# May Christian women wear pants?



## Phil D. (Oct 14, 2019)

This is an off-take from this thread, beginning with this post.

Having grown up in a cult (Branhamism) that grossly emphasized “proper” outward dress as a key indicator of one’s fidelity to the Bible and standing before God, that issue has been of some ongoing interest to me. First and foremost in this area was the teaching that a woman should not wear pants, since such was said to pertain specifically to a man (an interpretation applied to Deuteronomy 22:5).

I have to admit that even to this day I sometimes have fleeting twinges of judgementalism when I see a sister wearing pants. To be clear, this is not reflective of my current conviction, but rather a vexing hangover from my upbringing. Unless one experiences it first hand, I don’t think there is any way to understand the deep scars that one can incur from being raised in a strict, legalistic, fire and brimstone cult. It often seems they will last a lifetime. Yet, His grace is sufficient.

When the Lord mercifully if painfully delivered my wife and I out of the cult, it took a long time to untangle the beliefs we had been force-fed our whole lives – some of which, typical of heresy, contained many aspects of truth – and actual, sound biblical teaching. One such issue was that of proper dress for men and women.

Other than old-fashioned Pentecostals and some fundamentalist sects I was not aware of other Christian groups, whether only nominally or otherwise, that took the position it is sinful for women to wear pants. So I was quite surprised when through the aforementioned thread I discovered there was at least one small but apparently solid and confessional Reformed denomination that also teaches the same thing, the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland. Their specific statement on the matter can be read here.

I do have some particular questions about this I want to eventually ask, but first I would like to see if others here would be willing to share any perspectives or insights they may initially have on the matter.

Thank you brothers and sisters, and here's looking forward to a charitable and edifying discussion.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Ryan J. Ross (Oct 14, 2019)

Yes. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Smeagol (Oct 14, 2019)

Sure, so long as they are modest and not worn as a form of cross dressing. In other words it depends what type of pants. Of course we can’t ignore motives either

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Oct 14, 2019)

May rather than Should for the subject line question?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Phil D. (Oct 14, 2019)

NaphtaliPress said:


> May rather than Should for the subject line question?


Yes, thank you Chris.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Oct 14, 2019)

Phil D. said:


> Yes, thank you Chris.


I changed it.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## TylerRay (Oct 14, 2019)

Women's clothing should be both feminine and modest. The Bible says nothing about pants, and we can be pretty sure than no one in the Bible wore them (whether man or woman). Rather than invent rules about particular articles of clothing, we should be faithful to apply the Biblical principles.

My wife and daughters generally do not wear pants. They wear skirts or dresses down below the knee. The main reasons for that is that it's modest, feminine, and pretty. Frankly, we have found that it's hard to find pants that are modest, feminine, and pretty all at the same time.

Standards of modesty may vary slightly according to one's judgment. Is showing the ankle okay? The calf? The neck? The face? The hair? Are fitted clothes okay, or must they be baggy or loose? You'll get different standards in different parts of the world. We just try not to use clothes that reveal the details of what someone is shaped like.

Reactions: Like 5 | Amen 2


----------



## Ryan J. Ross (Oct 14, 2019)

Grant Jones said:


> Sure, so long as they are modest and not worn as a form of cross dressing. In other words it depends what type of pants. Of course we can’t ignore motives either



Are motives really something we should be considering when determining if it’s objectively okay to wear pants as a woman?

I think that may be taking it a little far 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Ryan J. Ross (Oct 14, 2019)

Grant Jones said:


> There does not seem to be a single command binding today that does not touch and have implications for our motives, that’s includes being modest. I stand by my post in that regard.



So you think it’s fitting for you to account for someone’s motives you don’t know when determining if they’re breaking a command, which they aren’t in this case? You don’t think making your motive assessment is uncharitable? Why not leave that to when they’re expressed, reasonably deduced, or simply left to God, who sees the heart? A random woman’s motives for wearing pants isn’t likely to be ascertainable, given the constraints of the OP. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Smeagol (Oct 14, 2019)

Ryan J. Ross said:


> So you think it’s fitting for you to account for someone’s motives you don’t know when determining if they’re breaking a command, which they aren’t in this case? You don’t think making your motive assessment is uncharitable?


