Standards

A Dress Code

200 Comments

I have one more guest post that was submitted last week to share with you! The author is choosing to remain anonymous.

Victory Faith Bible KJV1611 Baptist Church Dress Code for Ladies’

1. That which pertaineth to a man

Ladies’ must abstain from all appearance of evil. That means our ladies’ here at VFBKJV1611 Baptist Church should not where pants or shorts.

2. Tops
Blouses and dresses must reach the colorbone and be buttoned all the way up. If the buttons gap open at the bust, ladies’ should go up a size or use safety pins to avoid having their braziers showing, which can be very tempting to our young men and therefore inappropriate. Blouses should be full and not darted, which means there should be no ungodly emphasis on the waistline or underbust. Arms should be no shorter than the elbow. Sheer materials should be avoidable, but if you must wear a sheer blouse, also wear a skin-collared brazier and a full slip to conceal you’re nakedness. Tee shirts, tank tops and other immodest tops are not acceptable.

3. Skirts
Skirts should be at least 3 inches below the knee so that you can sit, kneel and otherwise move around without expositing your knee. Your skirt should also be at least a-line and preferably circle or very full to avoid drawring unnecessary attention to your legs. The waist should hit at your natural waist (low waistts are not acceptable) and be gathered to avoid unnecessary attention to the hips. Your skirt should have no slits. Kick pleats should not be necessary if your skirt is properly full. All ladies’ should where a slip with their skirts to avoid immodest exposure that could lead to lustful thoughts.

4. Culottes
Box pleat culottes are required for outdoors activities, but we ask that our ladies’ not where them to services. Culottes should follow the same rules as skirts and reach at least 3 inches below the knee and be sufficiently full that we do not see the shape of your legs. Also, if you canot do it modestly in culottes, you should rethink doing it at all. It may just not be a ladylike actvitiy.

5. Legs
We know you have them. We do not want to see them. Please wear nylons or tights to conceal the flesh of your legs. Closed-toed shows are not mandatory, but we do ask our ladies’ to consider the fleshly desires of our gentlemen and dress accordingly. Heels that excessively “bunch up” the calf are nightclub attire, not church attire. Bobby socks and canvas tennis shoes are acceptable for certain functions. Please ask Mrs. Pastor for more information.

6. Hair
The KJV1611 says long hair is a glory. We request that our ladies’ discuss their hair with their husbands or fathers to determine the most appropriate hair length for godly glory. Hair should be a natural color (no red, pink or blue, please!) and cut in a flattering, modest manner that does not bring undue attention to our godly ladies heads.
7. Makeup and jewelry
Ladies, if the barn needs painting, paint it, but avoid whoriehs excessiveness. Lipstick should be natural-colored, and leave the false eyelashes at home! Jewelry should be limited to (one) wedding ring and (one) engagement rink. GOD Himself tells us that peircings are a sign of slaves, not godly women, so skip them!

8. Bodies
We understand that ladies come in all shapes and sizes. That said, ladies who are thin should consider the effect of their vanity on their soles. Ladies who are bigger need to worry about their husbands’ soles and maybe lose some weight so their husbands are not tempted to stray. The rest of you ladies need to wear looser-fitting clothes to conceal your hips and other lady areas. We recommend jumpers since these offer the best coverage of (we apologize for our course language) curves.

9. Other
Any other concerns not already mentioned can be discussed with our godly pastor or any of the deacons, who would be happy to set up a private appointment to discuss your modesty needs or evaluate a particular outfit.

10. Visitors
We understand that nonmebers may arrive wearing inappropriate clothing. Although we are always happy to welcome new people, we do feel it is important to emphasize modesty to protect our men from lustful thoughts. If you notice a visitor lady who is wearing a tight skirt, pants or a low-cut blouse, please let her know we love her as a sister, and offer her one of our spare sweaters (they are located in the church foyer’s coat rack) to wear over her top or place over her bottom half while she is sitting.

We appreciate all our sisters’ in Christ taking the time to keep our church modest! Let us know if there is any way we can support you in this endeavor. 

Please sign and date this document to signify your agreement to the dress code.

Signed

___________________________________________________________________________
Date

___________________________________________________________________________

200 thoughts on “A Dress Code”

  3. Is this a parody? I can’t tell, I’ve heard all those said before.

    2. I’m thinking with all of the blatant and obvious errors that this is a parody.

  5. Sadly, two-thirds of the way through reading this, I totally forgot it was made up! It’s just so accuarate…..and it brought back horrible memories….LOL well done.

