Clothing and Spirituality

Boris Kutuzov

Oct 31, 2023

"The Lord is King, He hath put on glorious apparrel..." (Psalm 92:1).

"Who covereth himself with light as with a garment..." (Psalm 103:2).

The Purpose of Clothing

Clothing is the external appearance, the external representation, the outward information about an object, its external self-expression. It's what we see. The Creator has fashioned a beautiful world, the beauty of which testifies to the beauty of the Creator Himself, which is why it is said, "He is clothed with beauty." "The Lord is clothed with strength and has girded Himself," for the laws of the universe are unchanging, and hence, "He has established the world, which shall not be moved," as further proclaimed in the evening prokeimenon from Psalm 92.

The Apostle Paul writes in his epistle: "I desire that the women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with propriety and moderation, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly clothing, but, which is proper for women professing godliness, with good works." (1 Timothy 2:9).

Thus, it is not fitting for Christians to adorn themselves with costly clothing, especially for those of a spiritual vocation who are required in liturgical practice to wear clothing appropriate to their spiritual calling, preferably in dark colors, following ancient traditions.

In the Church, the color of clothing is symbolic. The newly baptized are clothed in new, white garments, symbolizing spiritual purity. On feasts of the Theotokos, the clergy traditionally vest in blue, symbolizing chastity and purity. On feasts commemorating martyrs, red vestments are worn, symbolizing martyr's blood. The dark clothing of monks symbolizes repentance and mourning for sins...

The first humans, before the Fall, residing in Paradise, did not have clothing. As Scripture says, "And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed" (Genesis 2:25). They were not ashamed because they were spiritually pure and sinless. This is difficult for a modern person to imagine. However, in the history of the Church, there are many examples of achieving this spiritual level by Christian ascetics when they became insensitive to fleshly temptations. The absence of shame is either a sign of holiness or extreme sinfulness manifested in shamelessness.

Clothing became necessary for the first humans precisely after the Fall: "Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves coverings" (Genesis 3:7).

If previously nudity was a symbol of the childlike innocence and purity of the first humans, after the Fall, the painful feeling of nakedness became a sign of sensuality and sin. "The external eye," as Origen says, "was opened after the spiritual one was closed."

Therefore, the first and foremost reason for the appearance of clothing in human life was shame, which emerged as a direct result of sin. The very first clothing for humanity, as witnessed by the Bible and historical science, was simple coverings made of leaves. The Bible also narrates the subsequent development of human clothing: "And the Lord God made tunics of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them" (Genesis 3:21). God Himself made clothing (in the Slavic translation, "garments"), something more than simple leaf coverings, and dressed them. This emphasized the necessity of clothing for humans in their new state after the Fall.

Protection from cold and heat is the second purpose of clothing for fallen humanity, gradually losing physical endurance in subsequent generations. Clothing serves as protection against the hostile external environment because the consequences of the Fall also resulted in the disruption of the harmony between humans and the Universe. The Fall was a cosmic catastrophe: "Cursed is the ground for your sake... Both thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you" (Genesis 3:17-18).

The Bible also reports the establishment by God of special sacred garments for the ancient priests: "And you shall make holy garments for Aaron your brother, for glory and for beauty" (Exodus 28:2).

So, sacred garments are for glory and beauty.

"Let them make me a sanctuary, that I may dwell among them" (Exodus 25:8). After this command from God to Moses, God instructs Moses to make sacred garments for Aaron and the other priests: "And these are the garments they shall make: a breastpiece, an ephod, a robe, a coat of checker work, a turban, and a sash. They shall make holy garments for Aaron your brother and his sons to serve me as priests" (Exodus 28:4). This is followed by a detailed description of the clothing that Moses is to have made by "gifted artisans," skilled in art and crafts. These special garments were intended to serve as an external distinction for the priests, setting them apart from the common people. Additionally, the "holy robe" was only worn during priestly duties. It is known that the clothing of the apostles healed the sick, just as the clothing and personal items of Christian ascetics from different centuries had similar effects.

