interview, something you don't see on TV. She could have been very open about her faith in her platform statement. Just because she enjoyed the dance portions and wore a two-piece doesn't make her any less of a Christian. To imply that Miss Utah is a better Christian because she wore a one-piece is judgmental and rude. Women who compete in pageants already get criticized for participating in them in the first place. We don't need more people condemning women who are trying to put themselves through school.

Posted By: Nina | January 20, 2011 11:08 AM

Disobeying the Scripture's clear commands to be modest, to not cause others to stumble spiritually (provoking lust), and to come out of the world and the flesh is foundational to following Christ. Christian women cannot parade their nearly nude bodies on stage to be judged on its merits without making a mockery of our Savior who told us to take up our crosses, deny ourselves and follow Him. Teresa Scanlan is getting praise from family values Christians once again, leading to the question, how do you conquer America's moral squalor by behaving like a stripper? You can't beat something with nothing. We have become a joke as an evangelical church because we don't even obey our founding document, the Bible. Teresa Scanlan is naked and the entire church is increasingly naked. Little wonder we are having no influence whatsoever in the culture. We have become the culture.

Posted By: Ingrid Schlueter | January 20, 2011 11:14 AM

I personally think these pageants are a waste of time. They are subjective and mean little to the over all health of society. They are more about the money received by the contestants. On top of that I agree with the writer, that they are becoming more worldly and less noble. There is no reason to parade around in a scant bikini to determine physical fitness. Why don't they make them go out and actually do a physical fitness test! Then they can get an actual objective score with regard to the physical conditioning instead of simply looking at their bust size! Heck someone can look "good" on a picture and be completely out of shape. Personally I don't care about these things anyway because they are so subjective and meaningless. And frankly those that participate in them have a pretty thin idea of beauty anway.

Posted By: Doug | January 20, 2011 12:17 PM

Seriously? No one entering or watching the Miss America pagent is unaware of the swimsuit competition. Bikinis are not an unknown part of American culture. The majority of women that I see at the beach are wearing them (not just young women either).

This is a Jesus Per Minute problem. As Nina said, you do not have to play Amazing Grace to show your faith.

I agree somewhat with Ingrid. We do look like culture. The church has always looked like culture, because we are a part of it. That does not mean we cannot debate culture or call it to a higher standard.

But choosing the Bikini as the line is just laughably ridiculous. Yes there are some youth groups that restrict bikinis, and yes there are Christians that belief as Ingrid does that wearing a bikini is basically walking around nude. But those are not majority opinions in secular or Christian world.

The problem is that the real issues are virtually always internal. It is about heart issues, not about the type or amount of clothing that a person is wearing.

And I think there is at least some sexism in the article. Does a college football player have to wear Tebow's memory verse eye liner to be a Christian? If not then we should not put similar requirements on beauty pageant contestants.

Posted By: Adam Shields | January 20, 2011 12:20 PM

Bathing suits can be more modest and we should hope that Miss America would change to more modest bathing suits, but for most men I believe, a woman with a healthy body can look just as sexy in a one piece. The answer for bathing suits, is to make sure our young women practice "over eating" and look fifty pounds overweight due to gluttonous eating and lots of sitting around at home and in church. To judge a young Christian girl who looks like God meant her to be in anything but a burka is just an indicator of the sickness of our churches who sometimes were more ingterested in appearance than commitment to our Savior and Lord. This happened to men in the sixties who grew their hair long. Modesty is in the behavior more than in the dress and in the heart more than in a taboo form of Christianity. I have a seventeen year old daughter who is deeply committed to Christ and perhaps because we are from Eastern Europe where it was hard to get fat, we are more concerned with the heart. As a teen gets in her twenties she probably will not only stop wearing the bikini, but the one piece as well and prefer shorts with a skirt. I dould you will see Teresa sporting her bikini in the future as she has more important things to do, plus modesty does not get the unsaved into heaven or we would all be Muslims. We need to teach our young people issues of the heart and leave modesty levels to parents and situations as the Scriptures do not go into details. Jesus sat next to some women who I'm sure would never make it on CT's front cover. It was their souls he wanted to save not someone's views on appearance.

Posted By: Joe Losiak | January 20, 2011 12:40 PM

I have to say I agree with Doug. I think beauty pageants like this are too meaningless and pathetic to even take them seriously. As Doug said, swimsuit modelling as a measure of fitness? That's a joke.

Honestly I don't think these contests CAN be used for the glory of God because they promote such a subjective notion of beauty and materiality. The most beautiful women in the world campaigning for better self-image? Don't they realize they are PERPETUATING stock, unattainable ideals of beauty by simply entering this campaign? Joke #2.

And what difference, exactly, does a one piece bathing suit make over a two piece? Is it supposed to make someone look uglier, less sexy, less ideal? I'm no guy but I'm pretty sure if you asked the average Joe he would still think Miss Idaho looked pretty darn good. The one piece bathing suit controversy is simply a red herring that detracts from larger issues. I mean, think about it - we're talking about a few extra inches of fabric. One hundred years ago people would be shocked to see a woman in a one-piece. The difference is utterly subjective.

Posted By: Nadine | January 20, 2011 12:52 PM

It is easy for both sides to "score points" because of the subjective nature of much of the debate, i.e., what is modest. However, what is much less subjective is the absolute fact of the affect of women in underwear (and bikinis are simply redesigned underwear) have on the hearts and minds of virtually every man - despite protests to the contrary. There is only one reason why commercials and television shows use sex to sell - because it works. There is not a hetereosexual man, much less a male teenager with raging hormones, who will look at a beautiful woman in a bikini and think - "wow, as a Christian she has really redeemed this beauty pageant for Christ." This is violating the principle of being a stumbling block. And no, the extreme of a burka is not the only alternative - that is a red herring. The only reason that any woman does not think this is provocative is because she has never been inside a man's brain and body. Any man who says it isn't is either lying or has other issues - but it definitely is not normal. God has made both sexes with certain to have certain sympathetic psychological and physiological responses of which each sex must beware and protect the other by the way each handles themselves.

Dave James
The Alliance for Biblical Integrity
www.biblicalintegrity.org

Posted By: Dave James | January 20, 2011 1:12 PM

Wow! Well said, Dave!

Posted By: lisa | January 20, 2011 5:18 PM

Pageantry can only ever be a negative force for girls and women. Participating in an event that scores women(even if the weighting is 'only'15%) serves only to maintain the concept that a woman is a object and her intrinsic worth is linked to her 'Beauty'.

Thousands of young girls starve themselves and damage their physical and mental health permanently to try to achieve a look and an image that is both distorted and unrealistic. Pageantry cannot ever be a good thing as it relies on the principle of judgement and who are we, anyone really, to judge someones worth based on how they look.