    1. I made it to #8 before I realized this was made up. Up to that point nothing seemed that outrageous considering the rulles that we have all seen.

      1. Except the brazier part. No way am I going around wearing a brazier.

        Also, I’m not entirely sure what a colorbone is.

        BTW, Darrell? I can see one chick’s bloomers up there. NOT modest.

        1. Re-reading this, I cannot believe how misspelled words I missed. I guess I am immune to fundy grammar and spelling.

        3. I kept thinking it was “blazer”, like a suit jacket; there are very modest and well-tailored women’s blazers, generally worn with skirts even outside of Fundystan. The right kind can be very flattering, but then again, can’t have that on a Real True Xian woman. 😕

        4. @Panda Rosa: Blazers pertaineth unto a man, so they arent modest. Especially if the lady is keeping her lady areas hidden from the view of lustful men, and shes modestly rapt up her upper (aplogies for my course language) curves with an Ace bandage.

    2. I googled the church name “Victory Faith Bible KJV1611 Baptist Church” cause I thought there’s no way someone put KJV1611 in their church name, and assumed when SFL was the first hit that it was parody.

      1. You may just have inspired some fresh-out-of-the-box young IFB pastor ready to name his spin-off church. 💡
        Actually, Leave out the KJV 1611 bit, and “Victory Faith Bible Baptist Church” does sound legit enough. 😉

        1. I, too, looked up the church name. Interestingly, a lot of sites for “Victory Baptist Church” returned errors, as if they no longer existed.

          Perhaps the Victory Baptist Churches once associated with those sites did not win the Victory? Hmmm…

  7. “Heels that excessively ‘bunch up’ the calf are nightclub attire, not church attire.”

    I have totally worn stripper heels to church. So there!

        1. lol, platform cage heels, no less. Still my favorite shoes to this day.

    2. OMG me too!! hahaha it was extremely liberating…my cousin actually was brave enough to wear extremely high heels to church WITH red fishnets…..needless to say, we got some disapproving looks, and SHE was asked to drop out of the choir. Which she did, happily.

      1. One of the things I hated doing was kicking people out of the choir for dress code violations. However I was forced to if the dress did not please the “Church Lady”.

    3. If nobody can see them because you’re wearing a long denim jumper, does it still count?

  8. This is not a parody. 😈 This is a compilation of rules culled from various Fundy churches and schools, finally gathered together in one nice neat tidy package, and presented for all Real True Xians to finally read. We now have no excuse for not living up to the Unwritten Rules.
    We’re doomed.

    1. Isn’t it sort of a logical impossibility to have an arm that’s shorter than your elbow?

      2. No, it’s not. I had a housemate in college that had an underdeveloped hand growing about 3″ down from his elbow. We – with his blessing – named him “Lefty”. It was interesting watching him hold his pinochle hand against his shoulder so he could use his fully-developed arm to remove a card to play the trick.

        1. George is at it again. His under-developed hand was growing 3″ down from his shoulder, not his elbow.

      3. Your examples don’t work.
        If you don’t have an elbow, the whole arm can’t be shorter than the elbow.

        Maybe shorter than someone else’s elbow, but not shorter than your own.

        No whole thing can be smaller than one of its parts.

        1. Does an “elbow” have length? It’s a pivot point, where two lengths of arm meet.

        2. Anything that occupies a physical space has a length and a width, unless it’s round, in which case it has a radius.

        1. yes, my point bgin that the “elbow” doesn’t occupy space. It’s a 1d point, not a 2d or 3d polygon.

        1. “If thine elbow offend thee … stab your sister with it in the backseat of the car.”

  11. With a few slight changes, and I mean a few, this would match my previous fundie church.

    On #10, we had Rent-A-Skirts available.

  12. Oh my gosh. I fear for my sole and for my wife’s sole. She has been whereing the wrong clothes and over-painting her barn.

  14. This has every dress standard rule and justification I’ve ever heard in all the Fundy churches I’ve been a member of, or visited!

    Sadly, all that talk, preaching, worker’s standards, Pastor’s wives’ examples, etc. about helping our men abstain from lustful thoughts, didn’t stop the men caught in the sex scandals at my old Fundy church.

    The problem wasn’t how the ladies dressed, or if the standard was being met (cuz it certainly was on the church grounds) but rather it was a ‘standard of the heart’ problem with the men, AND those MODESTLY dressed women they had affairs with.