This is the background of clothing that can help us answer the question of what modern clothing should be like.

As we have learned, the primary reason for the emergence of clothing for the first humans was the need to conceal gender differences. If our ancestors made simple coverings after transgressing the command, the Creator clothed them in leather garments that presumably covered the entire body. This marked the beginning of the tabooization of sexual consciousness and behavior. It's as if sex was put on a leash, and after some time, people were given the commandment: "You shall not commit adultery."

Likely, if passion and lust are considered diseases, clothing can be seen as a remedy. If one doesn't see, one wouldn't desire, and if one doesn't desire, without a doubt, one wouldn't sin. This is the logical sequence. Christian asceticism teaches precisely this: "Let's not look at women... Let's not allow our eyes to be unrestrained." Clothing serves this function by not allowing our eyes to roam freely. In a spiritual sense, the function of clothing is preventative and restrictive. God Himself, in His wisdom and mercy, commanded fallen humans to wear clothing. The purpose of clothing in the spiritual realm aligns with the goals of Christian asceticism: "In the struggle with the movements of carnal lust, for yourself, consider a powerful weapon to be the avoidance of seeing women because the adversary cannot produce in us what nature can do by its own power. Don't think that nature forgets what God has embedded in it for the multiplication of offspring and for testing those who engage in this endeavor. However, staying away from objects of desire kills the lust in the limbs, causes one to forget about it, and eradicates it" (St. Isaac the Syrian).

And, of course, if "everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart" (Matthew 5:28), then it's better not to look at all and to wear modest, non-seductive clothing. The ideal clothing in this regard is monastic attire.

In some Russian monasteries, women were forbidden entry for precisely this reason: to avoid seeing, to eliminate even the temptation. For this very reason, women's feet have not stepped on Mount Athos for many centuries, the famous ancient bastion of Orthodox monasticism.

The primary purpose and role of clothing lie primarily in this context.

The rules of chastity provided by the Church to people, in addition to decent clothing, also prescribe many prohibitions and restrictions related to gender: the prohibition of speaking, writing, and drawing indecencies. Developed over centuries by Christian civilization, the rules of propriety, also known as "etiquette," provide numerous regulations in this regard. For example, it is unacceptable for even the smallest display of sexual feelings publicly between husband and wife (kissing, hugging). All these restrictions and regulations are nothing but clothing, behavioral garments. Even in the animal kingdom, we observe a tendency to seek solitude, to shield oneself from prying eyes during mating rituals. Life, the continuation of the species linked to eros, is a secret not meant for everyone's eyes.

There are things that are "shameful even to speak of" (Ephesians 5:12), so they are spoken of indirectly. This is also a form of clothing, a covering of decency.

Being naked is indecent, which is directly mentioned in Scripture: "Behold, I am coming like a thief! Blessed is the one who stays awake, keeping his garments on, that he may not go about naked and be seen exposed" (Revelation 16:15).

Certainly, we are not talking about material, earthly garments here, but about spiritual ones consisting of righteousness and purity, using earthly clothing as an analogy. The parable of the wedding feast, where a man who comes without the wedding garment is cast out (Matthew 22:11-14), illustrates the concept of spiritual clothing. The wedding garment represents spiritual purity and righteousness. These are non-material spiritual robes that are perceived as clothing and an integral part of the unified, spiritual-body human being in a state of divinization and incorruption.

Adam and Eve lost these spiritual garments of Divine light, with which God clothed them at their creation, after the Fall, and they realized that they were naked. This testifies that human beings are not created by God in a state of physical nakedness as we experience in earthly life. If one deserves it, a person will have these immortal spiritual garments corresponding to their spiritual state.

The transfigured Savior on Mount Tabor not only had His face shine like the sun but His clothing also "became white as light" (Matthew 17:2) or, as another Gospel writer testifies, "exceeding white, like snow" (Mark 9:3). This means His clothing was transformed from material to immaterial, from perishable to imperishable, into the immortal garments of eternity.