To validate such a intrinsically evil concept by linking it to religion seems completely at odds with all the major religion's core value of love, honesty and compassion.

btw, I am not religious at all, I am however a husband and a father to a young woman who must navigate a world where Hypocrisy on such a grand scale as the Pageant industry exists.
Mark Wright
Brisbane, Australia

Posted By: Mark Wright | January 20, 2011 5:32 PM

Thank you, reminds me of the chorus, 'Dare to be a Daniel, dare to stand alone, dare to have a purpose firm, dare to make it known."
I so do appreciate this blog overall and this entry in particular. Ladies Home Journal has a feature on 5 women who dress modestly for their faith. If Muslims, Hindus, Orthodox Jews can choose to dress modestly, why not Christian women?
As a newspaper reporter, I asked our local pageant winner heading for the national if she felt uncomfortable wearing a white (looked like underwear to me). She did not and she also professed to follow The Way.
We have a mental disconnect.

Posted By: Joan Hershberger | January 20, 2011 5:33 PM

Dear Ingrid :
I don't think the question about I Cor 11:5 was an attack on you or your church . I think it was a real question that needs to be discussed at some point because we as the listening public and fellow believers deserve to know where you stand . Most evangelical churches certainly practice the first part of the passage but ignore the womans part . The way in which you responded to him seems to indicate the non-compliance of you and your church to The Apostle Paul's instuctions , as does your promo photogragh .
The progression and consequences of such are patterned in Isaiahs discription of the shamed woman in chapter 47 verses 2&3 . You and Miss America are on the same path , she is just farther down the descent. Please turn back and do not fear that the (cult)ure around you may call you an historical freak . The descentof America into rampant feminism and other deviant sinful behaviors parallels the departure of christians from following this first of the two ordinances that The Apostle Paul teaches in chapter 11 of I Cor.
Until the Churches (Women who speak publicly in particular) return to obediance they will lack the authoritative power to address the modesty issue , protection of Gods Angels , and defence from the evil angels .

Dear sister consider carefully how you live , because as you have said we live in perilous times ,and we need to avail ourselves of all God's protections. Your screener told my wife you don't disscuss this on the air . She and her sister have a sincere desire to disscuss this topic with you face to face . Your kind response in arranging a time and place will be appreciated .

Posted By: Jay A Sommer | January 20, 2011 5:53 PM

Women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control... (1 Timothy 2:9)

"As a jewel of gold in a swine's snout, so is a fair woman which is without discretion" (Prov. 11:22)

I am a a  loss for words as I look at the way "Christian women are dressing these days. Women in the church are to be different from the world. We should be stand-outs — not because of our revealing clothing, but because of our distinctly modest heart and dress.

Our clothes, whether we realize it or not, say something. They give us away. They reveal the heart behind the clothes we wear. A modest heart comes before modest dress.  So what do your clothes say about your heart?

Proverbs exhorts a husband to enjoy his wife’s body, which is his own and belongs to the gaze of no other man (Prov. 5:19). When you wear revealing clothes you are offering to the public what belongs to your husband alone to enjoy. And don't think for one second that because you are not married, this gives you a pass. What kind of husband are you trying to attract?

It's all right to dress however you want to, unless you are making a claim to godliness. In that case, the way that you dress (along with the rest of your life) must be subject to the guidelines and control of the Holy Spirit. Our
bodies are precious because they are a gift from God. They are attractive because God made us in His image for His pleasure (and if we are married, to please our mates as well). But God never intended us to flaunt ourselves
or exhibit our bodies in an immodest way. He wants our bodies consecrated to him. "I urge you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies a living and holy sacrifice, acceptable to God, which is your spiritual
service of worship." (Rom. 12:1) It surely must grieve the Lord to see the thoughtless way so many "modern" Christians dress. It's true that their bodies may be a living sacrifice - but to which god?

Immodest dress is lust producing. Immodest dress may turn heads but it also stimulates wrong thinking - lust which is sin. Men are stimulated by sight. This is why Jesus told the men of His day, "whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart" (Matthew 5:28).

You may respond, "Well, I am not responsible for the way men think. That is their fault if they can’t keep their minds off my body." Dear sister, you are grievously mistaken. "Such is the way of an adulterous woman; she eateth, and wipeth her mouth, and saith, I have done no wickedness" (Proverbs 30:20).

In closing... How are you planing to dress for eternity? Or do you think you have plenty of time to 'change' later?

Posted By: Willow | January 20, 2011 6:31 PM

The swimsuit is just one of many, many problems with pageants. The author hits the nail on the head pointing out the beauty-myth-expectations.

Seriously? Pageants are a JOKE. I wouldn't let my daughter within a mile of one. I personally believe they worthless and a horrible use of time (do you know how much time those women spend prepping to prance around like they are meat on an auction block?), time that could be far better spent in the service of God and others, if one is a believer. I don't care about a "platform." I can do more by working week in and week out with the teenage girls in my church than this woman will do by touring the country giving her little speeches. In addition, they send a terrible message to girls and women everywhere that the most important way to get noticed is by appearing to be society's beauty "ideal." There is no place in pageants for the disabled, for the chunky, for those naturally beautiful girls who simply happen not to be a size 2 or aren't willing to cover their gorgeous, dark, curly hair with a blonde wig. A WIG! How much more FAKE can you get? I don't watch them. We don't allow our children to watch them.

What a colossal waste of time and energy.

Posted By: Robyn | January 20, 2011 8:01 PM

I quit watching the Miss America pageant and other "beauty pageants" because I got sick and tired of the contestants complaints about wearing swimsuits. The pageants today are a joke. If Miss America is a Christian then Iris Avila is Miss Universe. By the way Iris wore a one piece swimsuit in Our Beauty Pageant (Nuestra Belleza) in 1997 and is from my home country Panama. By the way Panama rep to Miss Universe that year 1998 was Tanisha Drummond.

Posted By: George B Vieto | January 20, 2011 8:29 PM

As a Clinical Christian Counselor with Advanced Board Certification in Sexual Therapy, and as a former pageant contender, I understand the harsh undertones of the debated issue at hand. The question has a multi-faceted response varying with religious laws rather than the relationship this young woman has with Jesus Christ, and with God. What is imperative is that she represented herself respectfully, as a Christian young woman, and that in no way or form did she sacrifice her relationship with Christ. She did the opposite. To some, pageants are meaningless. To some, pageants are a ways of purpose utilized by God to further show a society of lust that this is WHO He creates, this young woman is a reflection of Him, and this young woman is not afraid to be a witness and be used by God publicly to represent that relationship with Him supersedes religious factions, rules, and man's own judgment of beauty. Rachel is noted in Genesis 29:17 as “being lovely in form…and beautiful.” Esther was another beautiful example. Having been paraded in front of King Xerxes, (a pageant), she was able to utilize her title (as his queen) to save her people, and she conducted herself aptly representing the God who created her, exhibiting her beauty both inward, as well as outward, as she won favor in the eyes of King Xerxes, and became his beloved queen. One who was able to come before him unannounced without being killed for violating the rules of summoning before him in his court. The fact that this young woman wore a two piece bathing suit does not denounce the fact that her relationship with God is a reflection of her heart.
Individuals are lusted after with by those with a lustful and dysfunctional view of beauty no matter what they choose to wear. Lust in our society derives from sinful reflections and addictions of the heart, a lacking relationship with God, and a confusion of mythological standards of what real intimacy and beauty are.
Lust crosses race, cultural lines, and even age, and it even crosses the standards of what you wear. The important factor is that this young woman strives to do what God tells her to do in life, and represents Him in ALL she does, no matter if it is in a pageant, or driving down the road. She represents God's beauty. God's creation. God's glory as she allows herself to be enveloped in the arms of the One who created her. Her title allows her to be a public witness and to cross the boundaries of judgement representing her relationship which she spoke of, and was proud to announce with God. She can be used by God with the purpose HE has for her. By His stripes we are healed, and by His stripes do we carry His glory. I am glad that this young woman stood up for her relationship with Christ in such a public setting.