    Dressing to honor the Lord, and be pleasing to Him in all manner of behavior should be the standard of a Christian woman….or man! IFB’s stringent standards leaves no room for the work of the Holy Spirit to direct anything in a believer’s spiritual journey. IFBer’s claim their standards are for the edification of their members, but so did the Pharisees!

  15. “braziers can be very tempting to our young men”
    Hey good lookin’ whatcha got cookin’?

  16. Only in Fundystan would anyone know the following words or phrases:

    – the word “darted” to describe a woman’s blouse;
    – kick pleats
    – box pleats
    – nylons
    – bobby socks

    I say this because I’m 28 and have only heard these terms via The WILDS rules pamphlet for “women-folk”.

    1. I was subject to quite a few of these rules growing up, but what the heck is a “bobby sock”?!?

        1. Bobby Socks are still around. Lots of girls and women wear them with, for example, tennis shoes or running shoes, or “Mary Janes.” But the are not as often called “Bobby Socks” now.

      2. Wikipedia says it is a type of sock that was popular in want to take a wild guess as to when? If you guessed 1940’s and 50’s you are correct. They are socks that have a thick top that is folded down so that the sock is thick around the ankle. They were a popular sock for girls to wear with saddles shoes, oxfords, and loafers and as part of a school uniform.

        1. My mom, who was in school during that period, said that girls at her high school would be outcasts if they wore any kind of hosiery other than Bobby Socks.

          I don’t know who Bobby may have been, though.

          Here’s a picture of Bobby Socks:
          http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4043/4175173547_6b0bb0a0a7_m.jpg

          Here’s a woman who meets all standards of modesty, since she is dressed in bobby socks (possibly NSFW, though):
          http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_l0q65omfLv1qa98p9o1_500.jpg

        2. Yup – I definitely wore “bobby socks” as well. Yeesh – It’s a wonder I am able to even coordinate my clothes now. 🙄

    2. Gosh…As a non-fundy, I did not make that connection, but I did assume that the parodist had to be a woman, because no guy has clue one what a dart is!

      In fact, I’ll go farther: a woman who knows how to sew.

  17. If you want to make a fundy head explode have them look up culottes in the French side of a French-English dictionary. The definition: Pants/trousers.

    If you do this right you can force a Mog to change an entire church’s dress standards based on a dictionary entry. Of course the women will all hate you. Don’t ask me how I know this.

    1. In the era of the French Revolution (1789-early 1800s), the “Sans Culottes” were the hard-core revolutionaries.
      To my disappointment, it turns out they did not go around naked below the waist. Rather, they wore “pantalons” (ankle-length trousers) in contrast to the “culottes” (silk knee-breeches) worn by the upper classes.

      In this old print, the man on the left is a “Sans Culotte,” in contrast to the two men wearing “culottes” on the right.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sansculottes.jpg

      This cartoon from the same period shows a group of “Sans Culotte” idlers making fun of a man dressed in the counterrevolutionary culottes.
      http://www.escuelapedia.com/wp-content/uploads/Sans-culottes.jpg

    2. Apathetic or whatever, um…yes…did you know the same people I knew? Lol. I knew a jumper-wearing Baptist lady who shared the “culottes are French for pants” with my Dad, who then banned them from our list of appropriate wear for a number of years. This lady also eschewed any jumpers with a V neckline – despite the turtleneck under it – or 80’s style jumper waists that were V shaped, because they pointed to, well, the breasts and ahem, you know where else.

      My family want on to share the “culottes are pants in French” with other families, some of whom subsequently eliminated culottes from their closet.

      Of course, they have no problem letting the Greek language dictate ‘long and flowing’ garments and head coverings. I guess they are just KJV-English-speaking-perfect-word-of-God only when it suits their argument for repression and shaming of women.

      I’ve talked to men who’ve left fundyism…and they’ve all expressed the angst in trying to function in a world where women’s clothes are like flashing red lights to them. They wish they could see a woman walk past in jeans without feeling attacked. This is mental conditioning at its finest.

      My last rant…I wear jeans now. I get less stares in jeans than I get in skirts, because…guys like skirts and they NOTICE (I don’t know about you, but when I see a guy in a kilt, I can only think of one thing). Unless I’m near a fundy-raised guy. Then, that’s all he can see.

      1. It is possible that we know the same people. :mrgreen:

        When my wife started wearing jeans it was a bit weird at first but not for long. (She started while we were both still employed full-time in Fundystan. Shhhh. Don’t tell anyone). After a while I just got used to it and now I don’t even notice.

        My wife pointed out to me that one of the definitions of modesty is not drawing attention to yourself. By wearing a skirt everywhere she felt that she was drawing undue attention to herself.

