Christian Attire - The 90% Rule

[illinoisguy]

For the first time in history that I am aware of, a fundamentalist has proposed a numerical standard for Christian attire. Dr. Shelton Smith said this, as an addendum to a discussion of mixed bathing, in the August 2, 2024 issue of "Sword of the Lord," page 20:

"I simply do not believe that Christians ought to undress themselves for going out in public. There is very little of your flesh that should be uncovered. About 90% or more of your body should be covered. Whatever portion of your flesh you leave uncovered, it strongly suggests that you probably don't mind people looking at it. Consequently, I recommend a pretty full attire.

"I hope this will help you understand that Christians ought to dress modestly. we should not attempt to mimic the world in its state of undress."

The 90% standard would appear to mean that very little of our bodies, other than face and hands, can be left uncovered in public. I am not sure what to make of this. I wonder if any significant number of IFBx lay people and pastors, even among churches that advertise in the "Sword of the Lord," would take such a standard seriously.

It could be said that Smith is not attempting to lay down the law for all fundamentalists - perhaps he is merely making a suggestion, a recommendation, some helpful advice, for our own good. Nevertheless, the publication of such a strict standard, even as a suggestion only, could be a discouragement to folks considering affiliation with an IFBx congregation.

 

[Bob Jones VI]

For the first time in history that I am aware of, a fundamentalist has proposed a numerical standard for Christian attire. Dr. Shelton Smith said this, as an addendum to a discussion of mixed bathing, in the August 2, 2024 issue of "Sword of the Lord," page 20:

"I simply do not believe that Christians ought to undress themselves for going out in public. There is very little of your flesh that should be uncovered. About 90% or more of your body should be covered. Whatever portion of your flesh you leave uncovered, it strongly suggests that you probably don't mind people looking at it. Consequently, I recommend a pretty full attire.

"I hope this will help you understand that Christians ought to dress modestly. we should not attempt to mimic the world in its state of undress."

The 90% standard would appear to mean that very little of our bodies, other than face and hands, can be left uncovered in public. I am not sure what to make of this. I wonder if any significant number of IFBx lay people and pastors, even among churches that advertise in the "Sword of the Lord," would take such a standard seriously.

It could be said that Smith is not attempting to lay down the law for all fundamentalists - perhaps he is merely making a suggestion, a recommendation, some helpful advice, for our own good. Nevertheless, the publication of such a strict standard, even as a suggestion only, could be a discouragement to folks considering affiliation with an IFBx congregation.

He must be a Muslim.

 

[Ransom]

There's more to immodesty than "too little." What's inappropriate for church or the office might be perfectly fine for the beach.

There's also "too much" or "too tight," for example. Sure, you might be 90% covered, but the outfit still screams "Look at me" because it costs more than all the other clothes in the room, or because you can still see every fold and stretch mark through it.

 

[abcaines]

Assigning a number is the epitome of legalism.

 

[AverageJoe]

Assigning a number is the epitome of legalism.

I heartily agree. I have to say when I was still preaching in those circles, I fell in line with this idiocy. Thankfully I got away from all that legalism. The real killer was this....when the pastors, preachers, evangelists, college professors, presidents, and counsellors were talking about these things I seldom if ever heard "the Bible says." I always heard "This is what I believe." Man-made rules disguised as Bible, or Bible verses cherry-picked and taken out of context.

 

[Starlifter]

What is "modest apparel?"

 

[AverageJoe]

What is "modest apparel?"

You're going to get several different standards depending upon who posts its definition.

 

[aleshanee]

What is "modest apparel?"

You're going to get several different standards depending upon who posts its definition.

.
.
.
i hate posting vesus by themselves and not in context.... but to understand what paul meant by modesty look at what he said it was not.... in 1st timothy 2 9-10 paul wrote " in like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; .... but (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works...."

if paul... who wrote a huge portion of the new testament... knew better than to draw up a specific manner of dress and make it a standard telling them what to do... rather than just tell them what to avoid... then why do modern theologians try to do it?..... .paul simply said modest apparel was clothing that professed godliness and not expensive stuff rich women like to show off with.......

 

[sword]

I heartily agree. I have to say when I was still preaching in those circles, I fell in line with this idiocy. Thankfully I got away from all that legalism. The real killer was this....when the pastors, preachers, evangelists, college professors, presidents, and counsellors were talking about these things I seldom if ever heard "the Bible says." I always heard "This is what I believe." Man-made rules disguised as Bible, or Bible verses cherry-picked and taken out of context.

Can we all agree God wants women (and men for that matter) to dress modestly and like music we all have do define what that is for ourselves based on the circumstances.

 

[Baptist City Holdout]

I once had a good conversation with a Mormon including their aversion to caffeine and (some) Baptist's shunning of mixed bathing. He had had never heard of that expression and got a kick out if it.

 

[ALAYMAN]

Well, there’s nothing more cherished amongst us Baptists than sola scriptura.





<ahem>

 

[aleshanee]

Can we all agree God wants women (and men for that matter) to dress modestly and like music we all have do define what that is for ourselves based on the circumstances.

i can agree with that..... as long as we all really do agree that what constitutes "modest" in one part of the country or culture might be different in another one........ ..... as far as hawaii standards go i think i dress modestly..... and that includes dressing appropriately for the situation or activity .... but if they saw me in some of those activites a lot of people on the forum would say i;m under dressed or revealing too much.... but then if they saw me in church they might criticize me for being over dressed... or wearing what they call "church clothes"..... <--- a phrase i only even heard on the fff...... ....