Sorry..... where did I say any of that? I think you are misreading me. We often cannot know others motives, but that in no way negates the charge for a brother or sister considering modesty to at first consider their own motives. Seems your trying to make a mountain out of something not even a mole hill.

We should be concerned with also teaching one another and our children to have right motives regarding modesty.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ryan J. Ross (Oct 14, 2019)

The passage in 1 Timothy is straightforward: I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting. 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.

The word is basically a let down; garment. Are we going to start debating if the ankle is showing on the pants or kids can wear shorts? What was the intention behind the tear in the jean near the shin? I think it’s a simple answer and it’s not helpful to speculate on motives when it comes to this question.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ryan J. Ross (Oct 14, 2019)

Grant Jones said:


> Sorry..... where did I say any of that? I think you are misreading me. We often cannot know others motives, but that in no way negates the charge for a brother or sister considering modesty to at first consider their own motives. Seems your trying to make a mountain out of something not even a mole hill.
> 
> Let’s let the the thread move on. If you still have some quibble, then PM me.
> 
> But yes we should be concerned with also teaching one another and our children to have right motives regarding modesty.



The OP is asking if it’s okay for women to wear pants. It was not about what their motives were for doing so. You introduced motives as a category to help determine if its sinful. In context, this would apply to the person wondering the question, not the person wearing the pants. We don’t know their motives and it’s unhealthy to make that part of the analysis from the perspective of the questioner, not the subject of the question.

Obviously, just about everyone here knows that not only what a man does may be sinful, but also what he thinks in his heart. Jesus makes it clear that all the commands extends much further than action. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Smeagol (Oct 14, 2019)

Ryan J. Ross said:


> The OP is asking if it’s okay for women to wear pants. It was not about what their motives were for doing so. You introduced motives as a category to help determine if its sinful. In context, this would apply to the person wondering the question, not the person wearing the pants. We don’t know their motives and it’s unhealthy to make that part of the analysis from the perspective of the questioner, not the subject of the question.
> 
> Obviously, just about everyone here knows that not only what a man does may be sinful, but also what he thinks in his heart. Jesus makes it clear that all the commands extends much further than action.
> 
> ...


I would rather not engage in this senseless debate as it is distracting from the OP. You are misreading me. The tread question states “May Christian women wear pants?” I answered. Take it or leave it.

Apparently I have pushed one of your buttons and if so I apologize. Deciding what or what not to wear without considering modestly is futile. Further, considering modesty, one should not forget motives. Discussing modesty without the consideration of motives is lacking. Wearing all the "right" clothes for the "wrong" reasons falls into another sinful ditch. I tried to be balanced in my initial reply to the OP. I am sorry you do not share that opinion. But again, I stand by it. It is important when helping others consider modesty to help them evaluate their motives. If anything has been "out of context" from the OP it has been our interaction. Let's end that on this thread. There is nothing else I have not already said to explain the wording I chose in my initial post.

P.S. Sure, many on PB understand that motives always play a role, but that does not negate the fact that we often all need reminders. I know I do. Lastly, this is a public thread and is not limited to being viewed by PB members but to the masses. Hence why there is wisdom in trying to answer in a balanced manner.


----------



## OPC'n (Oct 14, 2019)

I grew up in a cult that forbade pants so if we worked in the garden etc we had to wear a skirt over the pants lol. My sister and I would go hiking with pants under our skirt and as soon as no one could see us we took off the skirt. It was dumb and I had no problem casting that rule aside as soon as I left that cult at age 17 (my family followed me later). Actually, I believe I cast 99.9% of their beliefs aside without any problems. Yes, women may and at times should wear pants.

Reactions: Like 3 | Informative 1


----------



## bookslover (Oct 14, 2019)

The title to this thread is a reason why so many people laugh at Christianity.

So many important issues to face - but _this_ is what some Christians decide to bicker about.