        Speaking as an ex-fundy guy, I don’t have a problem seeing women in jeans. I have been a lot of places and that is how women dress these days. Maybe I am getting old or something but it just doesn’t bother me. That said, I never spent much time drooling over women even when I was in Fundystan.

        One good thing that I learned in Fundystan was to treat women as individuals and not objects. I was under the impression that treating women as objects was rampant outside the walls of fundamentalism. Apparently it goes on inside the walls just as much. Thankfully, my little weird corner did try to treat women well.
        My dad was an example in this area. He always treated my Mom really well. Still does.

        1. I agree with your wife that wearing a skirt in situations where most people are dressed casually can draw attention. (And the attention isn’t usually, “Oh, my, that person is so holy. I wish I could love God the way they obviously do.”)

      2. “I don’t know about you, but when I see a guy in a kilt, I can only think of one thing.”

        Bagpipe music?

        3. 😯 but then, all real Scotsmen wear… oh, must I finish this thought for you?

      3. “They wish they could see a woman walk past in jeans without feeling attacked.”

        I never felt like that, during or after Fundy U. That’s just weird.

        What I did realize, about a decade out of Fundy U, is that my practice of averting my eyes away from attractive women effectively dehumanized them. Cross one in the hallway and she’s the only person around– look away quick. I can only imagine now how it must feel to be ignored constantly by religious dudes.

        1. Good to hear someone say that.

          That is exactly what these type of “standards” do. They make women sex objects, rather than human.

          Which is ironic.

      4. Reminds me of the time when my older sister almost married a “boy” (age 26 with a curfew and no house key) of the “professing people.” For some reason, she brought me along to one of their meetings, and I got to hear them cluck and tch about her (gasp) slit skirt. A tailored denim skirt with a small walking slit in the back that salaciously revealed her . . . leather riding boots. But it didn’t matter. It was a slit skirt. Oh, the slippery slope of the multiple layers of clothing underneath that skirt!

        Of course, they were glaring at me for having the utter gall to show up at one of their meetings in a buttoned-to-the-neck women’s Oxford shirt that failed to hide the fact that I was an early bloomer.

        It’s been said before, but it bears repeating: Policing women’s clothing choices amounts to dictating which female bodies are acceptable and which are not. I couldn’t have hidden my chest in anything more tailored than a potato sack. Grow breasts, get shamed.

        1. Well then, you should have worn a potato sack, just any Real True Xian woman should have! Otherwise, you’re considered an Evil Low-down Worldly Uppity female contaminated by the Outside; in other words, a normal human being. And we can’t have that, can we? 🙄

  18. The two women to the right in the picture look like weird long-billed birds.

    There’s a distinct nightmarish quality about that photo for me.

    1. Other thatn the fact that having to walk around with several tarps draped over you seems a bit nightmarish, the clothing is bizarre in and of itself.

      The white pointed veils remind me of plague masks:
      http://fc08.deviantart.net/fs17/f/2007/214/3/c/Plague_Doctor_Mask_by_j_west.png

      http://www.delpiano.com/carnival/images_carnival_venezia/grev_medico1_w.jpg

      These were apparently used in about the 17th century. The long beak would be filled with some aromatic substance, like lavender or mint, that was supposed to purify the air and thus prevent plague. The medical consensus now is that they did not ward off plague, which is now known to be spread by flea bites, not by bad smells.

      http://alchemipedia.blogspot.com/2009/09/plague-mask.html

      1. I think the “pointy bill” look is just created by the angle and the fact that the women are holding their outer robes closed over the face veil.

        But it ends up creating a creepy image very much like the plague masks as you mentioned.

    2. Exactly (the nightmarish quality). I wonder what this is really a photo of? These people (women?) look like they’re lined up for a firing squad or something. Creepy.

      I know this has been said, but I’m always amazed that good men are given so little credit. I don’t for a minute believe that every man out there is unable to control his thoughts and actions if he happens to see my knees or shoulders. If he can’t, I think the problem’s with him, not me.

      1. And while I’m at it, why are attractive women so demonized by the IFBers? I’m sorry, but I can’t hide what my momma gave me – and I refuse to wear shirts that would fit my husband and frumpy long skirts and dresses. And baggy, elastic-waist pants.

        Sorry.

  19. Oh my word. There’s a girl in my son’s school class whose mom dresses by these standards. Except for the sleeve length. I’ve never seen more skin than her hands, and above her neckline. Oddly enough, the daughters (all 7 of them) are allowed pants in special situations (extremely cold weather and sports). It breaks my heart to think of all the other things they’re learning too.

