Vol. 2 No.

10 June 2A03

Orthodox Christians and Ctothing

Direction from an Orthodox spiritual Father to one of his flock
DearXXX: I received your interestirg link to a Web site on Christian (modesQ clothing. I must express my personal opinion-and this assuredly just, my simple opinionabout this Web site and about clothing issues in general. The issue of clothittg in contemporary orthodoxy is a delicate one. We are not Puritans or Mosleffis, and we do not believe, as Orthodox Christians, that the human body is evil and should be completely covered up or that sex is dirly. The human body is sacred and beautiful when understood in its proper context. Human intimacy is also comforting and nofinal when confined to the parameters set forth clearly by the Church and the common moralrty that used to prevail in Christian and
decent societ5r.

innocent enjoyment of such beauty is normal. I am afraid that combat boots and fto*py, ugly clothes that seem to be de rigueur among some Orthodox "traditionalists," on the other hand, have little to do with tradition or Christianity. A woman can, again, have long hafu, wear modest clothes, and adorn herself moderately without having to look as though she just parachuted out of the nineteenth century or just emerged from an Amish community in the Midwest *.*itrg clodhoppers and carrying a pitchfork. Nor do I find women who look like marauders from some Amazon tribe personally attractive. Moreover, I believe that it is quite improper for Christians to apply to the goose what also applies to the gander. (I am not very barnyard savvy, so I may have my goose confused with my gander.) I was a bit disturbed to see that the home page on this Web site feafured rnodest clothes for women only. How about men? Are they exempt? This kind of one-sided presentation tends to diminish the equality of the sexes in Christianity and, indeed, feeds the kind of misogyny which leads certain Islamic extremists to de-personalize women to the point that they are literally forced to dress in what is essentially a big tent made of black fabric, with tiny slits or mere screens to provide for vision. Granted, Moslem men sometimes dress in a robe of sorts, but this is near immodesff, when compared to the bourkh a that women are required to wear.

The clothes presented on the Web site that you sent me would be quite appropriate for Dr. Quinn the "Medicine 'Woman." They were, indeed, stylish in the nineteenth cenfury. I doubt, however, that it is really necessW,today, to cover the ankles in order to be modestly and properly dressed. I think thatwomen with long hair (avoiding the unisex styles that, for the sake of convenience, are so popular now), who wear stylish but conservative dresses, and who have an innocent interest in accentuating their feminini$ represent the beaufy and variety with which God has endowed humankind. The

we should,r agree, urge and encourage orthodox men and women to dress modestly and to follow the suggestions set out in Scripture and in the Canonical and Patristic traditions of the Church. But we cannot do more than that. Christianrty is based on free will. People have the right to destroy their souls and to discount the therapeutic customs and advice of the Church, if they wish. Motivated by love and concern for their souls, we can warn them, chastise them, and criticize them for ignoring the Church's guidance. But if they become anW, question our motivations, and reject our overtures, we must evenfually keep our silence. Unlike fundamentalist MosleffiS, we. do not have "religious police" in Orthodoxy. We do not, except in rare circumstances of egregious behaviour, separate anyone from the Faithful. Rather, we let the belligerent Christian separate himself from what we teach only by example and not by force. Having said this, I must addthat deliberute sexual provocation by way of clothing and personal adornment-which is a sign, in fact, of sexual aberration (even though this fact convicts most contemporary societies of sexual maladjustment)-lies outside the domain of the healthy views of the body and human intimacy that I have described. The absolute defiance of the Church's dress codes by women who refuse to cease wearing pants, shorts, tight skirts and blouses, and skirts slit up the side or back is absolutely inconsistent with Christian modesty and with the spirit of humilrty which should adorn a Christian. In the case of pants, some women are so possessed by the vulgar habit of wearing a kind of clothing that makes them look either ugly or provocative, that they set aside logic and claim thatthey weaf such clothing for the sake of comfort or out of practical necessity. In fact, everyone knows that loosefitting clothes, which are less revealing, are far more comfortable. As for the argument on grounds of practicality, many Orthodox priests and monks (and not a few nuns, in fact) have undertaken everythittg from farm work to construction in their rasa, which are essentially cut like a dress. Moreover, comfort and convenience are hardly christian virfues, and especially when invoked in defence of dressing improperly or indbcently. whatr have said applies equally well to men who wear tight clothes and purposely groom themselves in such as way as to attract the sexual attention of women. In a society where sexual aberration is the nonn, this observation of rnine may not seem realistic. However, it is. While Christianity does not fail to say old things in a new w&y, it does not let new ways distort what it says. In this, it is not alone. Not only Christianity, but also sound social mores and psychology based on science and analysis rather than popular trends and whims traditionally advocate strict boundaries for human behaviour, and particularly with regard to sexual behaviour.

