[UPDATED 9/16/2006]
It took me a couple weeks, but I've finally got my finger on what was
bothering me about that Focus on the Family broadcast I'd mentioned some posts back. The answer came to me this morning from the prof. who teaches my portfolio/career development class and happens to share my Christian world view. (He was careful not to preach, if that's got anyone worried)
Ethics in the workplace was part of today's discussion (I may have to be long winded to get there, but there is a connection.). We looked at a case study where someone was asked to pass the blame from the dealership's mechanic who botched the repair job to the manufacturer. Now the point was made that the great big manufacturer could absorb the cost of the repair much more easily than the not-as-big dealership.
Mr. M paraphrased the idea as, "no, it's not your problem, but you can handle the pain better than we can."
Situational Ethics as defined by Google:
Definitions of Situational ethics on the Web:
* Situational ethics refers to a particular view of ethics, in which absolute standards are considered less important than the requirements of a particular situation. The standards used may, therefore, vary from one situation to another, and may even contradict one another. This view of ethics is similar to moral relativism, and is contradictory to moral universalism, and moral absolutism.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Situational_ethics
So what does that have to do with Dana Gresh of PureFreedom.org and her comments on the radio?
First I want to say that I really appreciate what she's doing and the standard she's promoting. I don't mean to discredit her or her ministry at all. In fact, she's not the one that I'm going to be really critical of today (though she's not off the hook completely).
I especially liked that she had suggestions for making the difficult task of shopping for modest clothing more fun. (I have seen the selection, and I know it can't be easy.) The Truth or Bare checklist is lighthearted, but does a good job of covering everything to be considered (pun intended).
What got to me was the workarounds. How a girl/woman can adapt or modify an outfit that she's simply "fallen in love with" to bring it up to code. I realize that it can be difficult to part with something that's been in your closet forever, but she was talking about something you've just discovered at the mall.
As a sidenote, not all of the workarounds are that effective. When you reach for the top shelf or bend over and your shirt rides up, you've got our attention before we have time to realize that there's another layer.
Initially, my mind had reflexively pulled up an incomplete reference to the importance of guarding our hearts. How we need to be on guard and watching for what may or may not be good for us (or people around us) and not letting ourselves get too attached before we've determined that. This should include every part of life, shouldn't it? Including shopping.
Being a guy, I'm sure the pain of letting go of a cute outfit is rather different for you ladies than it is for me. I've heard a lot about this pain and how agonizing it can be. Now that I find myself bold enough to talk about the pain a guy feels when he catches himself glancing down the shirt of a friend or paying too much attention to a sister in Christ bend over. For a guy trying not to look, it's agonizing when these tidbits of Beauty present themselves, whether he gives in or not.
For those of you who complain about not wanting to part with some cute thing you just met at the mall, I want you to ask yourselves if your pain is really so much greater than mine.
UPDATE:
Just to be clear, I'm not comparing your pain of parting with cute outfits with my pain of parting with cute outfits. I'm comparing this pain of yours with the male pain of trying not to lust at these cute oufits.
And because it's not something we can directly compare, it would be wrong for either gender to presume it's own pain to be greater. To take the easy way out and let someone deal with it (however easily the other person could) is not a Christ-like attitude.
Situational ethics is about claiming imunity because a person thinks that his/her situation justifies giving in.
This is why I can't just demand that all women in the Church dress by my standard. This also is why you ladies can't just demand that us guys get over it and let you dress however you want.
powered by performancing firefox