  20. This is what you get when you cross-pollinate the KKK with Catholic nuns. So if you ask one of the gals to dance and they say yes, how are they gonna square dance in those outfits?

  21. I’m not sure why, but the phrase that caused me to cringe the most was “the most appropriate hair length for godly glory”.

  22. Here’s what a woman should say when asked why she is dressing “immodestly”;

    “I’m trying to seduce you, is it working?”

    This question puts the dress-ode-enforcer in a double bind. To answer “no” implies that the immodest dress has no effect on causing seduction, and thus removes the threat and the justification for enforcing the dress code. To answer “yes” implies moral weakness and thought-sin on the part of the enforcer.A weakness that no proper fundy would publicly want to admit to.

    1. Except it’s not the man’s fault when the hussy causes him to sin. Don’t you know anything?

      1. Is it the hussy’s fault if she keeps him from sinning? And should she offended if he does not lust after her? 😆

  25. except for the panty hose and the open-toed shoes, these are the types of rules I lived with… Makes me twitch.

    1. The tragic/hilarious/ironic thing is that some fundies actually believe that something like wearing a miniskirt and a low-cut blouse is worse than what Jack Schaap did.

      2. What makes this kind of thing so deeply disturbing is that it changes the blame in the EXACT same way abusers of all stripes shift the blame (You made me hit you! You’re were just so sexy that I HAD to have you! Your slitted skirt and darted blouse MADE me lust after you!). Women comply because — sorry guys — most of us don’t want random creepers fawning on us or lusting after us. It gives me the willies to this *day* if a fundy man walks past me while I’m in a pair of jeans, form-fitting top or whatever. 😯

        And I’m not even remotely what any fundy person would ever in any lifetime call modest. *shrug*

        1. So Dave you are requiring that I take a poll and get you names on a petition or something? You require some empirical evidence before you will believe that the IFB’s maladjusted moralism equates outward appearance to one’s worth, morality and salvation? That the man in the pulpit is more moral and therefore more worthy of our love and respect than some trollop whose skirt doesn’t make it to her knees?
          I’ll get right on that petition for ya. 🙄

        2. Semp, I asked Big Gary to name one fundy that “actually believe that something like wearing a miniskirt and a low cut blouse is worse that what Jack Schaap did”

        3. Maybe not worse, but according to the fundies around here any woman who dresses like that is asking for someone to do what Schaap did.

          In fact, if that is what she was wearing then she is to blame for someone doing what Schaap did.

          More to the point any woman who seduces the M-O-g by wearing something like that is much more damnable than the “poor” pastor who trips over his tidy-whities while falling into sin.

        4. Don’t be ridiculous, nobody believes what you just said Don. Schaap will get his reward, here and in the afterlife.
          And again, you failed to name one who believes what you say. Your vague “fundies around here” statement is like most of the simplistic generalities on this site. A lot of name calling and accusations but no specifics.

        5. Dave, go to FBCH. You will find plenty of people who believe that Schaap is innocent and that it was the teenage girl’s fault. Even if they don’t agree with the rape charge, I don’t understand why so many give him a pass. If they don’t agree that it was rape they should agree at the least that he committed adultery and he failed his marriage vows. Fundies praise Joseph for running away from Potiphar’s wife but often excuse guys like Schaap because they are working 70 hours a week and have a bad prostate.

          To say that “nobody believes what you just said” is being ridiculous. Plenty of fundies believe that it is always a woman who is at fault when there is a sex scandal. I was in Fundystan for over 20 years. If I did name names of people who believe this, you wouldn’t know any of the people so what’s the point? The leadership of a former religious social club (the members there call it a church) I was involved in blamed a rape victim for the rape. This mentality exists whether you believe it or not. I can name names.

        6. Don, what I am saying is that all these accusations of the IFB all being maladjusted without any evidence is wrong. The tares grow up with the wheat in all of Christendom, nothing new here. It just boggles my mind to see so much hatred and sarcasm by those who claim to be Christians. Shouldn’t you pray for your enemies. And what cause for the unsaved to blaspheme God when they see how you vilify fellow believers.
          If the ones that are guilty of such terrible sins as you all claim they are, then God will deal with them, but to condemn all of the fundamentalist movement for the sins of a few is wrong.
          And wanting empirical evidence is the norm when one makes unfounded accusations.
          But you Don are the voice of wisdom. You and your vast experience qualifies you to speak like some wise sage when all you are is a blowhard. All of you are doing the same ‘legalistic’ things that you claim all of fundamentalists do. How sad.