UPDATE: Wow! Judging from that Wikipedia article's description of his beliefs, his no-women-in-pants "doctrine" was the least of his problems. What a nut.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Oct 14, 2019)

In Scotland and Northern Ireland, the more burning question is whether or not men should wear skirts otherwise known as kilts?

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1 | Funny 9


----------



## Pergamum (Oct 14, 2019)

I am going to start a cult that says women who go to Wal-Mart in baggy sweat pants are going straight to hell, though. Especially if they are wearing flip-flops and no make-up, too. Folks are slobs nowadays.

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 3


----------



## ZackF (Oct 14, 2019)

Pergamum said:


> I am going to start a cult that says women who go to Wal-Mart in baggy sweat pants are going straight to hell, though. Especially if they are wearing flip-flops and no make-up, too. Folks are slobs nowadays.


I’d take sweatpants over yoga pants or stirrup pants any day.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1 | Funny 1


----------



## Tom Hart (Oct 14, 2019)

It seems to me that the best argument against women's trousers comes from modesty.

The biblical prohibition in Deuteronomy 22:5 against men and women dressing as the opposite sex is just that - a prohibition against men and women dressing as the oposite sex. In other words, sexual deviancy is out of bounds.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## jwithnell (Oct 14, 2019)

Wouldn't it be immodest to just wear a shirt? Yes, put some pants on, please!

Reactions: Funny 6


----------



## Minh (Oct 14, 2019)

It depends on the cultural context you live in. If I'm correct, in biblical and ancient times, skirt was consider appropriate for both men and women for clothing. Generally, we can consider women wearing pants as acceptable and feminine in modern day. I would preferably see them in skirts or dresses but that's their choices.

It's unfortunate that some women wear pants for feministic empowerment (e.g. military camouflage trousers) or to appear sensually (e.g. yoga pants).

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## StephenMartyr (Oct 15, 2019)

First plants now pants!!?!!!


----------



## bookslover (Oct 15, 2019)

jwithnell said:


> Wouldn't it be immodest to just wear a shirt? Yes, put some pants on, please!



Plus, pants are warmer in cold weather than dresses or skirts, and they make it easier (from the modesty point of view) for women to do things like climb stairs, stand on ladders or chairs, etc.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## OPC'n (Oct 15, 2019)

Pergamum said:


> I am going to start a cult that says women who go to Wal-Mart in baggy sweat pants are going straight to hell, though. Especially if they are wearing flip-flops and no make-up, too. Folks are slobs nowadays.


Quit talking about me

Reactions: Funny 5


----------



## Phil D. (Oct 15, 2019)

So let me ask a more direct question:

Why or why not does Deuteronomy 22:5 apply to the relatively modern circumstance in Western society of women adopting legged garments as part of their normal attire? As much specificity as possible in the answers would be appreciated.

It's one thing to laugh at and mock a cult that believes it is directly applicable, but as noted in the OP there is a fellow Reformed church that makes the very same claim. They go so far as to say that, based on that particular scripture, it is a violation of the Fifth and Seventh Commandments for a woman to wear pants. That's pretty serious stuff and in my opinion deserves a studious reply one way or the other.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## OPC'n (Oct 15, 2019)

Phil D. said:


> So let me ask a more direct question:
> 
> Why or why not does Deuteronomy 22:5 apply to the relatively modern circumstance in Western society of women adopting legged garments as part of their normal attire? As much specificity as possible in the answers would be appreciated.
> 
> It's one thing to laugh at and mock a cult that believes it is directly applicable, but as noted in the OP there is a fellow Reformed church that makes the very same claim. They go so far as to say that, based on that particular scripture, it is a violation of the Fifth and Seventh Commandments for a woman to wear pants. That's pretty serious stuff and in my opinion deserves a studious reply one way or the other.



The studious reply is that they are trying to control what they shouldn’t be. It’s a problem for women to wear men’s clothing and men to wear women’s clothing. But women’s pants are made for women and not for men. Women’s pants are significantly different from men’s pants.


