Are there some jobs that Christians shouldn’t be doing? If so, what are they? And based upon what criteria?
I’m thinking Porn star is probably a no. But from that point onwards, it gets a little trickier.
In yesterday’s post I applauded the decision of a lingerie model who felt that her work was compromising her faith.
I still think that her move was brave and godly. But maybe my reasons for thinking so are bad as well as good. You see, there’s a bit of me that assumes all Christian lingerie models should do the same. Not because of a deep conviction on the matter. But as a slightly scared, knee-jerk reaction to Human Sexuality. Having spent much of my life wrestling with an eating disorder, you won’t be surprised to hear that I’ve got a wonky and frightened attitude to Bodies. An attitude that doesn’t take seriously the fact that God created both as good. That believes intellectually in a physical resurrection – but not emotionally. And which, when challenged, would rather decry or run from tricky issues (in the workplace and in life), than stay and engage.
Perhaps it’s just me. But it’s worth thinking about why we ring-fence some professions or lifestyles, but not others. Is it the fruit of a careful and prayerful consideration? Or something a little less defensible? Are we applying the same judgements in our own lives as we do to other people?
Most of all, is our Christianity a celebration of a good God and His good creation – or a fearful and unthinking retreat from the world?
Excellent posting! I wrote a book – which I think is still available from Amazon – on this a few years ago, so I’d be happy to point people in that direction should they want to look a little deeper into Creation and Christianity.
Thanks Howard.
Should be criteria for the assessment of the legitimacy of a career or lifestyle be whether it is “speaking the truth in love”? It moves beyond a knee-jerk, culturally defined rejection of random “worldly” things.
If the net is drawn widely – true in that it accords with the way the world is and God permits it to be, but also loving such that it values what God values and reflects/accords with the way that God desires us to be – then I think we have a helpful starting point.
I think the lingerie model falls short to the extent that he or she joins in promoting a false picture of what people should be like, or to the extent that he or she promotes unhealthy dissatisfaction (whether with yourself or someone else). A view of the world in which value is linked to bearing a particular celebrated western body shape, rather than bearing the image of God – or a view of the world in which clear skin is more desirable than a clean heart is both false and unloving. (It’s encouraging to note that for Kylie it was the fact that she couldn’t reconcile what she was doing with loving her cousin that prompted her to quit.)
But that doesn’t, for example, make the making or sale or promotion of lingerie bad – we live in a clothed world where it can be used legitimately and lovingly.
Advertising industry? Hmm – plenty of ways to go seriously wrong. Second-hand car salesman? Real potential to honour God every day of the week.
So, let me try and clarify here, Geoff – making or selling something like lingerie is not necessarily bad (because we live in a ‘clothed’ world – that’s interesting in and of itself in relation to your comment regarding body image), but modelling such a product ‘falls short’ of a mark of what God desires us to be – is that about right? So does that mean I can manufacture and, if fitting, wear such a product, but just not in a fashion that tells the world?
If I came from a culture where the body (whatever its age or shape or sex) is deemed modest and not garments placed upon these (which would be viewed as decorative or perhaps even vain, used purely to accentuate the display of the individual) are not, is the imposing of a value which deems the sight of the body as ‘immoral’ right? I ask because there seems to be a danger here of slipping easily back into a framework where we judge widely solely on externals and not by ‘hearing’ what is genuinely going on beneath what we see (i.e. How would other Christians have viewed Kylie before she decided this line of work wasn’t for her). We so need to get right, particularly when dealing with another made in God’s image, as shown so many times in the manner in Jesus speaks to those He encounters in the Gospels.
Amended version of my last message:
So, let me try and clarify here, Geoff – making or selling something like lingerie is not necessarily bad (because we live in a ‘clothed’ world… that’s interesting in and of itself in relation to your comment regarding body image), but modelling such a product ‘falls short’ of a mark of what God desires us to be – is that about right? So does that mean I can manufacture and, if fitting, wear such a product, but just not in a fashion that tells the world?