Believers pray for these garments: "I see Your bridal chamber adorned, O my Savior, and I have no wedding garment that I may enter it; enlighten the vesture of my soul, O Giver of Light, and save me."

God is Light, and in Him, there is no darkness. In prayer, believers ask for the radiant wedding garment: "Grant me a robe of light, O Most Merciful Christ our God," highlighting the spiritual significance of this clothing.

The external, material counterparts of the heavenly garments of the Almighty, angels, and saints are the liturgical vestments of the Church.

From the foregoing, it follows that the ideal clothing for a Christian is undoubtedly monastic attire that conceals the figure, including gender-specific features. This can also be said of the clothing worn by the white clergy, as their sticharion and cassock are of the same design as those of monks.

The sticharion and cassock are the garments worn by Christ Himself, so it can be said that the clergy literally follow the Apostle Paul's command: "Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ" (1 Corinthians 4:16). However, the apostle did not address this solely to the clergy but to all Christians. In Russia, until the 17th century, everyone wore clothing based on this model. The sticharion in Russian tradition evolved into the caftan, and later, a shorter version known as the half-caftan.

The Nikonian Reforms

Old Believers, who strictly adhere to old traditions, have preserved this clothing to this day. When entering a church, they wear a caftan. However, wearing it outside the church was discouraged during three centuries of severe persecution. Persecution of the Old Believers inevitably extended to all that was authentically Russian, and therefore traditionally Orthodox. Even beards can be considered a form of clothing—a cover of modesty for men. Hence, the old church rubric refers to a shaven face as a "lascivious appearance."

The comprehensive church reform of the 17th century, which, without exaggeration, can be called a catastrophe for Orthodoxy, also affected clothing. Traditional Russian attire was rejected, and Western clothing styles were artificially and forcibly introduced. S. Smolensky, when speaking about church choirs of that time, noted: "Even the appearance of church singers, previously bearded and wearing half-caftans, was changed by dressing them in Polish attire with the sleeves rolled back."

Let's summarize this in two hundred years:

But worse for me, I dare to state,

Is our North's changed, relentless fate,

Since I surrendered all I had, In exchange for a life so mad:

Our customs, tongue, our sacred line,

And garments, once majestic, fine,

Have been replaced, you must concede,

In jesting patterns, we now proceed...

Yes, in a satirical pattern, "contrary to reason, against the elements." If we look at our modern clothing without prejudice, we might conclude that it is caricatural and that contemporary people have lost their sense of beauty.

The enemy had a special laugh at people in the 18th century: they wore wigs loaded with powder on their heads, and on top of that a triangle. Women were exposed from above, and men from below (tight-fitting trousers).

The modern bacchanalia of shamelessness, where television plays the role of chief shooter, seems not to require further comment—the demon of debauchery is unchained.

But even when talking about modern "decent" clothing, can a baggy jacket be compared to the magnificent attire of the past, as lamented by Griboedov and others?

As for women wearing men's clothing, or sometimes men wearing women's clothing, it can be said that there is a direct prohibition in the Holy Scriptures: "A woman shall not wear a man's garment, nor shall a man put on a woman's cloak, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord your God" (Deuteronomy 22:5).

The Explanatory Bible clarifies that the purpose of this legislation is to protect people from all kinds of unnatural mixings. The custom of cross-dressing, associated with unnatural forms of debauchery, was practiced by some pagan peoples.

This is also related to the cult of hermaphroditism in some esoteric occult movements.

Indeed, there is nothing new under the sun; all of this has happened before, and in the past, people received a solemn warning from the Creator: "All these nations that I am driving out before you have become unclean, and the land has become defiled. Because of this, I am about to unleash my anger on it, and I will lay waste to it, so that all the people who live on it will be destroyed. But you must keep my decrees and my laws and follow none of the detestable customs that were practiced before you came. Do not defile yourselves with them. I am the Lord your God" (Leviticus 18:24-28).