Posted By: Pastor Buchanan | January 20, 2011 8:48 PM

Yes, she can be used by God in keeping with the purpose He has for her. And the Bible makes it very clear that some of those purposes, including viewing her semi-nude body in underwear is to be reserved for her husband alone - as has been pointed out.

There are any number of areas where the Bible provides very detailed parameters concerning God's purposes and will for our lives --- and we are not free to exceed those boundaries simply to explore what we might want to think *should* be God's purposes for us. If there is a conflict between the two, God's revealed will is the ultimate, authoritative and final arbiter over what we might otherwise speculate God's unrevealed will to be.

For example, in today's Christianity many people who claim the name of Christ have concluded that the person they are married to is not really the one God wanted them to have, that this wasn't his best purpose for their life - and that someone else's spouse is that person. However, we know that we are not free to fulfill what we (want to) believe to be God's purpose, because there are boundaries that God has set. Our decisions must take those principles into account.
Using the argument by a previous commenter, one could just as easily say that a nude beauty pageant could equally be God's potential purpose for someone. Yet I would dare say that even the most liberal-minded Christians would agree that full-nudity would be morally wrong, and against God's will on several counts. So, let's back up from that. What about a sheer bikini? Still a problem? Or which is worse - a sheer one piece or an opaque two-piece? On the other end of the spectrum, no one would conclude that baggy sweats would be suggestive or wrong. And it would not be nearly as difficult for a man to avoid lust in that situation as it would be in that where a bikini is involved (and a man doesn't have to have a serious sin or addictions of the heart to struggle to avoid crossing the temptation line).

The Apostle Paul put it this way in 1 Cor. 8 - beginning the chapter with the statement that "knowledge puffs up, but love builds up" and concluding with the statement that "if it means causing someone to stumble, I will never eat meat again." He also said that "everything is lawful, but not everything is expedient / profitable."

Godly young Christian ladies who wish to save themselves for their husbands in multiple ways - and stay far from the line where they might cause stumbling - shouldn't have to think twice about this. And 60 years ago we wouldn't have been having this debate. Did our spiritual forefathers get it so wrong on this? (And this isn't about legalism in any sense.)

Dave James
The Alliance for Biblical Integrity
www.biblicalintegrity.org

Posted By: Dave James | January 20, 2011 10:02 PM

All pageants are bad for all women everywhere. Trying to split hairs between the modesty of a two piece or one piece bathing suit is pointless. The question is why would Jesus want you to humiliate yourself by participating in any competition that supports a counter biblical declaring that says the "pretty people" are better.

American Evangelicalism is complicit in the the superficiality and obsession with physical perfection that plagues the rest of the country. In my home town of Dallas, every third ad on the "most listened to Christian radio station in America" is for a service to "fix" what's wrong with the body God gave you--from thinning hair to celulite. This is paired with opportunities to introduce your child to the world of acting and modeling "for Jesus."

We need to be able to clearly articulate an understanding of modesty and the beauty of the human body that is refreshing and healing to women and not conforming and oppressive.

And to my friends who have argued that it is a "scholarship contest": I was awarded an almost full-ride to the college of my choice and I never had to to take off my clothes and parade around in heels to get it.

Posted By: Elizabeth | January 20, 2011 11:24 PM

I read much anger and judgement in these comments... judgement in the essay. Can't say it feels very Christian.
I congratulate all the girls who joined. May God guide their path.

Posted By: Penny | January 21, 2011 12:22 AM

Funny article. I never really saw the answer you were hoping to provide, or maybe that I was hoping you'd provide. It seems like we have two or three camps on what is pure, noble, or good..... and is it all about what we wear?
If that is all Christianity is about then let the axe fall on all our hypocracies. Each little click can have their own accomadation or condemnation (see Rev.2-3).
Remember when Samuel went to Jesse's house to annoint Isreal's king and as he was looking at all of Jesse's kids parading in front of him; What did the Lord tell him?. The Lord does not lok at the things man looks at. Man looks at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart (2Sam16:7).David probably came from th field in his work clothes, maybe even without a shirt.....
This a good subject to debate, but let us not divide.

Beauty is fleeting
when we only catch a glimpse
It's in the eye of the beholder
if you get my drift.

For the heart of the matter
is the matter of the heart
that the place we need to end with
and the place we need to start

Posted By: Scott | January 21, 2011 7:30 AM

I am truly amazed at how moral relativism has affected many Christians. Those who seek to justify Scanlan's inconsistent choice of a bikini with her faith are showing how secularized they have become.

Every Christian has a duty and an God ordained obligation to protect modesty, and the image of virtue.

The article drew the comparison between Christian and Mormon because so many Christian pastors claim that Mormons can't be called Christians in the broad sense.

Yet, it was the Mormon who put her faith in action by 1) wearing a one-piece, and 2) wearing an evening gown that covered up her shoulders and back.

A girl in a bikini is considered soft porn.

Does God works his miracles by advocating soft porn?

Posted By: James Aquinas | January 21, 2011 8:10 AM

CJ Mahaney's sermon on "The Soul of Modesty" is helpful in clarifying the connection between inner and outer beauty. (It's a free download.)

http://www.sovereigngracestore.com/ProductInfo.aspx?productid=A1170-06-51

Posted By: Anonymous | January 21, 2011 8:30 AM

There are "Christians" who only "claim" to be Christian!!!

Posted By: Dandini | January 21, 2011 8:31 AM

I may be the only person to comment here who actually knows Teresa. While I too have some reservations about pageants (and contestants in swimsuits however many pieces are involved), Teresa is a wonderful person. Would you posters would be more tempered in the tone of your comments if you were talking to one of your friend's daughters in person? If that is the case why would you have this tone in your comments toward a person you do not know at all? I would suggest all of you pray for Teresa that she will grow and mature in her faith during this year while she serves as Miss America, particularly since none of her duties from her crowning forward involve a swimsuit.
Commenting as a man I would also say that being tempted by the opposite sex cannot be eliminated by any human means...are not blind men tempted (and they see nothing at all)? The heart is the issue in my life.

Posted By: Mark | January 21, 2011 8:41 AM

Why is the passage about David so frequently misapplied to situations like this as a rebuttal against judging? These two completely different things. The passage in 1Sam. has to do with being judged because of physical appearance over which he had no control - but here we're talking about what women wear over which they have complete control - and which Paul makes clear is an issue.