10

The Voice

This is an ancient advocacy in fact, &s old as Plato's exhortations to moderation in all things. Sexuality belongs in context, not only for the good Christim, but for the

good citizen and any psychologically-balanced and adaptive individual-in a context, in all three cases,
which discourages public displays of mating behaviour, provocative dress, and behaviours and general comportment that are meant adventitiously and in an abnormal way to arouse carnal desire and the passions. If this suggests, again, that contemporary society is sexually and morally sick, then we as Christians should heed what we see around us and be all the more vigilant to treat our passions, which we all have, with the curative measures of the Church: modesty, moral uprightness, artd a coffection of our weaknesses in this sense. In the balance between what are essentially extreme and unhealthy sectarian views of dress and modern ideas about proper dress and public behaviour that are based on the exploitation of the passions and on sexual fuerration passing as noffnality, we find the Orthodox position. I do not believe that this position is represented either by dress styles that were popular more than a century ago or by styles of improper dress justified on the grounds of convenience, comfort, and practicality. Nor is the Orthodox position one that can be ultimately enforced, except by love. And real love ceases being love unless it finally relinquishes its hold and lets people freely choose between therapy for the soul or the folly of soul-destroying self-will and self-destruction. I would, therefore, very much discourage solving the problem of modesty with the website that you identified. The risk of misogyny, extremism, unthinking and rigid pietism, and fanaticism, if not outright sectarianism, is too great. Again, this is my own personal opinion, for what it is worth.

est. Halter-tops, short-shorts and skirts and transparent clothes can be found for the youngest of girls. Of course we all heard how thongs were being made for and sold to girls as young as 7 last summer at the mall. In finding it hard to find good clothes, I searched online. I found that a number of places made clothes for those wishing their children to have modest clothing. Most of them cater to girls, as it is easier to find modest clothes for boys. Pants that are not tight and shirts can be found most anywhere. I do not think that female should always have to wear bonnets like the Amish or anything of the sort. I added head covering sites, &s finding a good headscart for wearing at church was tricky and many women I knew wondered where to get the ones I bought for my
daughter.

I do not agree with the philosophy

bchind many

of the sites, but think that one should be able to find modest clothes if one chooses to. In fact, I completely
agree with the personal opinion of your spiritual father where he says, "A woman can, again, have long hair, wear modest clothes, and adorn herself moderately without having to look as though she just parachuted out of the nineteenth century or just emerged from an Amish community in the Midwest wearing clodhoppers and carrying a pitchfork. Nor do I find women who look like marauders from some Amazon tribe personally attractive." That's why I included a range of different sites I tinked to. on the banner of http:llstanosheck.c om/ Modesty.html there is a girl with a long sleeved t-shirt and a ankle-length skirt and a headscarf. Its not 1800's style, but something practical and modest one finds the ladies at church wearing. The image is straight from one of the sites I link to. So to summarize, I do not believe women should have to dress like Muslims or the Amish, I am not trying to force women to dress like it was 100 years ogo, and am just trying to provide a service for those that cannot find modest clothes locally. I hope this helps alleviate anyone's concerns.

*****

Nicholas Stanosheck-the owner of the Web site

mentioned in this letter-makes this clarffication concerning his Web site: In shopping at local clothes stores, I found that girls of my daughter's young age were immodfor even