And aren't we witnessing the gradual fulfillment of this warning? Isn't the prophecy being realized before our eyes: "He turned rivers into a desert, flowing springs into thirsty ground, and fruitful land into a salt waste because of the wickedness of those who lived there" (Psalm 107:33-34)?

But even elderly fashion-conscious women, desiring to allure, often dress in tight-fitting pants, imitating the lustful youth, yet their appearance only evokes disgust and nausea. Is it not a mockery of their remaining hair, sometimes of unimaginable colors, eyelashes, and eyebrows? Truly, those whom God has decided to punish, He has deprived of reason.

Deliberately ugly hairstyles and clothing, as practiced by punks, are a conscious or unconscious rebellion against the Creator.

Hairstyling and cosmetics are part of one's appearance and, therefore, can be associated with clothing.

...Clothing reflects a person's spiritual essence. There is an age-old saying: style is the man (in this case, the style of clothing).

Even modern, far from majestic clothing has its degrees of modesty or immodesty. Strict clothing tightens, disciplines, while frivolous, indecent clothing corrupts. Form, to some extent, influences content. Noble clothing seems to compel a person to behave decently and appropriately. Hence the demand in the 27th rule of the VI Universal Council: "Let no one from the clergy dress in unsuitable clothing, whether living in the city or traveling." For a priest wearing a cassock not only in the church but everywhere, a constant reminder of his role through his clothing can be nothing but beneficial. Indeed, a priest in secular clothing in the hustle and bustle of everyday life can externally blend in with the crowd and sometimes, unnoticed, succumb to the psychology of the general human mass, lower his moral standards, and become ensnared by the illusion of commonality (but what communion can there be between light and darkness?).

Belinsky commented on Peter the Great's eradication of the Russian costume by saying, "No matter what they say, even frock coats and surtouts seem to have a significant influence on a person's inner decency. Peter the Great understood this, and that's why he persecuted beards, kaftans, and mitered hats, along with all other cherished elements of Moscow's attire."

This statement is presented for the sake of a fundamental idea: clothing has a significant impact on a person's inner decency. This highlights the importance of a person's choice of clothing and, in general, the significance of one's appearance, including one's behavior.

On the other hand, few things define a person, their surroundings, and the society in which they live as much as their attire does.

This is also reflected in the saying: "You are greeted by your clothes, but bid farewell based on your intellect."

The return of Western medieval Christian attire to paganism, what later secular thinking labeled as the Renaissance, also dictated the corresponding fashion of the time: men's clothing consisted of trousers above the knee and stockings, or tight-fitting pants with a short doublet, much like the attire of modern ballet dancers (truly "in a playful manner," "against reason, against the elements"), and women's fashion called for toplessness to the extent possible. In the fine arts of this era, as befitting paganism, the cult of the nude body received special attention, immodesty and shamelessness were presented as great (and even sacred) art. Stereotypes are powerful; one must know how to create them.

Peter the Great, eradicating true Orthodoxy, zealously introduced the playful clothing of the new paganism and its art in Russia, even though it concealed itself under a Christian façade, but in essence, it was anti-Christian. More accurately, it was a departure from Christianity, a betrayal of the very spirit of Christianity with its strict morality and spirituality, boundlessness. The neo-pagan art of the Renaissance is already a fleshly, entirely secular art that interprets Gospel themes in the spirit of pagan thought, also using forms of expression suitable for a materialistic worldview. The declared morality of this art is just a fig leaf (a concession to the protests of church figures), hardly concealing the at times scandalously licentious nature of individual works, and sometimes even being deliberate, in painting (Rubens), sculpture (Thorvaldsen, although he is a representative of early 19th-century classicism, he inherited the ideas of the Renaissance), and other arts.