Judging is a necessary part of life. We make judgments all the time - and rightly so. We judge between what is right and wrong, what is moral and immoral, etc. for the purposes of making right decisions ourselves and for leading others in the paths of righteousness - because we are our brother's keeper. The Bible only condemns unrighteous, self-serving judging - not discernment.

Beyond that, we are not judging her heart nor her relationship with God. We are only judging what she is wearing and in what venue - not why she is doing it - nor what her relationship with the Lord might be. And even then, it isn't for the purpose of condemning her specifically, but rather to discuss the matter of beauty pageants in general - not the individuals taking part.

That people take up these things as personal offenses, when it isn't even about them or even any person specifically, but about a principle. When this happens it tends to stymie any much-needed discussion of any number of subjects.

Posted By: Dave James | January 21, 2011 8:43 AM

Teresa Scanlan doesn't need to be judged by these so called Christians. Thankfully God looks at the heart and for Teresa, her's is a heart that loves God and wants to serve Him. Shame on you! Can you judge your own hearts? Can you judge the thoughts of jealousy, lust, etc. in your own hearts? Matt. 7:5
You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.

Posted By: Diana | January 21, 2011 9:48 AM

Times and attitudes change. 40 years or so ago most evangelicals wouldn't have even entertained the idea of one of their own being in a beauty pageant let alone wear a one piece suit. 20 years from now this may not be an issue at all.

Posted By: Basil | January 21, 2011 10:38 AM

Too many evangelicals are what I call "Carnal Christians". They have taken the saved by grace alone doctrine too far- justifying sins committted as already forgiven. "Therefore I can do what I want because Jesus says all I have to do is believe". Too many evangelicals condemn Mormons because they believe that faith without works are dead, but doesn't their behavior fall in line with biblical teaching? Whether a one or two piece bathing suit represents Jesus the best (maybe neither?) I don't know, but I feel that Christians should walk the walk, and not just talk the talk!

Posted By: Terry | January 21, 2011 10:43 AM

Hi Diana,

I am not sure if you consider yourself a Christian or not but (either way)I would lovingly encourage you to read 1 Corinthians, Chapter 5. Christians are not called to judge UNbelievers but we *are* called to judge those who profess Christianity.

You are right to say that only God can judge the heart. However, the verse you cite regarding judging others if often misused and becomes a weapon against those within the Body of Christ who rightly want to point out the hypocrisy and error of their Christian brethren (which Christ calls us to do).

In the context of the passage you cite, Jesus is condemning the hypocrisy of the Pharisees who thought they were pure because of their legalistic rituals while others were sinners. Jesus wanted to unveil their hypocrisy so that they could see their own need for a Savior.

James 5:19-20 says "Brethren, if anyone AMONG YOU wanders from the truth, and someone turns him back, let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save a soul from death and cover a multitude of sins."

What the above Biblical Christians are pointing out are for the purity of the true Christian body as well as for the good of Teresa.

Blessings,
Mandy

Posted By: Mandy | January 21, 2011 10:56 AM

Dear Mandy,
Yes I am a Christian. I lovingly encourage you to ask God what it is in your life that needs to be repented of instead of picking on Miss America because she wore a two piece swim suit in a scholarship pageant. I believe the above Biblical Christians are pointing out religious legalism. Let's strive to lift up the Body of Christ instead of tearing down!

Posted By: Diana | January 21, 2011 11:33 AM

Hi Diana,

I appreciate your response.

I was genuine in encouraging you to reread 1 Corinthians 5 as well as James 5. Based on your response to me, I would be interested to know if you think there is ever a time when Christians ought to take a stand within the Body when someone has veered off the Biblical path? We are not called to encourage someone in their sin.

My real concern is for God's glory and His holiness. When we as Christians go out of our house each day and identify ourselves as Christians, we have a responsibility to God. Think of it this way, His holiness so far exceeds our own that He had to take on our flesh and die an excruciating death on our behalf. That kind of holiness is beyond our understanding. Our idea of what is acceptable and God's ideas are worlds apart (or a Savior apart - wink wink)!

This is not about a swim suit choice. This is about lust.

There is actually no more loving or uplifting thing to do for a fellow Christian than to point out when they are straying from the Word of God. You rightly say that I am a sinner. Believe me, I repent often. In fact, just the other day, my husband pointed out to me a sin in my own life I didn't even see as sin. I was so thankful he did so because I was able to repent and be healed. Imagine if he hadn't told me and just let me carry on as I was. But he loved me enough to do otherwise. ~Mandy

Posted By: Mandy | January 21, 2011 12:04 PM

I think as Christians we ought to pray for those we think are in sin and ask the Holy Spirit to convict if it truly is a sin. Posting online to a blog is hardly a loving response to someone you do not even know. Praise be to Jesus!

Posted By: Diana | January 21, 2011 12:53 PM

I echo Dave's comment above:

"...people take up these things as personal offenses, when it isn't even about them or even any person specifically, but about a principle. When this happens it tends to stymie any much-needed discussion of any number of subjects"

And, yes, Diana, may Jesus receive all our praise.

Posted By: Mandy | January 21, 2011 1:29 PM

What has happened to Christianity! We’ve stripped this down to one-piece versus bikinis! What’s the difference – they’re both immoral. What a travesty, a home school gal who claims to be a Christian, who does not have enough sense (morality) to keep her from parading around in her underwear!

What a job has been done on even our “Christian” women – provided they’re colored, striped, or polka-dotted and they’re worn on the beach, at a swimming pool, or in a beauty pageant, they’ve been hoodwinked into believing that Yahweh winks at their seductive (pornographic) nudity.

Posted By: Ted R. Weiland | January 21, 2011 2:37 PM

First of all, this is NOT about a swimsuit. The swimsuit argument is a red herring. What I argue is that pageants THEMSELVES are not honoring to God. They focus on judging women based on their appearance. I don't care about the other "categories." It is clear from the appearance of the contestants that there is no place for anyone who is not beautiful by the standards of this society. THAT is a problem. Pageants value only a select group of women, and that send the clear message that the other 98% of the female population is not as valuable. It says that applause for external appearance that is unnatural is a worthy goal. It is NOT. If a contestant is a believer, I would encourage her to see that she could spend her time far more wisely in the service of the Lord.

@ark: Yes, I absolutely would say it to her face, in genuine concern, if I knew her.

To Pastor Buchanan, Esther was *forced* to participate in what you call a "beauty pageant" for Xerxes. She was taken up because of her beauty, "prepared" for the king, and paraded in front of him. She didn't volunteer.

To Maria, when a young woman chooses to participate in a public event, she opens herself up to public criticism. That was HER choice. Yes, I think that attacks on her personally might need to be rethought. But comments on the nature of PUBLIC pageants themselves and what the women who participate in them do are quite relevant.

Posted By: Robyn | January 21, 2011 2:43 PM

Another thing: All of you who are arguing that it is wrong based on causing a man to lust, can't a man choose not to watch? If he chooses to watch, knowing what he will see, that is HIS sin. Not hers.