If I came from a culture where the body (whatever its age or shape or sex) is deemed modest and not garments placed upon these are not (because they would be viewed as vainly decorative, used purely to accentuate the display of the individual), is the imposing of a value which deems the sight of the body as ‘immoral’ right? I ask because there seems to be a danger here of slipping easily back into a framework where we judge widely solely on externals and not by ‘hearing’ what is genuinely going on beneath what we see (i.e. How would other Christians have viewed Kylie before she decided this line of work wasn’t for her). We so need to get out perceptions here right, particularly when dealing with another made in God’s image, as shown so many times in the manner in Jesus speaks to those He encounters in the Gospels.
Hi Howard – I’m largely thinking out loud, but I am making a few assumptions:
The body is made by God and good.
We live in a fallen world where clothing is necessary, with one notable exception:
In marriage, nakedness for pleasure and benefit of one’s spouse is ordained by God and good.
All of which seems to imply that there’s a perfectly legitimate arena for lingerie.
And if it’s ok to have or to use, it’s usually ok to make it.
Most jobs and lifestyles that we’re likely to question are unlikely to be underwear models, so issues of modesty and sex are less relevant when looking for general guiding principles.
There’s nothing inherently wrong with demonstrating or modelling something.
It is wrong to lie.
Advertising and marketing which sells the benefits of a product seems perfectly fair and legitimate.
Advertising and marketing which sells the lie that a product will complete you, which preys upon insecurities and weaknesses, or which is designed to make you dissatisfied when you ought to be content is neither fair nor legitimate.
I know that there are mixed messages and there’s probably a fair deal of grey here – but if my advertising strategy is to make someone dissatisfied with the way God made them so that they yearn for something that is not God as if it were, I’ve crossed a line. ie. If I’m helping sell a false gospel, then I should seriously question the legitimacy of my career/life style.
So to try to answer your questions:
I don’t think modelling underwear is inherently wrong, but I’d want to be careful about its context and message because it is possible to do badly.
My reading of Genesis 3 is that it transcends culture – post the fall it is normal and right for humans to be clothed. The question of what is modest or respectable varies according to culture, but it’s not what I was intending to address.
I think you’re right to be concerned about a simple list based upon externals – which is why I’d want a critique of a career or lifestyle to be driven by the questions of truth and love.
Any detail of my analysis will inevitably be strongly coloured or determined by my background and frequently wrong – but assessing the legitimacy of something against its compatibility with the call to “speak the truth in love” still seems to me to be a helpful guide? Would you agree/disagree? Want to modify or start somewhere else entirely?
Many thanks for your reply, Geoff – a lot of looking at these issues is ‘thinking out loud’, so I appreciate your honesty and candour, and your aim to truly edify.
Let me give a few thoughts, somewhat provocative in nature, but I’ve found them to be essential when looking at such issues in the last few years –
Underwear, garments and the body.
I asked in my first reply about the ‘rightness’ of a person using their body to promote a product (in this case, lingerie), because it relates, I believe, entirely, to the nature of our expressing life (in a meaningful way) to each other, so let me look at this from a slightly different angle…
Is it correct, indeed, is it even truly ‘spiritual’ to think that the right place for the body to be seen devoid of some, perhaps all, material garments, is just between a husband and wife?
If our answer to that is ‘yes’, then we are going to have issues about various forms of leisure and certainly with regards to gaining medical assistance at various times in our lives. If the answer is ‘no’ (and I think we’d both say that has to actually be the case), then the matter becomes what is actually good and/or necessary amidst the boundaries a particular culture determines, as then more rightly defined and informed by our faith (which will clearly differ in some manner to that set by a secular society). So how do we go about setting proper boundaries here?
Your responses above would suggest that some of this is generally seen as pretty clear cut, but allow me to offer you a few observations that may surprise you (and these are pretty modest in regards to what actually needs to be unpacked here):
Several Christian writers have noted that Western Christendom’s present mindset towards the body and to nudity is not because of an understanding derived from scripture, but one inherited from countless centuries of inherited and sadly inbred dualism within the tenor of our current spirituality. This certainly makes sense when we begin to understand that Christian baptism, for example, in the early centuries was practised without clothing and the early church had no problem in using the cultural facilities of the day, including the public baths, where nudity was commonplace (there are inscriptions which show that such venues were used for baptismal services), so the notion that nudity is only permissible in the marriage chamber simply does not unpack that well with regards to what the faith is really seeking to teach us here regarding the essential nature of bodily redemption (marriage is for now, we are told, but the body is our eternal home, our ‘mansion’, as Paul declares, which will clothe us forever).