 

[IFB X-Files]

Recently there was a video posted on Facebook showing a woman singing a gospel song in front of a crowd. I did not know who she was but she was wearing a backless dress. I later saw a photo of her from the front. The dress showed her bare shoulders and arms.

I made a comment that I hoped she earned enough money to buy a decent dress. I was attacked (by what I would consider an IFB crowd) and insulted for making such a remark. The "excuse" given was that she was pregnant.

I replied I did not know of an exemption clause for dressing modestly. The truth is that this type of immodest dress is considered "normal" by those in this particular group.

The other truth is that many of us have seen fine, decent Christian women who are an example of dress become unhinged at weddings. Brides and bridesmaids dressing to show cleavage, etc. Being partly naked at a "Christian" wedding is mostly acceptable.

I confess my perplexion.

 

[Bob Jones VI]

i can agree with that..... as long as we all really do agree that what constitutes "modest" in one part of the country or culture might be different in another one........ ..... as far as hawaii standards go i think i dress modestly..... and that includes dressing appropriately for the situation or activity .... but if they saw me in some of those activites a lot of people on the forum would say i;m under dressed or revealing too much.... but then if they saw me in church they might criticize me for being over dressed... or wearing what they call "church clothes"..... <--- a phrase i only even heard on the fff...... ....

Ask Elisabeth Elliot, and Jim Elliot for that matter. In the Ecuadorian jungle, women were naked. They did not make them get dressed.

 

[IFB X-Files]

Ask Elisabeth Elliot, and Jim Elliot for that matter. In the Ecuadorian jungle, women were naked. They did not make them get dressed.

Because they were Episcopalian?

The point of the OP is the standard for Christians, not lost heathen. I've always done and taught that when starting a new church, don't make any judgment for at least 3 years. You cannot change worldly, new Christians, overnight. As far as "making" anyone do anything, that is a waste of time. Solid preaching and leading by example works.

 

[subllibrm]

I for one believe that there is a time and place for mixed bathing. The place is a hotel jacuzzi suite and the time is the honeymoon and any opportunity that comes along after that.

 

[Baptist Renegade]

Ask Elisabeth Elliot, and Jim Elliot for that matter. In the Ecuadorian jungle, women were naked. They did not make them get dressed.

Nor did they get undressed in order to "relate" to the culture!

What did the Ecuadorian women look like after a significant time of gospel influence?

 

[Bob Jones VI]

Nor did they get undressed in order to "relate" to the culture!

What did the Ecuadorian women look like after a significant time of gospel influence?

dressed modestly.

 

[illinoisguy]

I do not support or identify with the emphasis on women's dress standards. However, I understand why some IFB preachers make such a big deal about it. It is because they are concerned that their own male adherents will have lust problems, if exposed to the sight of women who are not "dressed right."

I see expressions of this concern in IFB literature all the time. For instance, David Cloud made this statement in the June 2024 issue of "O Timothy," in an article entitled "Modest Attire Disappearing From the Churches."

"Any clothing style that would cause others to lust or that would be a poor example for others to follow should be avoided. We would mention in particular SLIT SKIRTS AND SLIT DRESSES. One purpose for this fashion is to tease men with the flashing effect that is created. Even if the slit is below the knee the effect is very sensual. We once asked a group of young Bible college men if they were tempted sexually by slit skirts, and every one of them admitted that they are. This should speak volumes to Christian women and young ladies to avoid this immodest fashion."

It is sad that some "young Bible college men" are having some really serious lust problems, if the glimpse of a woman's leg for even a few seconds, even below the knee, is causing them to be "tempted sexually," above that which they are able to bear. This would explain why some preachers are determined to get as many women as possible to adhere to their strict dress codes.

But is this the best way to approach the problem? Christ in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:28-29) placed the responsibility on the men to accept the blame and deal with their problem. There is no record of Christ telling the ladies to "cover up." For Him to propose a 90% rule for body coverage probably would not have done much good, in a society where probably almost all women were already covered up in long, loose-fitting robes, but the men were lusting after them anyway.

 

[Starlifter]

...It is sad that some "young Bible college men" are having some really serious lust problems, if the glimpse of a woman's leg for even a few seconds, even below the knee, is causing them to be "tempted sexually," above that which they are able to bear. This would explain why some preachers are determined to get as many women as possible to adhere to their strict dress codes.

I have old men (70 - 80 yr olds) in my church that make statements about the immodesty of women, and they have never had anything to do with David Cloud type preaching. I belong to Civil Air Patrol, and we had a instruction course at a university a few hours from my home yesterday. We had our meeting and then had lunch at the university dining facility. I can honestly say that most of the girls had on shorts that left little to the imagination. At least 90% were wearing volley ball spandex type shorts...It was certainly a challenge to keep my eyes where they needed to be and I'm no spring chicken by any stretch of the imagination. The sad thing is that many Christian women follow suit with the style of the world or are not far behind. The Bible speaks to both genders about a responsibility to live with the understanding that we influence and affect the passions of the other sex. Men, keep your passions under control, Ladies, dress modestly so you don't purposefully incite those passions. It was my generation in the 70's and 80's that normalized tight jeans and short shorts. Without going too much into it, we were a very 'loose' generation.