While rehearsing a litany of denomination-approved music to be performed during an upcoming Unitarian Universalist church service, our choir director mouthed words urging certain restrictive behavior to be taken to heart: making sure we understood not to exhibit or express ourselves in a way that is “sexually suggestive.”
That same advisory was put a different way by the church minister in early November, a time when Alice’s and my wardrobe were extremely limited due to our belongings held in captivity. Consequently, we each only had a few pair of jeans to wear.
One morning after service was over, Rev. Christine Riley of the Unitarian Universalist Community Church of Washington County (UUCCWC) advised the service’s dress code discouraged wearing blue jeans, because “some people” were inclined to wear pairs with stylish tears and holes worn into them. That kind of behavior inspired some to wear tops revealing “an unacceptable amount of cleavage.”
“Oh, really?” I wisecracked later to myself. “I should attend church more often.”
Nevertheless, the admonition prompted Alice to stop attending the church’s functions. And for me, it raises the issue of whether churches have a proper role toward inhibiting provocative behavior. And if so, how should it be addressed?
In what way should a tax-exempt institution ban anything – behavior, clothing, cologne, aftershave, even lipstick –deemed sexually suggestive? And who makes this determination? Are we advocating the establishment of thought police?
For church leadership to bring up this subject raises all sorts of red flags. We know Catholics never discussed sex in church. What role did that play in allowing priests to have full reign with altar boys?
In terms of the UUCC church, what sort of problem used to exist for such a prohibition to be addressed? Taking the admonition a step further, could the transparent loveliness of a couple’s demonstrative behavior – straight or gay – be adjudged “sexually suggestive?” Shall we tell women to wear only loose-fitting shifts? Maybe we should tell them to cover their face and hair?
At what point do we pander to alternative lifestyles because that’s the chic thing to do, yet experience feelings of revulsion and condemnation because of their “public displays?”
Looking at the issue yet another way, if we ban overtly sexually suggestive clothing, how shall we do it without causing impressionable people to find fodder for a later mind massage?
I’ve become relatively old in terms of years, but you’re never too old to feel the pang of desire. Oh, and one more thing: As last Sunday’s service ended, the pianist played as a postlude Jim Morrison’s “Light My Fire.”
What’s up with that? Or don’t the thought police realize they have to ban that too?
No Quaker Meetings, eh!
Oh dear, I would have a problem with that church. Maybe there is another more open minded spiritual community….or you could start your own!
I’ll start off with the easy “Light my Fire”. There is an obvious lack of sexual intonation with that tune…insert sarcastic eye roll. I suppose it’s a good thing they didn’t play “Bridge over Troubled Waters”, which I’ve heard in other churches. Secondly, I feel if they are thinking about “sexually inappropriate” clothing during church service, they might suggest removing the passages in the Bible also dealing with material that is “sexually suggestive” Adam and Eve were both naked until “their eyes were opened, and they were ashamed”, meaning that in God’s eyes when he created them, they were not created “perfectly” as would be the assumption by most religious folk. This alone suggests that the nudity of Adam and Eve was sinful in a perfect garden. They just didn’t know it was, and God wanted them kept in sin, which is why he said “Don’t eat of this tree.” Things are only sexually suggestive as people choose them to be in their own minds, further leading to my conclusion, that this is their problem, and not yours. I agree with a former statement. Find another church to worship God in as you see fit. God determines what is right and wrong for individuals. We do not all have the same calling; therefore, we all have things that God wishes for us to do and to not do, according to his own will for each person in his “flock”.
Best of wishes, and my apologies for a very long paragraph.
Also, they should probably be more focused on their own worship God as opposed to worrying about what you are wearing, and trying to sexualize it. I suppose you could just say “Thank you, but I’d prefer you not sexualize me in church. I came to worship, not be treated like a piece of meat.”
Just don’t hump the person’s leg that is taking up the offering.
I thought church’s allowed jeans these days……. and then to play that Doors song……. WOW!
Talking out of both sides of their mouth!
You’ll find your spiritual needs fulfilled on Mount Athos.
Ha! While reading this, I was immediately transported back in time… I was a good little Catholic girl, wearing a white lace veil on my head, sitting next to my devout Mother in the church pew, earnestly listening to Father Doyle lecture about the evils of women wearing “slacks” to mass…. Thanks for the vivid memory, and the chuckle! I think you should wear a leather G-string and nipple clamps to the next choir practice. Those people need all the humor they can get!