        7. but to condemn all of the fundamentalist movement for the sins of a few is wrong.

          You make my case very well. IF, you have read very much at all here on SFL about my position regarding the IFB movement you would know that I blame the movement for being an enabler and a drawing card for men of lesser character to its ranks. The fundamentalist movement by its very nature allows men of lesser character to rise to positions of power and establishes men who recognize the inherent flaw in the system as leaders and spiritual dictators.

          The movement itself enables empires to be built around charismatic leaders who more often than not seek the power the movement has placed in the hands of the One, the Chief Operating Officer, the Dweller of the Pulpit. Even the very best of men, with the most noble character will eventually succumb to the seduction of its power. Left to themselves they will use the power available to them to pursue/push/guide/guilt/manipulate or otherwise require those “under” them to either adopt or perform to, the pastor’s personal standard. They will do it with the noblest of intentions, they will do it out of “love” even, but they will use the power of the pulpit to inflict their will on either an individual, a small group or the congregation at large.

          I have seen it, and experienced the effects of it in three IFB churches over a period of 30 years. In each case, it was about the power of the preacher over his congregation, it was ugly, it was evil. So am I now evil for calling attention to the flaw in the system? Am I evil for pointing out evil?

          The IFB model of how church is done is closer to that of a CULT rather than what is laid out in the Epistles. I have yet to see a “Pastor” live out Christ’s command to be a servant. I look around me here in the rusted buckle of the IFB, 1611KJV, Bible belt and I see kingdoms and empires and even the meanest paid pastor in the smallest congregation is Lord over all he surveys… because that-is-the-way-the-system is designed to work. Some may have to put up with a contentious deacon board but whether it is the pastor, the deacons as a group or an alpha deacon, or the “founding” family… the spirit of Diotrephes is alive and well in the IFB system. Personal power rules the day. If you don’t believe me then here’s a test and I can guarantee the outcome. If you don’t believe it is about power, then question the Pastor on one of his standards. Go ahead, openly question him regarding one of his personal standards. Then report back here on what happened. Call the pastor or one of the big tithers on what appears to be sin in their life. You’ll soon find that your sin of pointing out their sin was a much greater sin then theirs.

          So, yeah. The IFB system is broken and it needs to be pointed out to all who could fall prey to its dastardly design. I further contend that goes for all Single ruler congregations that have no oversight or accountability to a body of elders (pl.)

  28. The most biting humor always stings because it speaks the truth. I always wondered how the poor dudes who came up with these Draconian Laws could function in The Real World of Shoulders and Knees and Hips That Move. I came to to conclusion that they probably didn’t leave the house much, unless they were driving to church.

    Which is pretty sad. I read somewhere one that we should be “in the world, but not of the world.”

    1. Andrew Greeley, for one, suggests that men who come up with rules like this really like ogling and fantasizing about women they find attractive. Defining a long list of ordinary clothing as sinful temptation means that they can excuse themselves by mentally accusing their targets of having forced them off the path of righteousness. They might even confess perving over the women in the congregation. Then they can go right back to doing it, because obviously they just can’t help it, those naughty women refusing to change their clothes and all.

      1. That would be the late and much lamented Fr. Andrew Greeley, who died on May 29, nearly five years after suffering a traumatic brain injury. I have missed his writing, and his sensible attitude toward life.

  29. Hi there, I have been a lurker for about three years and I’m pleased to finally be posting on the forum!

    What always amazes me about fundyland is how the exorbitant amount of rules shows such a lack of will power and control over their “sinful desires”. Rather than relying on the strength of God to help get them through trying situations, they construct so many rules and safe guards they never are able to face or deal with temptation. It seems paradoxical to me.

    1. Welcome!

      My 11 yo & I were discussing just how much Catholics actually have right compared to our former brand of Fundamental Baptists. 😉 I’m glad you found your niche of the Church.

  31. So, I haven’t figured out if this is a parody or not. This was submitted by a guest but I seriously can’t tell if it has been made up or taken from someone’s church.