I don't agree with her choice, or the choice of any of the women, to participate in the pageant. But let's not absolve a man from responsibility for his own thoughts.

Posted By: Anonymous | January 21, 2011 2:48 PM

Next the author will be questioning the modesty of Christian men who wear speedos to compete in swimming at the Olympics. Those body suits that the guys wear don't leave much to the imagination, or is it just the Christian female population you are targeting? Your article has the pageant message boards buzzing and it is not a good buzz.
Tammy

Posted By: Tammy | January 21, 2011 2:49 PM

I would reiterate what I said earlier. The man does not exist who will look at a girl's face first if she is in her underwear. That means that in theory, there should be no male audience. So, have the pageant be in front of and for women only. I would suggest, however, that these pageants are primarily for men. If it were determined that no men ever watched the pageants they would die. The suggestion that it is a man's problem if he struggles and fails with temptation when there is a woman in front of him in her underwear is a bit bizarre. If a woman undresses a woman in his mind - that is his sin problem. If she undresses herself to be seen by many men - that is a significantly different matter.

Concerning speedos: Would anyone actually try to argue that they are modest? If only obese men wore them, then I think some women's opinions might be different in thinking that they are OK. (Having lived in Europe for 16 years and seeing a lot of obese men doing their yard work in speedos, I can tell you it isn't a pretty picture - and it isn't modest.

Concerning legalism: My experience tells me that most of those who charge that someone is being legalistic have a very difficult time providing a biblical definition of what legalism means. What is commonly used as a definition is not biblical. From what I can see, there have been no legalistic responses here - and only a couple that might be charged with even possibly drifting in that direction.

Dave James
The Alliance for Biblical Integrity
www.biblicalintegrity.org

Posted By: Dave James | January 21, 2011 3:59 PM

This is really a question of eroding Christian standards more than an analysis of Scanlan's Christian witness or lack of witness. The church is so leavened with secular standards of beauty that it's perfectly acceptable for a follower of Christ to wear revealing and immodest attire? We are so far from Jesus standards of beauty and modesty found in 1 Peter 3:3, 4. We have lost our godly sense of shame of nude display(see Genesis 3:7 and Exodus 20:26). Holy angels would blush and cover their faces at the semi-nude Miss America pageant. Noah's reverent sons, Shem and Japheth, walked in backwards to cover their drunken father's nude form. We Christians could learn a lot from other religions like Mormonism and Islam (yes, even Islam) about modesty and covering up. God bless.

Posted By: Fred Moore, Jr. | January 22, 2011 12:37 AM

Thank you, Dave James et al, for speaking the truth. As Christians we are to submit our thinking and our desires to the Word of God. Arguments based on rationalizations and cultural norms do not reflect a love of the truth and will only lead to the confusion described at the end of Judges, when "every man did what was right in his own eyes." That, too, led to public and tragic displays of lust. May Christ refine His church and preserve the glory of His name!

Posted By: Dwight Gingrich | January 22, 2011 8:13 AM

It was for freedom, that Christ has set us free. No longer to be subject to the yoke of slavery....I don't know what single code or codes of christian conduct she violated, maybe they were many or, maybe they were few. I guess it depends which side you take.
Granted the bikini, amoral in itself, draws the atention of the audience to the one wearing it; the question must be asked; "why are they wearing them?".
Of course, they are wearing them to draw attention to themselves and also for their causes that they believe they represent.....But are we noticing the cause she represents or is this event causing us to notice our own heart?
Our winner's desires seem to be honorable in wanting to help change or influence her generation and the next to conservative values and bring forth justice.....
Isn't Miss America is supposed to be an ambassador to the world for the values of our country or is it for a specific cause or is it about physical looks? I don't know anymore.

If it is sad to see
it must be sad to say
does anyone notice me
can anyone really say?

I love you for who you are
not depending on how you look
it is what is inside you
that will be written in His book

By the way, I think it was okay-for her to wear a bikini even though I didn't or haven't watched it. I also think the pageant has become meaningless in the sense that it has become all about the individual and not the country the individual represents at all. Self indulgent, self absorbing, self loving and self applauding are what it has become and that is probably the shape of our Nation and the future to come.......
These are deep issues

Posted By: Scott | January 22, 2011 9:25 AM

There is something wrong with the statement that the Miss American winner is a devout Christian. How do you define "devout"? Does not seem too devout from the Biblical perspective. A youth pastor had an opportunity to compete in the "American Idol" show, but he declined and said there is something wrong with the principle. I am proud of him for seeing it.

Posted By: Joe Chan | January 22, 2011 11:03 AM

100 years ago it was considered immodest to show a woman's ankles. Instead of attacking a girl for wearing a bikini in a scholarship pageant it would best serve your readers to talk about the many women in the church (pastor's wives included) who wear low cut tops/dresses and also focus on Christian men in dealingwith their own issues of lust.
Frank

Posted By: Frank | January 22, 2011 12:01 PM

All these women that participate in beauty pageants are expressing their true desires - and it is not a desire to honor God.

Posted By: Linda | January 22, 2011 1:54 PM

All of these comments demonstrate a lack of knowledge about judging others. We are not to judge others, but we MUST judge ourselves. If someone else is sinning in some way, we are not to judge that person. If that person is sinning against us, we are to settle that with the person who is doing the sinning, but we are not to judge the other person's actions. God is their judge. All of the comments that I read show a lack of understanding about judgement. If you could, you should take your comments back, even the ones that do not condemn, because all of that judging is contrary to the word of God.

Posted By: chaliapin | January 22, 2011 5:24 PM

Dave James, so you are saying that if a man CHOOSES to watch a pageant, or any other media that he KNOWS will contain women in little dress, it is NOT HIS SIN if he lusts?

THAT is what is bizarre.

Posted By: Robyn | January 22, 2011 6:14 PM

Someone referred to two vss: "I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety" (1 Tim 2:9), and "Like a gold ring in a pig’s snout
is a beautiful woman who shows no discretion." Pr. 11:22. NO ONE who been in favor of the swimsuits has responded to these vss! What do they mean? Specifically, if these vss do not apply to a woman in a bikini, what would possibly be an example where they would apply? This is a serious question for those on the "pro" side of the issue.

Posted By: Ed Walkwitz | January 22, 2011 7:14 PM

Robyn: In re-reading what I wrote, I realize that it did not convey precisely what I intended. What I meant was that to suggest that it was the man's problem to the exclusion of the problem also being the woman's was strange. Thanks for pointing me back to that so I could clarify. Of course it is a problem for the man - too.

Chaliapin: The matter of judging has been discussed extensively and most of what has been written has clearly demonstrated a very biblical understanding of the issue. We are definitely called to judge (in the sense of determine and point out) the actions of others (as well as our own). What we are not to do is to judge their heart - because we can't know the heart - only God can. However, we can and should point out sinful behavior - no matter the motive.

Perhaps a better word than "judge" is "observe" or "discern."