On the other hand, few things define a person, their surroundings, and the society in which they live as much as their attire does.

This is also reflected in the saying: "You are greeted by your clothes, but bid farewell based on your intellect."

Thus, Western Renaissance, through its artificial transplantation to Russian soil, greatly contributed to the degradation of Russian attire.

On the Return to Traditional Russian Clothing

Is it not time to consider a return to traditional Russian clothing? Attempts to revive genuinely Russian forms of attire were made by Sergey Timofeyevich Aksakov and his sons Konstantin and Ivan, but they were officially prohibited. In the second half of the 19th century, the persecution of all things Russian did not diminish. Shall we, their descendants, not say now: "Behold, the time is favorable"?

Initiating the revival of traditional Russian clothing is likely a task for clergy, and isn't it God's will for them to do so, especially when there was a canon issued by the Universal Council prohibiting the clergy from wearing clothing that is unsuitable? Currently, it is rare but still possible to see priests who never remove their cassocks under any circumstances, even when gardening. These shepherds enjoy great respect from their flock, even among the non-churchgoing population. This is a testament to their ministry. After all, if a soldier in times of war must constantly wear his military uniform, isn't it even more fitting for a warrior of the King of Heaven? The invisible spiritual battle never ceases. Soldiers, seeing their commander in uniform and regalia, are uplifted in spirit. Shouldn't the faithful also be encouraged when they see their pastors in their priestly garments, not only in the church but in everyday life as well? Lastly, the cassock itself is already a sermon. This is why militant atheists once sought to pass a state law prohibiting priests from wearing cassocks, even outside of the church. However, this law was never passed.

As mentioned earlier, the Orthodox clergy wears clothing, including everyday attire, in imitation of the garments of Jesus Christ Himself. But every Christian is a warrior of the King of Heaven, and therefore the clothing of the laity in Russia before Nikon's reforms also emulated this pattern, differing only in the details from the clothing of the clergy.

The kaftan is a common form of long secular attire in Russia, preserved by the Old Believers to this day. In the 16th century, there were specialist tailors in Russian cities known as "kaftan-makers," who crafted both summer and winter kaftans, street and indoor varieties. The length of the kaftan was initially down to the ankles and later shortened to knee-length, with a waist-length variation called "polukaftan." Terlik was a relatively short type of kaftan made from lightweight fabric, closely fitting the figure. There were also "odnoryadki" (long street attire), "opashni" (summer clothing), and "okhabni" or "letniki" (long outerwear for women). A "zipun" was a fairly short jacket that fit closely and was worn over a shirt underneath the kaftan.

In the 9th to 13th centuries, Russians wore knee-length or longer shirts, especially for men. These shirts were worn loosely, over trousers, and cinched with a narrow belt featuring a metal buckle. Women's shirts had long sleeves and could be made long, reaching down to the ankles or even the calves. Sometimes, men, especially peasant boys, also wore such long shirts. By the 17th century, peasant men's shirts had become shorter, ending at the knees, and for townsfolk, they were even shorter. Even in the early 17th century, nobility wore shirts that went below the knees.

In Old Believer households, the "kosovorotka" shirt has been preserved to this day. Traditionally, they wear it loosely, cinched with a narrow belt. Modesty requires that the entire body, except for the face, be covered with clothing, and in Old Believer churches, you can pray if you are wearing a shirt with long sleeves or, at the very least, a caftan with a ladder in your hands. Particularly strict Pomor sailors even have a written warning at the church entrance, prohibiting individuals from entering the church in immodest attire, specifically mentioning women wearing pants without a head covering. The latter is based, by the way, on the apostle Paul's instructions for married women to pray to God with a covered head (1 Corinthians 11:13). However, traditional Russian rules of propriety demanded that women and girls always keep their hair covered. Going out in public with one's hair down was considered disgraceful, hence the expression "опростоволоситься" (to let your hair down). Modern girls with their hair down demonstrate neither modesty nor chastity.