  32. Panda Rosa said earlier that it was a compilation of rules from various fundy centers of indoctrination.

    1. I rather think Panda Rose was being facetious. 😉

      I’ll put my money on parody. I’ve heard a lot of these rules and regs, but I’ve not really heard too many fundy churches be so open in the body shaming department (although the sentiment is certainly there). I’ve also never heard a fundy pastor be quite so open in his attempt to lure females with questionable judgment into his office for a “private consultation.” 😐

      1. Okay, I was speaking tongue in cheek. But I bet anyone could, by checking the dress codes of nearly every Fundy church and college, find every point mentioned. This just pulls every unspoken thought into one unspeakable whole, one used to keep Real True Xian wimmenfolk in their place. 😡

        1. i.e., parody: a literary or musical work in which the style of an author or work is closely imitated for comic effect or in ridicule; a feeble or ridiculous imitation.

          From Merriam Webster online.

      2. So was I. The truth is that a lot of mogs really want these rules but won’t come right out and say it. Whether they are written down or not, they really do exist.

        1. Some of them were definitely written down. I remember at my old IFB church, the Pastor once spent a large section of the Saturday preparation for VBS on Christian dress, and he handed out papers to everyone with details of skirt length, hair length, etc. along with Bible verses (Proverbs) illustrating how it was the women’s fault that men strayed.

          My wife and I thought this all a bit ridiculous, but being in the church we didn’t say much at the time.

    1. In accordance with fundy thinking knees should always be topical.

  35. Is this really a parody? I know a few pastors who would get some great ideas for higher standards of modesty in their church, and consider adopting this set of rules.

  37. Sure, all you nasty nasty people are beat’n down on my fundy homeboys for the rules about their braziers… but check out the Bible : Jeremiah 36.22 Now the king was sitting in the winter house in the ninth month, with a fire burning in the brazier before him. Oh crap, that’s from the NASB. Okay, continue the beat-down.

    By the way, any of y’all ever eat some of those skin-collared(s). Fantastic, especially when cooked in a fire burning in the brazier and eaten in your nakedness. Deeelicious!

  38. Totally off the subject. Today, I had yet another email from my local A Beka Book salesperson. I had enough and sent back this reply:

    Dear Steve,

    As an alumnus of PCC, it is always nice to see the A Beka products out and about.
    However, I am a black-listed alumnus, no longer welcome on campus, or to be part of the electronic list as I had the audacity to post my opinion on the Student Voice forum and not hide behind a screen name but post my name.
    Since PCC wants nothing to do with me, I would appreciate it if I could be removed from your mailing list. It just seems really weird to be shunned on one hand and offered stuff to buy on the other. I have no children of my own, I do not work in a Christian school, so I see no reason why A Beka would want to lure me with new shiny books.

    Thank you for your time,

    Elizabeth Harac
    60972

  39. “That said, ladies who are thin should consider the effect of their vanity on their soles.”

    Well now, whether ladies are thin or “thick,” I have never seen a girl who wasn’t interested in shoes. I don’t think being thin has any effect on their soles at all. All women want nice shoes!

    (Does bigotry and legalism always pair with bad spelling?)

      1. Thanks… I could listen to (and watch) Ladysmith Black Mombaza all day.

  40. Of course, we know that dresses and skirts and culottes are inventions of the devil. To be truly biblical and have biblical dress we should all dress in ancient garb and walk everywhere. There is nothing biblical about automobiles! We should each have our donkeys to go along with our asses!

    After all, it isn’t enough to worship the Lord. You have to follow all these ultra-legalistic extras the MOG wants.

    “He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy MOG, and to dress according to strict requirements (with a measuring tape handy), and to have thy hair cut in an acceptable fashion, and to spend all of Sunday at the church, Wednesday night at prayer meeting, Monday night at visitation, Tuesday night for Men’s Prayer Meeting, Thursday night for evangelism training, Friday night for outreach, and be sure to tithe, tithe extra, and give honor to thy MOG?”

      2. I now want a license plate that reads “MANAGID”, but unfortunately I don’t quite fit the requirements. How long can vanity plates be, anyway? Would “WOMANAGID” fit?

        1. Usually seven I think.

          I came up with “GODSGAL” but that doesn’t seem to have the same sense of power as “MANAGOD”.

  41. Women will not be modest enough while they insist on looking like people. Lets face it, in many corners of fundy land, they are not considered so.

  42. God gave Moses ten commandments in few words each to cover about every situation. The MOG here needed ten sizable paragraphs to issue one commandment.

    After all, you know they are MOG by their much public praying and preaching, right?

  43. I didn’t see anything about wire-rimmed glasses. Or was it there and I missed it?
    The writer did a good job, even spelled out the doctrine of hairology.