If we walk into a convenience store and see someone there with a gun demanding money from the clerk - and we call them a thief - that is not violating the biblical principle of not judging someone else. The fact is they are a thief.

However, if we go further and say, "You're just stealing so you can go and buy more drugs" - that would be violating the biblical prohibition of judging because that is assigning motives to their actions - and we could easily be wrong.

Writing to the church at Corinth concerning someone in sin, Paul wrote: "In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when you are gathered together, along with my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, 5 deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus." (1 Cor 5:4)

In the classic passage on judging in Matthew 7, what is often missed is that dealing with someone else in sin is included rather than excluded: "First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye." (Matt 7:5) The point being that you deal with your own sin first, but not exclusively. After dealing with our own sin, then we deal with someone else's.

Later in the same chapter, Jesus says, "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves." This requires making a judgment about who is a false prophet.

John writes: "Now by this we know that we know Him, if we keep His commandments. He who says, “I know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him." (1 John 2:3) That is a fairly severe judgment to declare that someone is a liar and not even a believer - based upon their actions.

The examples are endless. So, again, it would seem that a very biblical understanding of judging has been demonstrated by most of the comments.

Dave James

Posted By: David L. James | January 22, 2011 7:16 PM

One more: someone wrote that Queen Esther participated in a pageant before Xerxes. That's reading a lot into the text. Could you quote the words you think say that? And Rachel was lovely in form. I see lots of women like that who are dressed modestly. This seems to be rather desperate eisegesis.

Posted By: Ed Walkwitz | January 22, 2011 7:28 PM

The statement "the Church has always looked like culture" is both historically and biblically incorrect.

It is historically inaccurate because the Acts of the Apostles tells us that there was a time when the prevailing culture took note that Christians "had been with Jesus" and that their intention (Christians)was to "turn the world upside down" with the message of the gospel.

The Church is most definitely not to "look like" the culture around it since Christians are cautioned not to "love the world nor the things that are in the world" and that they should be "in the world but not off the world".

I would like to say to those females who believe they can bring honour to God through entering these "beauty" pageants, that I respectfully disagree with that position. The following are five observations.

First, beauty, even physical beauty alone, cannot be measured for the simple reason that there is no objective or universally accepted standard, of which I am aware, of what beauty is.

Second, If a pretty face and a whole body is considered beautiful, what do we call the female with the not so pretty face and the physical disability? Of course, beauty pageants are neither for nor about them, right?

Third, does one wear the one or two piece swimsuit to gain poise and confidence, or does it take some measure of confidence and poise to wear a swimsuit and stilettos? Also, how confident can those females be who feel obliged to "accentuate" their "beauty" with a wig and/or silicone?

Fourth, do the females who enter these competitions ever spare a thought for Christian males and what bikinied sisters may mean to them? Or is it alright for females to be in the pageant but wrong for males to watch? Are you being your "brother's keeper" in this regard?

Fifth, on whose terms should females choose to glorify God and parade their "temples" before the world? And, should the subjective feeling of wanting to be "used of God" not give way to the objective standard of God's Word?

Posted By: Steve Skeete | January 22, 2011 10:59 PM

Zeitgeist and the Emperor's New Clothes

Zeitgeist - Definition [tsahyt-gahyst]
(n.) The spirit of the time; general trend of thought or feeling characteristic of a particular period of time

The spirit of this age and of the world is basically what we have infiltrating Christianity today (as well as in times past) so that is why this sort of activity is neither a surprise nor seen as a problem for many of those who claim to call on the name of Christ. It is simply one of the many deceptions of our age.

A couple of tests for this deception:

1) Could you see this activity going on in Heaven? (Remember, "...Thy Kingdom come, Thy WILL be done, ON EARTH AS IT IS IN HEAVEN..." - Lord's prayer)

2) Ask what DID Jesus do, not what "would" Jesus do. Any one can speculate as to what Jesus might have done based upon the oftentimes zeitgeist-tainted and incomplete depiction of Jesus they have in their minds. Only by referring back to scripture can one find exactly what Jesus did. For example, someone might ask, 'would Jesus watch bloody and violent fighting events such as Ultimate kickboxing, street fights, etc.?' One can search the scriptures and find that he +did not+ attend gladiator matches, etc., so most likely, He would not. It doesn't take that much to recognize the things that Jesus did (or did not do) in the scriptures and apply them to the context of modern day times.

3) Based upon scripture and the scriptural account of Jesus's life, knowing that He is King of kings, Lord of lords, Holy, high and lifted up, the Almighty, pure, spotless, sinless, etc. would you ask HIM to +participate+ in such activities?

4) Another test is to ask: Is this perspective, belief, or activity +sustainable+ throughout the church around the world, particularly those who are being persecuted for Christ's sake? Can I see fellow Christians undergo beatings and even be put to death in order to support such an activity, belief or perspective? Or perhaps staying close to home, could I +myself+ be maimed, beaten, or even get killed in order to uphold such an activity, perspective or belief? In other words, is it a "convenience" or a "conviction"? If what you hold dear to is a conviction, then you are ready to +die+ for it, if it is just a convenience, then perhaps you never needed it in the first place.

Of course only the Lord knows this young person and her parents' heart and intentions so only He can ultimately judge that. However, we are called to judge the fruit (i.e. behaviour, actions, etc.) and from what I have seen, it does seem like another casualty of Zeitgeist and a deception the age. It is a shame, though, because the segment in question reminds me of the old children's tale called "The Emperor's New Clothes" where a king paraded around town in only his "birthday suit" while his court and the townspeople looked and cheered him on saying he was wearing the most fashionable clothes ever in the realm. However, it took the innocence of a young boy to call out the King's nakedness to the ultimate shame of the king and the townspeople. What a lesson we can learn from such a simple story.

Posted By: TheClau | January 23, 2011 2:47 PM

The line of questioning of the Zeitgeist comment and the "Emperor's New Clothes" illustration got me to thinking about another question: If this is amoral and innocent, and not provocative in any way - would those who defend beauty pageants be comfortable taking their 8 year-old son to visit with these bikini-clad ladies backstage? What about their 16 year-old son? What about their husbands?

I'm sure I don't know even one wife and mother who would have no problem doing this. I'm sure I don't know a single young lady who would want her boyfriend or fiance in that situation. That fact seems to clear a lot of the clutter in this discussion.

I think the matter of considering what we would want to expose children to is a very broadly practical test of what is acceptable for us as adult children of God. For example, it has been a principle in our home that we will not watch movies or TV shows that we would not want our children to watch. As a result, we never had to tell our kids not to watch certain shows or change the channel - but more than once from another room we would hear one say to the other, "we need to change the channel."

Posted By: Dave James | January 24, 2011 12:10 AM

Genesis 3:7 --- And the eyes of them both were opened,
and they knew that they [were] naked; and they sewed
fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.

Genesis 3:21 --- Unto Adam also and to his wife did the
LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.