----------



## Susan777 (Oct 15, 2019)

Phil D. said:


> This is an off-take from this thread, beginning with this post.
> 
> Having grown up in a cult (Branhamism) that grossly emphasized “proper” outward dress as a key indicator of one’s fidelity to the Bible and standing before God, that issue has been of some ongoing interest to me. First and foremost in this area was the teaching that a woman should not wear pants, since such was said to pertain specifically to a man (an interpretation applied to Deuteronomy 22:5).
> 
> ...





Phil D. said:


> This is an off-take from this thread, beginning with this post.
> 
> Having grown up in a cult (Branhamism) that grossly emphasized “proper” outward dress as a key indicator of one’s fidelity to the Bible and standing before God, that issue has been of some ongoing interest to me. First and foremost in this area was the teaching that a woman should not wear pants, since such was said to pertain specifically to a man (an interpretation applied to Deuteronomy 22:5).
> 
> ...


----------



## Elizabeth (Oct 15, 2019)

I am old enough to remember having to wear skirts to school, and in winter we would wear pants under the skirt. By second grade, that changed, and we could wear pants alone.

I wear blue jeans most days, layered with a good stout pair of wellies for outdoor work. Scintillating it ain't! 

Lord's Day it's skirts, unless the weather is foul, then appropriate slacks. 

I don't think the Lord minds. People might, but that's on them.


----------



## Jie-Huli (Oct 15, 2019)

bookslover said:


> Plus, pants are warmer in cold weather than dresses or skirts, and they make it easier (from the modesty point of view) for women to do things like climb stairs, stand on ladders or chairs, etc.



This is why it is proper etiquette for men to go first when going up the stairs (and second when going down the stairs) . . . And generally to do work requiring going up ladders themselves . . .


----------



## Jie-Huli (Oct 15, 2019)

(No disrespect intended towards any ladies who have posted here).

It would be difficult to deny that 100 years ago (actually less) one would never see women in trousers. Obviously something has changed since that time. It is useful to ask what the primary catalysts for this change were.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Tom Hart (Oct 15, 2019)

Jie-Huli said:


> (No disrespect intended towards any ladies who have posted here).
> 
> It would be difficult to deny that 100 years ago (actually less) one would never see women in trousers. Obviously something has changed since that time. It is useful to ask what the primary catalysts for this change were.


Agreed.

What is the origin of trouser-wearing women and what bearing does that have on modern women's fashion? If it is proven, for instance, that women's trousers began a century ago as a radical feminist statement or perhaps even as cross-dressing, then does it follow that all women's trousers today are a mark of moral failure?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Tom Hart (Oct 15, 2019)

Jie-Huli said:


> This is why it is proper etiquette for men to go first when going up the stairs (and second when going down the stairs) . . . And generally to do work requiring going up ladders themselves . . .


And what of escalators and tall public staircases?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Smeagol (Oct 15, 2019)

Tom Hart said:


> And what of escalators and tall public staircases?


I guess they would likewise be barred from swimming.


----------



## Tom Hart (Oct 15, 2019)

I have to chuckle a bit at this whole conversation. In ancient times nobody wore trousers. When the Romans encountered the northern barbarians with two separately legged garments... Well! That was just uncivilized! Little skirts above the knee were thought much more proper.

Reactions: Like 4 | Amen 1


----------



## Tom Hart (Oct 15, 2019)

Grant Jones said:


> I guess they would likewise be barred from swimming.


You could always have gender-segregated swimming holes.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Oct 15, 2019)

An acquaintance of mine was working on a thesis on the subject of rational dress in the 19th century in which the issue of women wearing trousers was raised. I think the thrust of the argument was that it was unreasonable to expect women to perform daily tasks while wearing the type of dresses that were worn in the 19th century and thus the need to introduce some form of female trousers. I have not read the thesis in question, but that is what she mentioned to me a few years ago.