As Christians, we rightly seek to point and perhaps direct people towards a richer and better understanding of God’s work within the world, be that in looking at creation or at culture, so we need to ‘see with better eyes’ than, sadly, is often supplied by both the world and the church when it comes to these matters. Where, then, do we begin?
There is a classic scene in the film ‘The Agony and the Ecstasy’ where the Cardinals of Rome are giving their views on the painting of God’s works of Creation in the Sistine Chapel – “Obscenity!”, they cry, apparently shocked by the display of nakedness. Michaelangelo’s response is telling – the reason he is able to paint men and women so is two-fold: because this is how God made us, and He proclaimed it to be good, and this is the work that He has come and died to redeem. This is the basis upon which we must determine what is of value, not by lesser means. It is this ‘redemptive’ aspect to the creational itself (as unpacked in measure by Paul in Romans 8) which really gives us our corner-stone in unpacking these issues.
We rightly look upon Genesis 3 as the horror that it is, but we now participate, as those justified purely by His work, in something far greater and just as broad in scope… the reconciliation of what was lost in Jesus Christ. That is, essentially, the life that we are seeking to share to those around us.
I do not mean to down-play the concerns you have raised in your response.
Dissatisfaction, especially when it comes to the externals of life can certainly be an issue for any of us, but there is also a goodness and rightness to enjoying and celebrating the tactile wonders and beauties of life, employing our engagement with these in a manner which revels in their true ‘glory’ (significance) that we must re-gain, so I would like to encourage more Christians to be involved in fields where culture is vibrantly enriched by our being there, both by our participation and our savouring. This, I think, must be part of our ‘speaking the truth in love’ to this broken place.
As an artist (much to my own surprise), I’ve had to learn this deeply (and I still only part-way there), and I long for the day when more of those running this race will begin to see at least a little clearer, what redemption is really all about – Romans 8 is certainly a good place to start.
I’d value your thoughts.
Sounds like someone might be looking to profit from exploitation of the human body in the name of Jesus.
Shameful. If your “art” causes another to sin does that change it for you? Millstones anyone?
Surely, the ‘exploitation’ of what makes us human happened on the dreadful day in Eden, and Christ became flesh to deal with that (the work of the Kingdom, as He shows in the parable of the leaven, cannot be undone). If that is so, if we are drawn to find peace with God thorugh the suffering, broken and then risen body of the man, Christ Jesus, then all of life now is surely meant become sweetened, even within the pain and sorrow, by His reconciling work.
How then can a Christian truly know and share the treasure He has placed amongst us unless they do as He has asked and ‘buy the field’ God has placed this rich redemption within, and, as Jesus tells us, buy this field entirely? This yoke can indeed easy and light if it is His burden, if we truly wish to re-gain the value of what He has given all to rescue, but we often find such considerations too hard to truly consider, and so we remain, studying from our vantage point, whilst He is found ‘outside the gates’, amidst all we deem to be shame.
If the feeble, short moments here that we work and play allow us to point but one to Him, then heaven truly rejoices. He was sent to judge the world, but He breaks the darkness by love and, surely, as those made free by the lifting of His broken flesh, we must do the same.
If such a premise is merely a pretext for exploitation, then yes, it deserves to be condemned, but if it is a seeking to glorify all that He has made beautiful in its time, however poor the messenger, then all haste should be made to encourage consolation to those who use art, or whatever gift, to speak of Christ.
A nice quote someone sent me today:
“The Christian imagination is anti-Gnostic. The Judeo-Christian imagination is not a flight from physical reality; it is not an aristocratic exercise in personal insight… It refuses to separate salvation from creation, the life of the Spirit from its inception in the flesh”.
~ Janine Langan (via Jane Kirby)
A really useful posting on the subject of Christianity and Art:
http://markdaniels.blogspot.co.uk/2006/10/what-is-christian-art.html