Ever since that fateful day that God covered Adam and
Eve, Satan, the enemy of our souls has been trying to
persuade us to uncover ourselves. He is doing a great job
at it. Just spend 15 minutes watching any of the major TV
networks and you are bound to see someone is some
state of undress. From movies to sitcoms, commercials
to the News, we are desensitized to seeing the human
body naked. From billboards to museums, we are told
by the world that the body is beautiful show it off.

When looking at the scriptures above they seem at first
glance to mean the same thing. Actually they are miles
apart in application. The first scripture describes how man
looked at his nakedness. He knew he was naked, there was
an acknowledgment of his new state of being, so he took
fig leaves and covered his private parts. Man did the least
he could have done. Then attempted to hide from God.

God said that it wasn't enough that their private parts
should be covered. Now that they had sinned, their
bodies needed to be covered. So He showed them how
He wanted them to dress. He made them coats of skins.
A coat or tunic is something that covers the whole body,
whereas the fig leaves only covered a small part of
their bodies.

God wanted then and wants now the same of His children.
He expects them to fully cover their bodies. So many woman
today are wearing nothing more then fig leaves. It is getting harder today to tell Christian women from, well, harlots! Proverbs 7:10-11 gives us some insight...why not grab your bible and look it up, I'll wait for you, (smile).

These two scriptures describe a certain type of woman.
They start by saying she was wearing the attire of a harlot.
A harlot is another name for a prostitute. Now you say, I'm
not a prostitute! What do you think God sees when you are
dressed to kill in the latest styles of the moment, painted,powdered and perfumed? With your bellies showing and strings trying to hold up a dish towel seized blouse, with shorts or a skirt so short.... I can assure you God never designed an off the shoulder, backless dress!

The next part of the verse is and a crafty heart. A crafty heart says, look at me, I feel beautiful, sensuous, seductive to the world around her. In her heart she wants all eyes on her, admiring her. She wants to be a show stopper, to stand out in a crowd.

She was loud and rebellious... You can just hear her saying,
It's my body, I can dress anyway I want. I can't help it if men can't control themselves, it's their problem not mine!

Her feet would not stay at home. Forget about her being
a homemaker. She wants to be out in the world, she wants
to be noticed. She needs to have a life of her own. Kids,
dishes, laundry will get taken care of when she has the time!

We are living in a time of moral confusion, and our
generation's immorality is reflected in many of today's styles. Today's fashion industry has little regard for modesty, and its products often project a look that is inappropriate for someone who wants to mirror Christ.

Clearly, God puts emphasis on the outward appearance of
a person. To an extent, clothing reflects the condition of the heart, and it sends a message to others about a person's values. We need to realize that way before we speak to a person about the saving grace of God, our appearance is already speaking for us. God has called for us to, 'Come out from among them and be separate.' Not fit to right in!

1 Timothy 2:9-10 says, ...in like manner also, that the women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with propriety and moderation.... Which is proper for a women professing
godliness, with good works.

Modesty is more than the length of your skirt or the cut of
your blouse. Ultimately, it's an issue of the heart. I challenge you to examine whether your wardrobe is determined by the culture or by a heart for God.

Posted By: Willow | January 24, 2011 2:04 PM

My wife and I watched the pageant, as always (have scarcely missed one in the last 20 years or so)--and found nothing particularly immodest about the swimsuits. "Much ado about nothing," it seems to me.

Besides which, I have no trouble believing that a Mormon girl might have an issue with the swimsuits--whereas a "devout evangelical" might not. After all, one belongs to a religion which defines itself largely by man-made rules; the other understands that a real relationship with Christ is never defined by rules or the imposition of arbitrary standards regarding such non-essential externals!

Posted By: Christopher Burcham | January 24, 2011 7:19 PM

If our young Christian people want to go out and be a testimony in a manner that other young people can relate to (and I still believe she kept her dignity doing it), then more power to them. It's this stuffed shirt attitude that keeps young people from church.

Besides, she's still young. Maybe more time in her Bible studies will teach her that she could've been a little more covered. But that's between her and God. With everything else going on that turns people off to Christianity, we don't need to be attacking our own young people who are brave enough to get out there in one form or another for Jesus. Now, if we heard she's been having sex with someone out of marriage, that would be further out there. But for this? Quit shooting our own.

Posted By: Sheryltruth | January 26, 2011 11:08 AM

I like it when people regardless of their denomination stand out for what they believe.

Modesty is a virtue that hasnt been stressed in many homes and it becomes more and more difficult for a young lady or a young man to live a modest life without being critizied or belittled for their choice. It almost seems like someone has to justify why they choose to be modest. How sad has our world become

Just as Christopher does in his post, the choice of a young lady to wear a one piece bathing suit, will be pointed out as a dictate of a religion, instead of seeing in it the beauty of what it is!:

A young lady wants to stand to what she believes,wants to be as modest as circumstances permit! How great that there are women that dare to do so, may it be through a one piece bathing suit or other things.

I admire her, and find it awesome when women keep themselves modest.

Posted By: Matthias Habermann | January 26, 2011 4:51 PM

I am a veteran of the Miss America System, having been a local title holder and competed with 65 other women for the title of Miss Utah. I am 5'2", 100 lbs, and fairly flat chested, for what that's worth. I also have a Master's Degree, a family, and many community activities. I am a devout churchgoer.

That said, I disagree with the sentiment that "the pageant system is worthless and doesn't allow women to glorify God." (My paraphrase.)

In my local pageant, I won all but the swimsuit segment, using the brains and the talents that God gave me. I won't argue with anyone that I think the swimsuit segment is just silly--and I applaud the Junior Miss program for, instead, having its competitors wear activewear and do an aerobic dance routine as a measure of physical fitness.

That said, let's not tar all pageants with the same brush. Miss America is not just about winning money. The "money" in that case is college scholarships, which can be applied to future tuition or to pay off student loans. The Miss America pageant also gives its state and national pageant winners the opportunity to do charitable work for The Children's Miracle Network as well as to promote their own platforms--which can be such things as putting an end to underage drinking (this year's Miss Montana and my former student), positive body image (the new Miss America), helping senior citizens, mentoring children, and so many more.

Young people--and still, alas, young women--don't always get the opportunity to make their voices and often amazing points of view heard. By *carefully* choosing a pageant (and I'll agree that many out there are pure trash), they have that opportunity, and the opportunity to continue to develop their talents and intelligence, as, I believe, God would have them do.

Posted By: VMH | January 26, 2011 6:57 PM

Each week in her Young Women's class, Miss Idaho would have recited the Young Women's values which are:

Faith
Divine Nature
Individual Worth
Knowledge
Choice and Accountability
Good Works
Integrity and Virtue

The lesson plans are designed to discuss how a young disciple of Christ lives these values. I doubt the one/two piece was a difficult decision.

Posted By: Wyoming | January 27, 2011 12:42 AM

I am very proud of my Christ loving sister from Idaho. Thank you for standing for Christ and his principles. To parade across the stage in what amounts to nothing more than a bra and panties goes against the moral nature of our society and you stood for righteousness.
I congratulate the winner and have no doubt that she is a believer who lives the gospel the way she knows best. In patents it is very difficult to go against the grain. She probably didn't think twice about the bikini but the LDS girl from Idaho had been taught modesty in her youth.
Miss Idaho, I congratulate you, your parents, your church leaders, especially your young Womens leaders for the great example you have shared with the world.

