Devoted to the Propagation and Defense of New Testament Christianity
VOLUME 22
February 1, 1971
NUMBER 37, PAGE 6b-7a

I Don't Need To See Your Legs

Wallace H. Little

I mentioned to a preacher one time I had seen more short-short skirts and dresses on members of that church in three weeks than on members of all others in three years. If this was an overstatement, it was surely only so for emphasis. He preached on morality and after hearing his especially good sermon I publically commended him. His lesson was to the point. Due to the obvious continuing need I suggested he preach again on this specific subject; he countered urging rather that I write on it.

No preacher likes to bring a yardstick into the pulpit. I recognize the shortness of women's clothing is by no means the sole standard for determining decency, that a tight-fitting or low-cut garment may be more enticing than a short one and that men likewise can and do dress immodestly. But this is not a study in comparisons. My TB does not materially improve your heart disease; they are both dangerous. One form of immodesty "more indecent" than another does not make the "less indecent" less sinful.

From I Pet. 3:1-6 I want to mention several points: First, the outward adorning is not that which appeals to God, even though the male head may be turned by it. Such fits the ". . . lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life" which John goes on to say, .. is not of the father, but of the world" (I Jn. 2:15, 16)'. Second, it is that which is within us, if it be right (produced by faith), which delights God. It was not for nothing Christ said, ". . . out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh" (Mt. 12:34) and the wise man of old, in Prov. 4:23, "Keep thy heart with all diligence, for out of it are the issues of life." In seeking to follow the dictates of the world we are also seeking to restrict "life" to our physical natures only.

The so-called styling of clothing is termed "fashion." The contention is these things are optional, that God has not legislated, therefore no one else has any right to do so. This is foolish. Notice: If true, the logical end of the argument is women may go around in public without any top to their garments, because today this is becoming the fashion. What woman, particularly a Christian, can accept this? Many counter with, "I would never go that far!" I ask, "How far would you go?" A conscience is more often seared progressively than all at once. Sin is "sold," especially to Christians, not as a seven-course feast, but a bite at a time. Spiritual indigestion is just as bad either way, however... It is still sin. The "fashion" argument would make God subject to human wisdom (see I Cor. 1:17-29). Establishing of styles as standards which society adopts as "decent" in preference to submitting to the standard of God as the originator of all morality, which He is, constitutes a reversal of proper order. Christians have argued they have a right to follow fashion, that "After all, you wouldn't want me to be out-of-fashion, would you?" Yes, that is exactly what I want if this is what it takes for you to dress with modesty. Now, you answer your own question also.

Even if enticing clothing is optional, which it certainly is not, there is another point to consider. Both I Cor. 8:13 and Rom. 14:13 instruct Christians on use of their liberty. No one is allowed to insist on liberty when such will jeopardize the soul of another. If we become stumbling-blocks to others, we might as well commit the sin personally, for we had fellowship in it. If as a Christian you cannot be convinced wearing of such garments in and of itself is wrong, ask yourself what kind of an influence this is having on others. How about the individual who does not have control over his passions? Never mind that he needs to learn to control himself — he is not the subject of this discourse — you are; nor is his weakness an excuse for your conduct. That such exists is easily demonstrated. In every so-called modern nation where appropriate records are kept, sex crimes have increased 60% or more after introduction of the "mini." Something did the enticing; the location of the hem was the only wide-spread, significant change. Then what about the influence exerted over a sister in Christ who has not your strength? She sees you wear these things; questions them in her heart but because you have done so (and certainly you know what is right — after all, you are the experienced, mature Christian) she decides to do likewise. What will your answer be in judgment when God asks for an explanation of your conduct in inducing another to sin by your example? And be assured, He will ask.

Note: Let me tell you the usual reaction to this type of material: the younger girls, the teenagers, protest that their mothers approve, so what could possibly be wrong? the ladies claim their husbands have no objections so obviously these styles were acceptable; the husbands and fathers? "He needs to stick to preaching and stop meddling." This tells me volumes. On the current attempt to replace the "mini" with the "midi" — where has so much opposition originated? Where else but among the men? More volumes. Ladies, think for yourselves! You will stand in judgment unassisted.

If none of the above moves you, let me make one final plea: I am a preacher but I am also a man, however weak. Few men can stand before an audience filled with such a display of female flesh as exhibited by today's fashions and not feel uneasy. So I need your help. Look again at the title of this article; I repeat: I don't need to see your legs!

— P. O. Box 1306 Marshall, Texas 75670