  44. Do men have to dress modestly too? What does that look like? And does it extend to things like nightwear? Am I committing sin by sleeping.. er… unclothed? 😳

  45. It’s ironic with all the rules listed above that they STILL missed one: the rule on nightwear. Pajamas are forbidden for women in some IFBX churches.

    1. Let me see if I got this right:

      Pajamas are forbidden
      Pajamas are a form of sleepwear
      Sleepwear is forbidden
      Sleeping naked FTW!

      :mrgreen:

    2. This is where things really break down for me. Who is hurt by a woman’s “immodesty” when she’s going to bed? Presumably with her husband, because marriage is of course the goal of every good Christian girl?

      1. Not to say that it didn’t break down before, but there is at least a (stupid) argument to be made for wimmenz not tempting men to lust or whatever. When sleeping, though? Really?

      2. What happens if there is a fire at night and you have to run outside? Surely the firemen would see that you are wearing pajama pants. Which would casue the firemen to stumble, thus allowing your house to burn down.
        :mrgreen:

    3. The truly funny thing about this is how utterly immodest night gowns are. They ride up and always, always end up around your waist, which means your nether regions are just sort of flapping in the breeze (well, not really, but ykwim) for anyone to see. Pajamas are waaaaay more modest.

        1. Depends on your definition of “modest.” Using it as a euphemism for “covered” (like most IFB), then yes, PJs with cage platform heels + garters & thigh high stockings are STILL more modest than a nightgown.

    4. You guys. Duh. Pants are men’s apparel. So even if your pants are pink and covered in butterflies, they are men’s apparel. You are an abomination in men’s apparel. Therefore, you wouldn’t want to be an abomination while you’re sleeping, would you?

      This one has nothing to do with modesty.

      I’ll never forget the look of shock when my ultra-conservative father saw me in loose pajama pants for the first time, rather than my plaid flannel nightgown. He couldn’t believe he had an abomination under his very roof.

      I haven’t worn a nightgown since; I HATED those things. 🙁

    5. Do I detect a hint of Double Standards withing Fundystan on thiis issue……?

      For a Fundamentalist to have Standards is Good.
      To Have Double Standards is Twice as Good.

  46. And than there is the part where the fat, old ladies hate the young thin ones. “Cover up you evil thing. Trying to make my husband lust. Little whore.” That should make you laugh but I went to fundy church with a women who said something similair to this to a lovely, Christain pagent girl. My Dad the MOG was so angry.

  47. Oh. My. Word. The spelling is so atrocious that it makes them look illiterate and some of the statements are completely incoherent as a result. Too bad poor spelling isn’t a sin resulting in damnation and hell-fire. What a commentary on such GODLY men who can’t control their lustful thoughts? DO they realize how nuts this all sounds? 😕

    1. St. Louis is borderline American.

      Paris is borderline French.

      Manchester is borderline British.

      Munich is borderline German.

      The Pope is borderline Catholic.

      etc, etc

    2. I’m fairly certain the picture is of Islamic women. However, fundy dress codes are as strict or more strict than most of the most conservative Islamic dress codes. Only the niqab+abaya or the burqa are more strict. In fact, if they didn’t also hate Muslims so much, I’d expect to see fundies buying women’s clothing off of Islamic clothing sites. Not men’s clothing, of course, because galabiyyas and jubbahs are too much like dresses for their taste, and modesty is only for women, you know.

  49. Hmmm. After looking around on the net, I am wondering if this emphasis is not partly fueled by “Christian” businesses specializing in “modest clothing.”

    I have gone to a lot of sites, different denominations (Catholic, Baptist, Holiness, etc.) and a lot of them have these sites promising modest clothing at reasonable prices. Or unreasonable. Or what all. Church dresses, Christian school uniforms, other “modest” clothing. Dresses with straps that are more than an inch in width.

    A worried Christian asking the Pastor where they can find modest clothing that can’t be found in the stores may well be directed to these kinds of businesses. Don’t you think a lot of Pastors would have these places in a list? Or that they get advertising from such places?

    Over the years I have come to the conclusion that Creationism is very largely an artifact of the businesses that Creationists have created. They keep promoting Creationism as a vital doctrine and huge concern because it gets them paid speaking invitations to conferences, they can sell their books and other literature. The more they make creationism seem necessary to salvation, the more money they make!

    Just a thought!

    1. Almost all the BS fads that evangelicals believe is foisted upon them by the publishing industry. Eternal truths don’t sell well. You have to push fads with designed obsolescence.

  50. New dress code for IFB colleges. Women aren’t allowed to show their face. “It Leads to Sin”.

Comments are closed.