----------



## jwithnell (Oct 15, 2019)

Phil D. said:


> So let me ask a more direct question:
> 
> Why or why not does Deuteronomy 22:5 apply to the relatively modern circumstance in Western society of women adopting legged garments as part of their normal attire? As much specificity as possible in the answers would be appreciated.
> 
> It's one thing to laugh at and mock a cult that believes it is directly applicable, but as noted in the OP there is a fellow Reformed church that makes the very same claim. They go so far as to say that, based on that particular scripture, it is a violation of the Fifth and Seventh Commandments for a woman to wear pants. That's pretty serious stuff and in my opinion deserves a studious reply one way or the other.


I sincerely apologize. My intention was to use humor to quickly convey. Now for the long answer:

Your text appears in the context of law peculiar to Israel. Its purpose was to tell the people to remain distinct from surrounding nations by customs such as putting tassels on the corners of your cloak. The point is illustrated by commands to not admix elements such as fiber in cloth or crops in a field. These would have been constant reminders to God's people to not mix with the surrounding nations.

The prophets would become clearer and clearer on these points as God's holy people mixed with surrounding nations and even sought safety from those people God forbid them to approach (the Assyrians/Babylonians and Egyptians). In one of the stranger ironies of history, God allowed his people to be made captives and dispersed among a foreign people.

By focusing on one proof text (which doesn't even mention pants, by the way) people may escape the broader still-applicable question. Are we as the people of God holy and distinct from the surrounding enemies of the church? It's far easier for me to put on a skirt and declare I'm keeping the law than to examine the holiness of my heart, motives and actions.

Are there any more general principles from Deuteronomy 22? Sure protect your neighbors' property and safety and avoid confusing the general appearance of femininity and masculinity. Pants, by the way, would be an odd example because they were first adopted by cultures that fought on horseback or in areas where people needed to work outside and stay warm. None of these would have been true for the nation of Israel. Indeed, preparing for battle required securing the long tunics so the warriors could move without encumbrance. It's strange to try to make a command from a practice foreign to the people to whom this passage was originally written.

Reactions: Like 5 | Amen 1


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Oct 15, 2019)

Times have changed. Growing up you often heard the question, "Who wears the pants in your family?" If you asked that today you would be skewered and labeled for all to know you were a racist bigot, anti LGBTQ, or a hater of women. Those are the go to attacks from people whether they apply or not.

Reactions: Funny 3


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Oct 15, 2019)

As I understand Dt.22:5 (and here, we must pause and emphasize that _only the *general equity* of this command has any binding power on the NT Christian):
_
The prohibition is in two parts. In the first, the prohibition toward the woman (_ishah, _female) is that she shall not wear that which pertains to a _geber_, a term (noun) for a man derived from the Heb. verb: "to be strong." A related adjective, _gibbor,_ is frequently used substantively (i.e. as a noun) to denote _mighty man, _or _warrior. _Note, the word for man is not the simpler "male" (_ish_; the latter portion states that he, _geber,_ is prohibited from wearing a female's, _ishah_'s, garb).

The text itself (it seems to me) is pointing to a measure that is (for lack of a better way to put it) "culturally plain or obvious." It has already been pointed out that some everyday dress of ancient people was not that different, men or women (as still is the case in the Middle East; the _djellaba_ is worn by either sex). At one time, it may fairly be said that women in trousers was scandalous. Perhaps some folk may wish it was still that way, but it isn't that way. Though, perhaps in an insular group such as the Amish or the cult that was spoken of in the OP, they retain that peculiarity of dress.

It is no longer the case that pants are men's, and not women's. Women's pants are, generally speaking, not suitable for men, and vice versa. They don't fit, as a rule. But this points to what the v really teaches us in the form of general equity. This is a text that taught Israel that cross-dressing was unlawful; i.e. actually attempting to pass oneself off as a man (if a woman) or a woman (if a man). Women's pants today either say little to nothing about her sex (pants having become unisex), or else leave little doubt as to her sex.