One might argue that modern clothing, although less ornate and beautiful than its ancient counterparts, is more practical for work. However, one could counter that our ancestors were able to work in long attire by simply rolling up their sleeves, and the quality of their work in ancient times was often superior to today's standards. As for convenience, it is known that modern fashionistas, for example, sleep with curlers in their hair all night, yet they do not complain of discomfort, or at least discomfort does not hinder them, all for the sake of vanity.

The goal of modest clothing is to help individuals become more modest themselves (as mentioned earlier, the form attracts the content). People might endure some discomfort for this purpose. The first inconvenience would be overcoming the so-called environment terror, which can be somewhat painful for some as they overcome the feeling of not looking like everyone else. Nevertheless, even if everyone wears unattractive clothing, should one imitate them just to avoid standing out in their environment? Few would argue that the typical summer men's suit with a shirt tucked into trousers is beautiful. People inclined to obesity have a caricatured appearance in such attire, as it emphasizes parts of the body that have traditionally been covered by clothing. Is a loose Russian "kosovorotka" with a belt not the more natural and modest option?

Perhaps it is easiest to begin a return to traditional forms of national clothing with the Russian "rubakha" (shirt).

Regarding footwear, historians and researchers suggest that the term "lapotnaya Rus" does not correspond to historical reality. For instance, G. Gromov reports that there are no depictions of "lapoty" (bast shoes) in drawings by Russian artists or in documented Russian sources. Traditional Russian footwear includes boots. Even when depicting beggars and wanderers in book miniatures and frescoes to emphasize a person's poverty, they are drawn wearing "postoly" or "opanki," leather footwear that covers only the sole. Only foreigners mention woven footwear among common people, sometimes noting that it was woven from linden bast.

So, can we improve our morals by returning to ethical clothing?

On Marriage and Virginity

...In accordance with Holy Scripture, Saint John Chrysostom states that marriage arose only after the first humans' fall, being a consequence of this transgression. "If Adam and Eve, obedient to His commandments, had refrained from indulging in the tree of knowledge of good and evil, there would have been no lack of a way to multiply the human race" (18). In other words, it was possible to multiply people without marriage? Saint John Chrysostom says, "Yes." This stands against those who seek excuses to evade the virtue of virginity, using references to the necessity of procreation or repopulating the human race to cover their carelessness or weakness of will.

"The first man lived in Paradise, and there was no mention of marriage. He needed a helper, and one appeared, and even then marriage was not considered necessary. There would have been no marriage up to this day, and people would have lived in Paradise, like in heaven, enjoying conversation with God, and the fleshly lust, procreation, the diseases of childbirth, and all earthly perishability would not have affected their souls. But when the first people disobeyed God and became earthly and ashy, they lost that blessed life along with the beauty of virginity. Virginity, together with God, left them and departed. You see, marriage's origin and necessity are traced back to disobedience, to the curse, to death. Where there is death, there is marriage. Without the first, there would not be the latter. But virginity has no such connection with death. It is always beneficial, beautiful, and blessed."

In the reasoning of Saint John Chrysostom, there is no hint of any ambiguity about marriage. It, like clothing, is a necessity brought about by sickness, a condition after the fall. After the fall of humanity, God approved their use of clothing and even taught them how to use it. He made the first garments for our foreparents and, as it is said, clothed them. Undoubtedly, the Creator made long garments for the first humans, possibly resembling the attire worn by Jesus Christ.

Likewise, marriage is a necessity caused by the same illness, a consequence of turning away from God. Saint John Chrysostom even calls marriage a slave's, a mortal's clothing. "While they (Adam and Eve) obeyed their Lord and considered Him as their Sovereign, virginity adorned them more than diadems and golden garments adorn kings. However, when they, becoming captives, took off their royal attire, their heavenly adornment, and accepted mortality, curses, sorrow, and laborious life, marriage then also surpassed these, becoming mortal and servile attire."

After this, can we still speak of "love and desire" being "two poles and motivators of sex"? What kind of love do modern philosopher-theologians, such as Fr. Alexander Schmemann, speak of? Apparently, sex can be entirely qualified as desire, with no room for the love found in the Gospel. In the apostolic message to the Ephesians, which is partly read during wedding ceremonies, the love between spouses is discussed in the Gospel sense: "Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the Church," and "So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself" (Ephesians 5:25, 28). As we can see, there is no reference to eroticism in apostolic teachings. Love here is more about care. When addressing women, the apostle Paul doesn't even use the word "love" in this sense: "Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord," "just as the Church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything," and it concludes with the words: "let the wife see that she respects her husband" (Ephesians 5:22, 24, 33). That's all there is to love (in a carnal sense). No doubt, our "emancipated" women are greatly shocked by these words of the Apostle, but nothing can be done about it. It is known that you cannot remove words from a song, especially from an apostolic message. Attempts are made to interpret these words in a way that suits "emancipated" ladies. So, where in all of this is it evident that sex, as stated by Fr. Alexander Schmemann, is "linked to the gift of love," and that it can become the "handmaid (albeit with ambiguous connotations) of love"? Lust is simply lust, a biological instinct for the continuation of the species, and in the Gospel sense, there can be no mention of love. The apostle Paul explains what Christian love is, stating what it means to love: "Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres" (1 Corinthians 13:4-7).

Moreover, another apostle has stated: "God is love" (1 John 4:8) – the most comprehensive and profound definition of God's moral nature. Evidence of love for God is demonstrated through the observance of His commandments: "For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments" (1 John 5:3).

Given these considerations, what contradictory stance can one attribute to the Church regarding sex? The Church's position is quite unequivocal: by allowing marriage, the Church highly regards virginity. "I say to the unmarried and to the widows: It is good for them if they remain even as I am; but if they cannot exercise self-control, let them marry" (1 Corinthians 7:8, 9). Saint John Chrysostom says, "Virginity is a good thing; I assert this as well. It is better than marriage, and I agree with that. If you wish, I will add that it is better by as much as heaven is better than earth, and angels are superior to humans. Or, to put it more strongly, it is even greater."

This underscores the importance of chastity, and consequently, the means that lead to it. Saint John continues: "Marriage is given for procreation, and even more so, to extinguish natural passions. The witness to this is the Apostle Paul, who says, 'Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband' (1 Corinthians 7:2). He didn't say 'for procreation.' Furthermore, 'defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer' (1 Corinthians 7:5). Paul commands them to 'come together again' not for the sake of coming together (7:5) and not for the purpose of becoming parents. Why then? 'That Satan tempt you not for your incontinency' (7:5). Continuing his speech, Paul didn't say, 'But if they desire to have children,' but what? 'But if they cannot contain, let them marry' (1 Corinthians 7:9). At the beginning, marriage had, as I said, two aforementioned purposes. However, subsequently, when the earth, sea, and the entire Universe became filled, only one purpose remained – the eradication of unchastity and licentiousness."

Marriage is a means to curb passions. Not for nothing did Saint John Chrysostom refer to marriage as clothing – indeed, the primary purpose of clothing is the same. This is why we have been discussing the matter of marriage for so long.

"Let Satan tempt you not" – how else would he tempt people today if not through the denial of clothing altogether or through the introduction of indecent attire? The word "licentiousness" means decay, destruction – not only spiritually but also physically. Pagan tribes that engaged in profaning sexual acts degenerated and vanished from the face of the Earth. "And the land is defiled; therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land itself vomits out her inhabitants" for their transgressions. "Therefore do my statutes and my judgments, and keep not any of these abominations" (Leviticus 18:25, 26). This is why it is necessary to revive the majestic and noble attire, sanctioned by the Creator Himself.

B.P. Kutuzov

"Clothing and Spirituality"

Saint Petersburg

1996

source

The Old Believers

Discussion about this post