(Following newspaper reports about a Baptist and a Muslim clergy-person suggesting that women ought to be more careful how they dress.... November 2006):

When I read the report in this mornings paper, I felt grieved, and I felt it in the same way that I had over Sheik al-Hilali's earlier comments. I could understand the anger of the women, but I also felt put down as a man. It is not that what either of them said is without any element of truth. But I have always had the same reaction when I have heard preachers speaking against immodest dress: it seems to imply that I, as a man, am a rather pathetic and helpless sort of a being and that it is women, not me, who have to take responsibility for keeping my sexuality in check.

The critique from feminist analysts of the comments by [_ _ _ _] and Sheik al-Hilali has been principally that they misunderstand the causes of sexual assault. The evidence shows that sexual assault is not about sexual desire, but about an impulse to humiliate and dominate and dehumanise. This is undoubtedly true; and that's why most men, however distracted or aroused they may be by immodestly displayed beauty, do not feel tempted to respond with sexual violence.

The trouble is, at that point, the two sides are talking past each other and talking about different things. Unless the Age has completely misquoted [_ _ _ _], he has implied that there might be a link between provocative dress and sexual assault, but that doesn't appear to have been the main point he was trying to make. (Personally I think the experts are correct to say that provocative dress does not cause men to become sexually violent, but I think they risk ignoring the possibility that it may still make a difference in who sexually violent men choose to target.) Again I am depending on the press report here, but it sounds as though [_ _ _ _]'s main point was that just as lustful leering at a woman is wrong, so it is wrong to dress "in a way that is known, even designed, to entice others to sexual desire."

Now, as a man, I cannot deny that female beauty turns my head, and that female beauty enticingly displayed turns my head even faster. But is that evidence of sin? I'll get back to that. Firstly, I have to also acknowledge that attractiveness and provocativeness are socially constructed. I notice that my perception of what is enticing changes over time. Fashions that I thought looked silly and ridiculous when they first appeared begin to look attractive to me once the marketers have had time to bombard me into submission. In many cultures, women were able to walk around almost naked without anyone regarding their behaviour as provocative. These social constructs are also contextual. What might be seen as extremely modest attire on the beach might be seen by the same male eyes as outrageously provocative if worn to a cocktail party. And as a man I have to recognise that if all women began wearing full length cardboard boxes, then after a while I would begin to fetishise cardboard boxes and the boxes would no longer have any power to inhibit my fantasising about what was under them. Now none of that denies [_ _ _ _]'s point; it just nuances it a little. His point still stands, that the right combination of context, natural beauty, and current fashion, can be employed "in a way that is known, even designed, to entice others to sexual desire."

For a minute here I am going to go along with the assumption that that is therefore wrong, and think about how we preachers might respond to it. It seems to me that to respond by urging women to dress modestly is pretty much a waste of effort, because even if all Christian women were to dutifully dress in ways which were known, even designed, to inhibit sexual desire, we Christian men will still be living in a world where the majority of women did not even hear the preaching, let alone accept its implications. Our preaching will have therefore contributed virtually nothing to our men's capacity to handle sexual desire in godly ways. Not only will we not have helped, but we may have made their situation worse by implying that the roots of the problem lie not in their own psyches, but in the behaviour of women.

At that point, we are in danger of betraying the gospel. Jesus never endorses locating the causes of our sin in the behaviour of others. In the closest parallel to this issue, he refuses to participate in any public discussion of the culpability of a women caught in adultery. The man, who obviously must have been caught too, has not been brought forth, and Jesus refuses to participate in the scapegoating of the woman. Jesus does not say that she hasn't sinned, but he does not allow her to be blamed for the sin of the man. If our gospel has nothing to say about the transformation of male sexuality, and instead just looks for someone outside of ourselves to blame for our failures, then our gospel is powerless and pathetic. When Sheik al-Hilali made his comments, I felt sorry for Islamic men because their leader's comments were offering no suggestion that Islamic spirituality had any hope to offer to them in the quest for sexual wholeness and holiness. But surely we believe in a gospel that has the power to save men and to raise them to wholeness and holiness, and surely that is the gospel we should be proclaiming. I'm not against looking for something we can agree with in the teachings of other faiths, but surely our response to the controversy over Sheik al-Hilali's comments ought to be to offer what he failed to offer, and that is the promise that God redeems us, bodies and all, and that it is in Christ, not in dowdy fashions, that men will find freedom and sexual health and wholeness.

Part of that begs the question of what we think sexual wholeness will look like for men. Is it really the case that we think the goal is a man who never experiences any sexual feelings except in response to his wife? I don't think so, for if it is, then I think we need to call God to account for a basic design fault that included such a significant visual dimension in the patterns of male sexual arousal. God is the author of all beauty, and all love of beauty. God is the author of both sexual attractiveness and of sexual desire, and God has declared them to be good. I imagine that when I am finally sexually healed and whole, female beauty will tune my head just as quickly as it does now, but that what happens then will be different. No longer will I find myself objectifying her or sensing a covetous need to possess her. Instead my responses will convey appreciation and respect and honour. I will be able to recognise the sexual charge in the attraction and enjoy and celebrate it, knowing that it is a healthy part of being a fully alive human being. Even if she is dressed "in a way that is known, even designed, to entice sexual desire", that sexual desire itself will have become part of my whole offering of myself to God, blessing God for authoring such powerful beauty, honouring the woman as a revelation of God's gratuitous artistry, and applauding her for her own ability to enjoy it and share it. I don't make any claim at all to have attained such a state of wholeness or holiness, but I also don't think that asking women to conceal their skin and their shape is going to help me get there. The transformation that needs to take place needs to take place within my own heart and mind, not in the behaviour of others.

So in the end, I find myself not only thinking that it it is short changing the gospel to preach against "dressing in a way that is known, even designed, to entice others to sexual desire," but I find myself doubting the view that it is "wrong" for people to so dress. I do believe and affirm the biblical values of simplicity and modestly, even modesty of attire, but I don't think they can be simply equated with concealing anything which might entice sexual desire.

Our gospel is not a message of how to keep sin in check long enough to get into heaven. Our gospel is a message of salvation and radical transformation that opens the way for all people to begin to discover and enjoy the freedom and wholeness of heaven now.

Peace and hope,

Nathan ______________________________________

Nathan Nettleton

Pastor, South Yarra Community Baptist Church