This particular section struck me as odd...
If you say that modesty is important, and that tight, revealing clothes draw the eye to things we shouldn’t, as Christians, bring attention to, there will be someone who will want you to describe exactly what you think is too short; exactly how tight is too tight; and exactly how much skin they can show before “you” call it a sin.
In some cases, it’s a trap; they don’t really care what you think. Their questions are meant to corner you. If they can push you up against a wall by coercing you to be overly specific with your version of how to live out a random truth – then they can cry, “Aha, legalism!” (Psalm 35:19-21) Don’t fall for it.
Psalm 35:19-21? Really?
19 Let them not rejoice over me who are wrongfully my enemies;
Nor let them wink with the eye who hate me without a cause.
20 For they do not speak peace,
But they devise deceitful matters
Against the quiet ones in the land.
21 They also opened their mouth wide against me,
And said, “Aha, aha!
Our eyes have seen it.”
The use of this scripture strikes me as self-serving and less than honest, attempting to cast the pall of victimization in attempt to skirt the issue.
I have the sneaking suspicion that some of the comments I left on this article, including some which she wouldn't publish, have much to do with her desire to publish, or re-publish, the newer article. I suppose my question to her regarding whether she and her husband would emotionally punish, even estrange, an adult daughter if the daughter chose a path other than courtship and submission to her parents in finding a mate, and whether the relationship would be in NO way hindered or damaged, qualifies as an "Ah Ha", Psalm 35 trap in her eyes. It would seem to me to actually be an easy way to escape from the label of legalism, what with an unqualified "no" being sufficient to put that label to rest concerning the issue of courtship.
But, I strongly suspect an unqualified "no" was impossible. In fact, I suspect that ANY form of "no" is impossible.
I didn't really do anything in my comments there that I don't do here. I asked hard questions and made observations. I attempt to get to the core of an issue by cutting through the bull. My beef was this: Don't claim to not be legalistic unless the facts can back up that claim, and no better way to uncover the facts and motivations than by asking (and answering) a few piercing and probing questions. It isn't my fault that she didn't like what her answers might reveal, and I can't help but notice that she didn't really answer any of the biggies. Her responses, and an email exchange that followed, look a lot like my former future father-in-law and his flawed logic back when he bothered to at least try to keep up appearances - and that's not a good thing, because I know the detestable deviance that followed.
I, too, believe, as a follower of Christ, there's a right way and a wrong way to go about things. I also know that ANY way is futile if and when all parties aren't committed to truth. A lack of commitment to truth can't be glossed over by pointing to the other guy and saying, "He's going about it the wrong way!" Even if/when this is true, does it make a lie the truth? Does it make me less "bad" if I can make the other guy look even worse?
It's unfortunate to see legalism wrapped up in a cloak of ooey, gooey Christianese and misappropriated scripture. It's also unfortunate that many well-meaning Christians are influenced by the Christianese, strongly trusting in the mouthpiece speaking it, resting in the sense of it "sounding" biblical and wholesome, even if it doesn't have a biblical base at all and there's nothing but bondage to be found in it.