Tuesday, August 09, 2005

The Law of Love II

"You, my brothers, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the sinful nature; rather, serve one another in love." Galatians 5:13

We started off yesterday with a call to modesty. The standards of dress have changed so drastically over time that things that we don't think twice about today would have not have only raised eyebrows a hundred years ago but probably earned us a name we would not like.

Yesterday, I suggested some very pointed guidelines regarding modest attire. You may be thinking I'm being legalistic or prudish. Oh sister, hear my heart. Our theme verse this week and several others in Scripture clearly assure us we are free. "For sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under law but under grace." Romans 6:14. "Therefore if the Son makes you free, you shall be free indeed." John 8:36. "I run in the path of your commands, for you have set my heart free." Psalm 119:32. BUT, we are never to use our freedom as a license to do whatever we want if it causes a brother to stumble. Our theme verse says, "...do not use your freedom to indulge the sinful nature; rather, serve one another in love." The law of love constrains the law of freedom, or law of liberty. In other words, we give up our freedom out of love for a brother or sister, if the exercise of our freedom is a stumbling block for them.

You may be thinking, "This isn't fair." I'm not the one that has the problem. Why is modesty such a big deal? I'm not wearing anything too revealing. If a man gawks, that's his problem. As a
Christian woman, it is your "problem" because Christ has called you to serve your brother in love. How loving is it to wear clothing that attracts his eye, distracts him, or causes him to stumble? I'm not talking here about within your marriage I'm talking about the men that
are not your husband. It takes a woman of strength, conviction and dignity to make
such unselfish decision. Are you willing to be that kind of woman?

No challenge today, I think we have been challenged enough.

Diane

No comments: