Clothing and Spirituality #

B.P. Kutuzov

“The Lord is King, He is clothed with beauty…” (Ps. 92:1).

“Thou coverest Thyself with light as with a garment…” (Ps. 103:2).

Why Clothing Is Needed #

Clothing is appearance—it is the outward look, external representation, external information about a thing, its visible self-expression. It is what we see. The Creator fashioned a beautiful world, and its beauty bears witness to the beauty of the Creator Himself. That is why it is written, “He is clothed with beauty.” “The Lord is clothed with strength and hath girded Himself”—the laws of the universe are unalterable, hence He is “clothed with strength” and “girded Himself.” “For He hath established the world, which shall not be moved,” proclaims the evening prokimen from Psalm 92.

The Apostle Paul writes in his epistle:

“I desire therefore that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety—not with braided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array, but (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.” (1 Tim. 2:9)

Thus, Christians should not adorn themselves with costly clothing—this is especially applicable to those in spiritual rank, to whom the Church’s liturgical practice prescribes that they wear only attire appropriate to their sacred calling, preferably of dark color according to ancient tradition.

In the Church, the color of clothing carries symbolic meaning. The newly baptized are clothed in a new white garment—a symbol of spiritual purity. On feasts of the God-bearer, according to church tradition, the clergy vest in blue—symbolizing chastity and purity. On feasts commemorating martyrs, they wear red vestments, symbolizing martyrdom and the shedding of blood. The dark garments of monastics are a sign of repentance and mourning for sins.

The first humans, before the fall, lived in Paradise and had no clothing. As Scripture says:

“And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.” (Gen. 2:25)
They were not ashamed—because they were spiritually pure and sinless. This is difficult for modern man to imagine! Yet in Church history, there are many examples of Christian ascetics who attained such spiritual heights that they became insensitive to carnal temptations. Therefore, the absence of shame is either a sign of sanctity—or of extreme sinfulness, expressed in shamelessness.

Clothing became necessary for the first humans precisely after the fall:

“And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves aprons.” (Gen. 3:7)

Whereas before, nakedness was a symbol of the childlike innocence and purity of the first people, after the fall the painful sense of it became a sign of sensuality and sin. “The outward eye,” says Origen, “was opened after the spiritual one was closed.”

Thus, the first and foremost reason for the appearance of clothing in human life was shame—which is itself the fruit of sin. The first garments of humanity, as attested by the Bible and confirmed by historical study, were simple girdles. Scripture recounts the further development of human clothing:

“Unto Adam also and to his wife did the Lord God make coats of skins and clothed them.” (Gen. 3:21)

The garments (rendered as riza in Church Slavonic), something more substantial than simple leaf aprons, were made from skins by God Himself, who then clothed the humans—thus indicating the necessity of garments for humanity in its new, fallen state.

Protection from cold and heat—this is the second purpose of clothing for those who have fallen away from God and are gradually losing their physical endurance through the generations. Clothing serves as protection from the hostile external environment, since one consequence of the fall was also a rupture in the harmony between man and the universe. The fall is a cosmic catastrophe:

“Cursed is the ground for thy sake… thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee.” (Gen. 3:17–18)

The Bible also reports that God established special sacred vestments for the priests of the ancient Church:

“And thou shalt make holy garments for Aaron thy brother for glory and for beauty.” (Exod. 28:2)
—in the Church Slavonic translation: “And thou shalt make a holy garment for Aaron thy brother for honor and glory.”

Thus, sacred vestments are for honor and glory.

“And they shall make holy garments for Aaron, in which he shall minister unto Me in the sanctuary.” (Exodus 28:4)

There follows a detailed description of the garments, whose making Moses is to entrust to those “wise in heart,” skilled in art and craftsmanship. These special garments were to serve as an external distinction of the clergy from the common people. Moreover, the “holy garment” was used only during acts of sacred service. It is well known that the garments of the apostles healed the sick, as did the clothes and personal belongings of Christian ascetics throughout the centuries.

Such is the prehistory of clothing, which can help us answer the question: what should modern clothing be like?

As we have seen, the primary reason for the first appearance of clothing among humans was the necessity of concealing the distinction between the sexes. And if our ancestors, after breaking the commandment, made only loincloths, the Creator Himself clothed them in garments of skin, which presumably covered the entire body. Thus began the tabooing of sexual consciousness and behavior: sex, so to speak, was placed on a leash, and soon afterward humanity was given the commandment: “Thou shalt not commit adultery.”

Evidently, if passion and lust are a kind of sickness, then clothing can be seen as a form of medicine. “Had he not seen, he would not have desired; had he not desired, he certainly would not have sinned”—this is the logical progression. Christian asceticism speaks precisely to this: “Let us not look upon women… Let us not give free rein to our eyes.” Clothing serves this very function—it prevents the eyes from wandering. Spiritually, this function of garments is preventative and restraining. God Himself, in His wisdom and mercy, commanded fallen man to wear clothing. The purpose of clothing, in spiritual terms, fully accords with the aims of Christian asceticism:

“In the struggle against the stirrings of carnal lust, consider it a strong weapon to avoid the sight of women, for the enemy cannot stir in us what nature is able to arouse by its own power. Do not think that nature forgets what God has sown into it for procreation and for the testing of those undertaking this spiritual struggle. But withdrawal from objects of desire kills lust in the members, brings forgetfulness of it, and destroys it.”
— St. Isaac the Syrian

And certainly, if “whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Matt. 5:28), then it is better not to look at all—and to wear modest, non-provocative clothing. The ideal clothing in this respect is that of monastics.

In certain Russian monasteries, women were forbidden entry precisely for this reason: to avoid seeing, to eliminate even the occasion for temptation. For the same reason, for many centuries, no woman’s foot has trodden upon Mount Athos, the famed ancient bastion of Orthodox monasticism.

The principal purpose and role of clothing lies first and foremost in this very context.

The rules of chastity given by the Church to the faithful include, in addition to modest clothing, many other prohibitions and limitations associated with the sexes: the prohibition against speaking, writing, or drawing anything obscene. The rules of decorum developed over centuries of Christian civilization—the so-called rules of “good manners”—contain many such regulations. For example, any public display of sexual affection, even between husband and wife (such as kissing or embracing), is considered inappropriate. All these restrictions and regulations are, in effect, forms of clothing—garments of behavior. Even in the animal world, we observe an instinctive tendency toward seclusion, a retreat from outside eyes during mating. Life, the continuation of the species, when tied to eros, is a mystery not of this world.

There are things of which “it is a shame even to speak” (Eph. 5:12); and so they are spoken of figuratively, which is itself a form of clothing—a veil of decency.

To be naked is improper, as is plainly stated in Scripture:

“Behold, I come as a thief. Blessed is he that watcheth, and keepeth his garments, lest he walk naked, and they see his shame.” (Rev. 16:15)

Of course, this refers not to literal, earthly garments, but to spiritual ones—composed of righteousness and purity—yet is illustrated by the example of material clothing. This spiritual garment is also the subject of the parable of those called to the wedding feast, which symbolizes the Kingdom of God: the man who came to the feast not wearing a wedding garment is cast out (Matt. 22:11–14). The wedding garment is spiritual purity, righteousness. These are not material garments, but spiritual vestments, “which are perceived as clothing and are an inseparable part of the unified spiritual and bodily human being in a state of deification and incorruption.”

It was these spiritual garments of Divine light, with which God had clothed them at creation, that Adam and Eve lost after the fall, and then they saw that they were naked. This testifies that man was not created by the Creator as naked—as is the human body in the conditions of earthly life. Man possessed—and will again possess, if he is found worthy—these incorrupt spiritual robes, corresponding to his spiritual condition.

At the Transfiguration of the Savior on Mount Tabor, not only did His face shine like the sun, but His garments became “white as the light” (Matt. 17:2); or, according to another evangelist, “shining, exceedingly white as snow” (Mark 9:3)—that is, they were transformed from material into immaterial, incorruptible garments of eternity.

Of this garment the faithful pray:

“I behold Thy bridal chamber, O my Savior, adorned, and I have no garment that I may enter therein. Enlighten the garment of my soul, O Giver of Light, and save me.”

God is Light, and in Him is no darkness at all.

“Grant unto me a radiant robe, O Christ our God, Who art clothed in light as with a garment, O Most Merciful One,” — so the prayer says.

The outward, material image of the heavenly garments of the Almighty, of the angels and saints, is manifested in the Church’s liturgical vestments.

Therefore, from what has been said, it follows that the ideal garment for a Christian is undoubtedly the monastic habit—designed to conceal the shape of the body, that is, to obscure the signs of sex as much as possible. The same can be said of the clothing of the white clergy (non-monastic clergy), for the podryasnik and ryasa are cut in the same style as monastic garb.

The podryasnik and ryasa are garments worn by Jesus Christ Himself. Therefore, one may say that the clergy in this quite literally follow the apostolic precept:

“Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.” (1 Cor. 4:16)

But the Apostle said this not only to the clergy, but to all Christians. That is why in Rus’, until the 17th century, everyone wore clothing after this pattern. The podryasnik became the everyday kaftan (long coat) in Russian life, and later, somewhat shortened, became the polukaftan (half-coat).

The Nikonian Reforms #

The Old Believers, who strictly preserve the old traditions, have retained this clothing to the present day. When entering the church, they put on the kaftan, though they have been conditioned for three centuries of brutal persecution not to wear it outside the church. Persecutions of Old Belief inevitably turned into persecutions of everything authentic and traditionally Russian—and therefore, traditionally Orthodox. Even the beard can be considered a kind of garment—a covering of modesty for men. It is no accident that the old Trebnik (Book of Needs) calls a clean-shaven face “a harlot-loving countenance.”

The sweeping ecclesiastical reform of the 17th century—which, without exaggeration, may be called a catastrophe for Orthodoxy—also affected clothing. Traditional Russian attire was rejected, while Western clothing styles were artificially and forcibly imposed. S. Smolensky, speaking of church choirs of that period, observes:

“Even the appearance of church singers, once bearded and dressed in half-coats, was changed by dressing them in Polish-style garments with sleeves slit and thrown back behind the shoulders.”

A century and a half later, let us sum up:

But worse it is for me—
Our North a hundredfold,
Since once it gave up all
In trade for a new mode:
Its customs, tongue, and holy ancient ways,
Its stately garments for another’s craze—
After a jester’s pattern…

Indeed, after a jester’s pattern, “against all reason, in defiance of the elements.” If we look objectively at our clothing today, we may well conclude that it is a caricature, and that modern man has lost his sense of beauty.

The devil mocked mankind especially in the 18th century: placing powdered wigs on their heads and topping them with tricorn hats; baring women above, and men below (with tight-fitting breeches).

The modern bacchanalia of shamelessness—driven chiefly by television—seemingly needs no further comment. The demon of lust has been unleashed.

And even if we speak of today’s so-called “modest” clothing—can a short, ill-fitting jacket compare to the majestic dress of former times, which even Griboedov recalled with regret?

As for women wearing men’s clothes—and, at times, men wearing women’s—there is a direct prohibition in Holy Scripture:

“The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God.” (Deut. 22:5)

The Annotated Bible explains: the purpose of this law is to guard people from all kinds of unnatural mixtures. The custom of dressing in the clothes of the opposite sex—associated with unnatural forms of vice—was practiced among some pagan peoples.

Closely related to this is the cult of hermaphroditism found in certain esoteric and occult movements.

Truly, “there is nothing new under the sun.” All of this has already been, and in its time mankind received from the Creator a stern warning:

“All these abominations have the men of the land done, which were before you, and the land is defiled: that the land spew not you out also, when ye defile it, as it spewed out the nations that were before you.” (Lev. 18:24–28)

And are we not now witnessing the gradual fulfillment of this warning? Is not the prophecy coming true before our very eyes:

“He turneth rivers into a wilderness, and the water springs into dry ground; a fruitful land into barrenness, for the wickedness of them that dwell therein” (Ps. 106:33–34)?

Yet no—elderly fashionistas, still wishing to seduce, dress in tight fitting pants, mimicking the lustful youth, though their appearance now evokes only revulsion and nausea. And what of the mockery made of their remaining hair—often dyed in unthinkable shades—or their eyelashes and brows? Truly, “whom God would destroy, He first makes mad.”

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

Hairstyles and cosmetics—being aspects of appearance—may likewise be considered a form of clothing.

…Clothing reflects the spiritual essence of a person. There is a well-known saying: “Style is the man”—in this case, referring to one’s style of dress.

Even modern clothing, far from majestic, still has its degrees of propriety or permissiveness. Strict clothing disciplines and compels order, while frivolous and indecent clothing corrupts. The form in some measure draws in the content. Noble attire tends to prompt noble behavior. This explains the 27th canon of the Sixth Ecumenical Council:

“None of the clergy shall wear clothing unsuitable to his station, whether dwelling in the city or traveling.”

For a priest who wears the ryasa not only in church but everywhere, the constant reminder of his calling through his attire can only be beneficial. Indeed, a priest in secular dress is outwardly indistinguishable from those around him, and may easily be swept up in the general current of worldly life, perhaps even unconsciously adopting the mentality of the surrounding crowd, lowering his moral standards and succumbing to the illusion of shared identity (but what communion hath light with darkness?).

Belinsky commented on Peter the Great’s eradication of the Russian costume with these words:

“Say what you will, even a frock coat and tailcoat—items seemingly purely external—have no small effect on the inner decorum of a man. Peter I understood this, hence his persecution of beards, terliks, murmolka caps, and all other cherished items of the Muscovite wardrobe.”

This quote is offered for its core idea: that clothing “has no small effect on the inner decorum of a man.” Hence the importance of one’s choice of attire, and more broadly, of one’s outward appearance and manner of conduct.

Conversely, little defines a person—their environment and society—more than their clothing and style of dress.

This is echoed in the proverb: “They greet you by your clothes, and see you off by your mind.”

The return of the medieval Western Christian world to paganism—what later secular thought termed the Renaissance—dictated a corresponding fashion in clothing: for men, breeches above the knee and stockings, or tightly fitted tights with short doublets, nearly mimicking the costume of modern ballerinas (truly, “after a jester’s pattern,” “against all reason, in defiance of the elements”). For women, fashion called for the greatest possible bareness of the upper body. In visual art during this era—as befits paganism—a special cult of the nude body arose; indecency and shamelessness were presented as great (even holy) art. Stereotypes are powerful things—one must know how to create them.

Peter I, in eradicating what was authentically Orthodox, eagerly introduced into Russia both the jester’s clothing of the new paganism and its arts—though masked in Christian trappings, these were in essence anti-Christian. More precisely, it was a retreat from Christianity, a betrayal of the very spirit of Christianity with its strict morality, spirituality, and otherworldliness. The neo-pagan art of the Renaissance was carnal, entirely worldly art. It often used Gospel themes, but interpreted them through the lens of pagan thought, employing expressive forms appropriate to a carnal worldview. The declared morality of such art was nothing more than a Pharisaic fig leaf (a concession to the protests of churchmen), doing nothing to conceal the often blasphemously licentious nature of certain works—whether of painting (Rubens), sculpture (Thorvaldsen—though of the early 19th-century classicist school, still a successor to Renaissance ideals), or other arts.

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

On the Return to Traditional Russian Clothing #

Is it not time to speak seriously of returning to traditional Russian clothing? Attempts to revive truly Russian forms of dress were already made by Sergey Timofeyevich Aksakov and his sons, Konstantin and Ivan—but they were officially forbidden from doing so, and in the latter half of the 19th century, the persecution of all things Russian had not abated. Shall we not now, their heirs, say: “Behold, now is the accepted time”?

It seems proper that the revival of traditional Russian clothing should begin with the clergy. And is it not God Himself who commands it—seeing as there was even a decree of an Ecumenical Council forbidding clergy to wear garments unsuitable to their rank, a rule confirmed by canonical prescriptions? Even today, though rarely, one may still see priests who never remove the podryasnik under any circumstances—not even while tending a garden. These pastors are held in high regard by their flock—and even among those outside the Church. This is their ministry of witness. For if, in wartime, a soldier is required to wear his uniform at all times, how much more so the warrior of the Heavenly King? And indeed, the invisible spiritual warfare never ceases. Soldiers are encouraged in battle by the sight of their commander in uniform and regalia—how much more are the faithful encouraged when they see their pastors wearing priestly attire not only in the temple but in everyday life? Finally, the ryasa itself is a sermon—which is why militant atheists in recent times attempted to pass a law forbidding clergy from wearing the podryasnik or ryasa outside the church. That law was never adopted.

It has already been said that Orthodox clergy wear clothing, including daily attire, modeled after the garments of Jesus Christ Himself. But every Christian is a soldier of the Heavenly King. That is why the clothing of laypeople in Rus’ before the Nikonian reforms also followed this model, differing from clerical garments only in detail.

The kaftan was the widespread form of long, lay attire in Russia, preserved to this day among Old Believers. In the 16th century, Russian cities had specialist tailors—kaftanniki—who made kaftans for summer and winter, indoor and outdoor wear. Originally ankle-length, later shortened to knee-length, the kaftan had a short-waisted variant called the polukaftan. The terlik was a relatively short, close-fitting kaftan made of light fabric. Other known garments include the odnoryadka—a long street garment; opashnya—summer wear; okhabni, letniki—long outer garments for women; and the zipun—a close-fitting short jacket worn over a shirt and under a kaftan.

From the 9th to 13th centuries, Rus’ men wore shirts (рубахи) that reached the knees or lower. These were worn untucked over trousers and belted with a narrow strap and metal buckle. Women’s shirts, with long sleeves, extended to the feet (“to the floor”), or sometimes to the calves. The same was sometimes true of men’s shirts—especially for peasant boys. By the 17th century, peasant shirts were shortened to knee-length, and among townsmen, even shorter. Nobles, even in the early 17th century, still wore shirts that extended below the knees.

Among Old Believers, the kosovorotka shirt has been preserved to this day. According to tradition, it is worn untucked and belted with a narrow strap. In keeping with the demands of modesty, the entire body except the face must be covered, and in Old Believer churches, one may only pray in a shirt if it has long sleeves—or, more properly, in a kaftan while holding a lestovka (Old Believer prayer beads). Among especially strict Pomortsy communities, there are even written warnings at church entrances forbidding entry to those in indecent clothing—especially women wearing trousers or with uncovered heads. This latter rule is based on the Apostle Paul’s injunction that married women must pray with their heads covered (1 Cor. 11:13). Traditional Russian norms of decency required women and girls to always keep their hair covered—appearing in public bareheaded was considered disgraceful. Hence the expression “oprostovolosit’sya” (to bring shame upon oneself). Today’s girls, with their loose hair, clearly do not express modesty or chastity thereby.

Some may say that modern clothing, though inferior to ancient attire in beauty and ornament, is more practical for work. But to this one might reply that long, flowing garments did not hinder our ancestors in their labor—they simply rolled up their sleeves—and the quality of work in olden days was much higher than today’s. As for comfort… Modern fashion-conscious women are known to wind curlers into their hair at night and sleep with that contraption till morning. Yet they don’t complain of the discomfort—or at least, it doesn’t stop them—for the sake of a vain goal.

But the goal of modest and proper clothing is to help a person become modest and proper himself (form attracts content, as we said)—and for such a purpose, one might well endure some discomfort. The first such discomfort will likely be overcoming what is called social terror—a painful step for some in overcoming the fear of standing out. But if everyone else wears ugly clothing, must one really imitate them just to blend in? Is there anyone who would honestly say that the typical modern summer men’s outfit—a shirt tucked into trousers—is beautiful attire? People inclined toward stoutness look downright comical in such outfits—bulging in all the places that tradition has long taught us to conceal. Is not the traditional untucked Russian kosovorotka, belted at the waist, the most natural and decorous choice?

Perhaps the easiest place to begin the return to traditional national clothing is with the Russian shirt.

As for footwear, it must be said that the expression “lapotnaya Rus’” (“bast-shod Russia”) does not reflect historical reality. For example, G. Gromov reports that among the works of Russian artists and in Russian documentary sources, bast shoes (lapti) are nowhere depicted. Traditional Russian footwear was the sapog—the boot. Even beggars and pilgrims depicted in manuscript miniatures and frescoes, to emphasize their poverty, are shown wearing postoly or opanki—leather footwear covering only the foot. Only foreign sources mention woven shoes among the peasantry, sometimes noting that they were made of bast.

So then—shall we not correct our morals by returning to moral clothing?

On Marriage and Virginity #

…In agreement with Holy Scripture, St. John Chrysostom teaches that marriage appeared only after the fall of the first humans, being a consequence of that fall.

“If Adam and Eve, obeying His commandments, had refrained from enjoying the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, there would have been no lack of means by which the human race could have been multiplied”.

That is, was it possible for humanity to multiply without marriage? St. John Chrysostom says—yes. This speaks against those who seek a pretext to avoid the ascetic labor of virginity, covering their negligence or weakness of will with appeals to the necessity of procreation or replenishment of mankind.

“The first-formed man lived in Paradise, and there was no talk of marriage. He needed a helper—and she appeared; and even then marriage did not seem necessary. It would not have existed even now, and people would have lived without it in Paradise, as in Heaven, delighting in communion with God. Carnal lust, conception, the pains of childbearing, and all corruption would not have gained access to their soul… But when they disobeyed God and became dust and ashes, together with that blessed life they lost also the beauty of virginity, which, along with God, withdrew from them and departed… Do you see,” continues St. John, “where marriage had its origin, and why it became necessary? From disobedience, from the curse, from death. Where there is death, there is marriage; had the first not come, neither would the last. But virginity has no such tie to death—it is always profitable, always beautiful and blessed.”

There is not the slightest hint in St. John’s writings of ambiguity about marriage. Like clothing, it is a necessity born of sickness—the state following the fall. After mankind’s fall, God approved their use of clothing and even instructed them how to use it. He Himself made garments for our foreparents, and, as it is written, “He clothed them” (Gen. 3:21)—meaning not merely that He advised them to wear clothing, but that He ordained it. Without doubt, the garments the Creator made were long and flowing—possibly resembling the type of clothing Jesus Christ Himself wore.

Likewise, marriage is a necessity born of the same sickness—an effect of man’s separation from God. St. John Chrysostom even calls marriage “a garment of slavery and mortality”:

“As long as they (Adam and Eve) were not captured by the devil and honored their Lord, virginity adorned them more gloriously than crowns and golden robes adorn kings. But when they became captives, they removed this royal garment and cast aside this heavenly adornment, and took on mortal corruption, the curse, sorrow, and a life full of toil—then came marriage, this mortal and servile garment.”

Can one, after all this, claim that “love and lust” are “the two poles and engines of sex”? What sort of “love” is meant by modern theological philosophers, such as Fr. Alexander Schmemann? It would seem that sex must be defined entirely as lust; there can be no talk of “love” in the Gospel sense. In the Apostle Paul’s letter to the Ephesians—a passage read at the sacrament of marriage—love between spouses is indeed described in the Gospel sense:

“Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the Church.”
“So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.” (Eph. 5:25, 28)

As we see, there is not even a hint of eroticism in the apostolic teaching; love here is expressed through care. And when addressing women, the Apostle Paul does not even use the word love in any sense, saying:

“Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.”
“As the Church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.”
He concludes with: “Let the wife see that she reverence her husband.” (Eph. 5:22, 24, 33)

That, as they say, is the extent of it—at least in the carnal understanding of “love.” Understandably, these words of the Apostle leave our “emancipated” women rather shocked. But there’s nothing to be done—you can’t rewrite Scripture, especially the Apostle’s words. There are, of course, attempts to interpret them in a way that suits “emancipated” readers. But where in all this is there any evidence, as Fr. Schmemann claims, that sex is “connected to the gift of love,” or that it can become “the handmaiden (even if an ambiguous one) of love”? Lust is lust. Biological attraction toward procreation—that is all sex is.

And what, then, is Christian love? The Apostle Paul defines it plainly:

“Love suffereth long, and is kind; love envieth not; love vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up,
Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil;
Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth;
Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.”
(1 Cor. 13:4–7)

And even more clearly, another Apostle says:

“God is love.” (1 John 4:8)
—the most complete and profound definition of the moral nature of God. And the proof of one’s love for God is the keeping of His commandments:
“For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments.” (1 John 5:3)

So what kind of “antinomical” relationship can the Church possibly have to sex? The Church’s position is entirely unambiguous: while allowing for marriage, it places virginity far higher.

“I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they cannot contain, let them marry.” (1 Cor. 7:8–9)
“He that giveth his virgin in marriage doeth well; but he that giveth her not in marriage doeth better.” (1 Cor. 7:38)

St. John Chrysostom says:

“Virginity is good—I affirm this myself; it is better than marriage—I agree. And if you will, I shall even add how much better it is: just as Heaven is better than earth, and angels than men—and more than that, even more so.”

Such is the importance of chastity—and therefore also of the means that lead to it. St. John continues:

“Marriage is given for the purpose of childbearing, and even more so for extinguishing the natural flame. The witness to this is Paul, who says: ‘To avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife.’ (1 Cor. 7:2)
He does not say: ‘for the purpose of childbearing.’ And when he commands them to come together (v. 5), it is not so that they might simply come together, nor so that they might have many children—but for what purpose? ‘That Satan tempt you not,’ he says.
And later, he does not say: if they desire children—but what? ‘If they cannot contain, let them marry.’ (7:9)
In the beginning, marriage had two purposes, as I have said. But afterward, when the earth, the sea, and all the universe were filled, one purpose remained: to restrain lack of self-control and debauchery.”

Marriage is a means of taming the passions—no wonder St. John Chrysostom called marriage a garment, for clothing has the same primary purpose. That is why we have dwelt so long on the subject of marriage.

“That Satan tempt you not…” (1 Cor. 7:5)

For how else does Satan tempt people today, if not through the rejection of clothing altogether or the introduction of indecent dress? The word “debauchery” (разврат) means collapse, disintegration—and not only spiritual, but also physical: pagan tribes that profaned the nature of sex degenerated and vanished from the face of the earth.

“And the land vomited out her inhabitants” because of their iniquities.
“Ye shall therefore keep My statutes and My judgments, and shall not commit any of these abominations…” (Leviticus 18:26)

This is the very reason why we must restore noble and majestic clothing—sanctioned by the Creator Himself.

B. P. Kutuzov
“Clothing and Spirituality”
Saint Petersburg, 1996

source