Posted By: Brad Caldwell | January 27, 2011 8:32 AM

Thank you, Miss Idaho, for being an example of the believers even without being evangelical. It is refreshing to see that you walk the walk. Although others may judge your religious views as being incorrect, perhaps even as Ananias the High Priest did of Paul, your strong belief in your Savior, Jesus Christ, transcends conformity to the world, and that is worthy. Let's take a moment in our own lives to consider that no matter how lost and depraved we might consider the Mormons to be, they are believers in deed as well as in word in a way that we are afraid to explore. There is no double standard in her life; she behaves as she believes. I am sure that if we should ask her of her belief in Christ she would answer with heart and soul in the affirmative.

Posted By: Tyndale | January 27, 2011 8:59 AM

Comments from Nina and Adam just go to prove point exactly what this article is making. The fact that Nina and Adam don't see anything wrong with the 2 piece shows they've been so brainwashed by today's society, contrary to what Christ taught, that there's no difference between them as "Christians" and the rest of the world. Your outward behavior is a reflection of what you believe inside. Therefore, what you wear on the outside IS a reflection of who you are on the inside. A bikini IS a way to sexualize women (are you that naive that you would fall for the "health and fitness" angle?).

Posted By: Dave | January 27, 2011 10:36 AM

Tyndale, you hit it on the head. She walked the walk. When choosing better over OK, she did it. This isn't defaming the other contestants, but rather applauding Miss Idaho in making a statement on modesty.

We, the men, NEED more women like her. Violently need them. We crave all the help we can get. :)

Posted By: Josh | January 27, 2011 2:53 PM

@Willow I assume you are female, and you SHOULDN'T have any problems with the pageant. Search the depths of your husband's, father's, and/or son's heart while watching the swimsuit portion of the program and you will find that bikini's and high heels aren't "nothing", and that there should be some "ado" about it.

And, I would be VERY, VERY, VERY careful about making light of Miss Idaho's relationship with Christ. You know NOT her heart or her religion, as I can't effectively judge your heart and religion - that work was left for Someone greater than us.

Posted By: Josh | January 27, 2011 3:02 PM

As I read all these comments, I pray that Teresa and Kylie have neither shed any tears nor felt self righteous, though there has been much to learn. They are daughters of God. He knows their feelings. Who can hide from an offended God?

Likewise, young men are sons of God, and God values their purity as well. Modesty in dress and words is for men and women. This is one way we show love for each other.

We need a moral consciousness, often expressed as guidelines. If we don’t have brake points on the downward slide, we will eventually hit bottom. The Dick Van Dyke TV show in the 60’s showed the married couple in their bedroom in separate twin beds, and humor never referred to sex. We’ve come a long way. What’s next as we try to show off “fitness”?

The Mormons believe the Book of Mormon (BoM) is a warning to modern America, that if we do not follow Christ and all that the Bible teaches about faith and obedience, that America will be destroyed. “Impossible!” said the Jews at the time of Christ. “Impossible!” said the Nephite civilization in the BoM before their government degenerated into tribal warfare and destruction from secret terror groups. “Impossible!” we say, as our debt skyrockets and crime and enemies invade our borders.

It is so very hopeful that people are having this discussion. As C. S. Lewis would probably say, if we were totally depraved, we would not be having this discussion at all.

Posted By: George Robinson | January 27, 2011 5:17 PM

In disdain for what has become a sexually charged beauty pageant, we should not turn this discussion into a righteousness pageant. Paul makes clear in his epistle to the Romans that judgment is God's not man's. Thus, judging our newest Ms. America is inappropriate. (In fact, it seems clear she has been an exemplar in many aspects of her life.) But the modesty statement made by Ms. Idaho should not be ignored or set aside. She too is a Christian--and she made a difficult decision as a result, it appears, of her committment to Christ. The ability to make a difficult decision, to sacrifice, for the Cause, is praiseworthy. As Christians, we need more young women and young men who are willing to make difficult decisions (ones that are easy to rationalize away as passing or unimportant), whether that be on a national stage, in schools, or at home. I see this as a great opportunity--not to compare two faithful followers of Christ--but to direct all believers to one who is especially letting her light shine before men, rather than putting it under a bushell.

Tayler
From Idaho

Posted By: Tayler | January 28, 2011 10:21 AM

Dave's comment was spot-on, but more than the "stumbling block" principle applies. I would add to Dave's comments that feminine attributes are sacred in God's perspective and should be regarded as such. These girls are his daughters. Immodesty is a serious misalignment with God's intentions for his children. To choose immodesty is to offer something sacred for cheap consumption by men in whom the love of God has waxed cold. How does a father in Christ feel about lewd men cat calling at his daughter whom he loves? How does the Father of us all, whose love is beyond mortal comprehension, feel when his daughters are thus debased and even assent to it?

Posted By: Brad Nelson | January 28, 2011 10:21 AM

It is as simple as the difference between the evangelicals and the MOrmons. If you are evangelical, and you've been saved by Jesus, then you are done - you've made it - nothing else to worry about. Why would it possibly matter if you are modest?
Mormons think that they have to maintain a level of obedience, and the saving grace will be applied if they deserve it, based on their obedience.

Why stop there. If you've already been saved, rob a bank and live high!

Posted By: mahonri jones | January 31, 2011 4:10 PM

According to me,It's best question choosing for the post.Good job.Keep it up...

Posted By: Janet Fenton | June 30, 2011 1:46 AM

It was really great indeed nice discussion here touching some religious matters. I guess its about each individual how you worship God, in a way that He will be pleased what we are doing in his sight and accepting as well that Christ Jesus is our personal saviour. God sees the heart not the outward appearance though. Thanks for the post.

Posted By: Women swimsuit | July 7, 2011 4:35 AM

This is the first time I recall reading an article on ChristianityToday.com. I'm a Mormon, and I expected that the comments from the Evangelical Christians would be mostly insulting and inflammatory towards the LDS Church as they are in the majority of contemporary Christian circles I've experienced. I was pleasantly surprised that people here withheld condemnation of Joseph Smith, The Book of Mormon, etc. to have a productive discussion about the Mormon view of modesty.

Regarding the main topic of the discussion (demonstrating Christianity through modesty), the LDS Church strongly teaches that sexual morality starts with modesty (see for example, its teachings to young members of the church: http://lds.org/youth/for-the-strength-of-youth/dress-and-appearance?lang=eng).

I have a 5-year-old daughter who plays the violin. She likely will be performing at a level over the coming years that would influence her to compromise her standards in favor of looking the part of a formal violinist. I hope to help her develop a perspective that will make it so that the decision about whether to where a provocative performing outfit or to dress modestly will be obvious.

Posted By: Richard | August 12, 2011 5:13 PM