A woman in slacks today is not typically attempting to show "manliness." I've seen Dt.22:5 used, improperly, as a kind of "prooftext" against women in the military. Maybe women don't belong in the military, but this text won't establish that by an appeal to the language. It isn't about whether a woman should have stood on the walls, wearing a helmet, buckler, and leather or mail (if she could don them; remember young David?) in a desperate attempt to keep the enemy out of the homes and businesses of an Israelite town. It's about transvestism.

Transvestism is _contrary to nature._ It is part and parcel of a refusal to accept one's nature (man or woman) as a given, as something God-determined. It evidences a want of submission to a reality bigger than the individual or collective human will. The same *spirit of confusion* has many manifestations all around us today. In a place and time where women wearing pants is most definitely a species of rebellion, a way to express hatred for norms and a perverse pleasure in offending (for the sake of offending), it should be opposed by all sensible people--believing or unbelieving--as grotesque. As evidence of rot which may spread to do more harm. But at this place and time it isn't.

The prohibition for the man is still something that has a strong and plain general equity component here in our western culture. A man in a dress (not a kilt, for special occasions) and/or lipstick, toting a purse, angrily insisting he should be called a woman is both ridiculous and nauseating [insert that Aussie video here]. Even unbelievers find it so. Nature resists tampering. Organic changes are more gradual, finding a stable course.

Dress is capable of evolving. The shifting of "style" is proof of it. We cannot take one particular norm, and force it on another society or another time. Christians should be sensible and sensitive, not simply conforming or non-conforming.

Reactions: Like 9 | Informative 1 | Edifying 3


----------



## Phil D. (Oct 15, 2019)

Thank you Rev. Buchanan for your insightful and substantive reply. I had been hoping you might weigh in...

Jean, I think you brought an excellent perspective as well - thank you

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jie-Huli (Oct 15, 2019)

Tom Hart said:


> And what of escalators and tall public staircases?



I don’t think these generally result in the same proximity (at the same angle) as a private staircase. Anyway, the dress length is naturally a factor as well. My broader point was that traditionally good manners and discretion have been the answers to most “difficulties”.

I appreciate the question was meant to make a point (and answering questions of detail always opens one up to ridicule), but surely the point is not one of women “needing” to wear trousers. Many women wear only dresses and do so without mishap, so that is not really the issue.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Phil D. (Oct 15, 2019)

Tom Hart said:


> What is the origin of trouser-wearing women and what bearing does that have on modern women's fashion? If it is proven, for instance, that women's trousers began a century ago as a radical feminist statement or perhaps even as cross-dressing, then does it follow that all women's trousers today are a mark of moral failure?



Just such a claim does appear to be an important basis for the FPCoS's position. While Rev. Buchanan's post dealt with that aspect of the question at least in the abstract, I wouldn't mind seeing this rationale hashed-out a bit more in this specific connection. I think various principles related to such a line of reasoning can also have implications in a number of other matters of Christian prudence.

PS: I really, REALLY don't want to turn this thread into a direct critique of the FPCoS itself...


----------



## Jie-Huli (Oct 15, 2019)

Tom Hart said:


> I have to chuckle a bit at this whole conversation. In ancient times nobody wore trousers. When the Romans encountered the northern barbarians with two separately legged garments... Well! That was just uncivilized! Little skirts above the knee were thought much more proper.



One thing I think this argument and some of the other arguments on here miss is that the cultural significance of dresses vs trousers in Western culture is not at all a dead historical topic. For example, the phrase “who wears the trousers in the family” has been mentioned - this phrase is still used (or at least people know what it means). People still recognise that dresses are distinctively feminine and for formal occasions it would be bad manners for a woman not to wear a dress. The Queen, for example, is never seen in trousers. Some of the women in this thread have said they wear dresses whenever they go to church. There is an implicit recognition of seemliness.

Traditionally (and still for the most part today) girls’ school uniforms entail skirts while boys’ uniforms entail shorts/trousers. The current increasing movement in the UK to change to unisex uniforms of trousers for all is very much (and explicitly) rooted in ideas of gender equivalence and accommodation of transgenderism.

So I think that to treat the choice of dresses vs. trousers as something as archaic as Roman togas is rather misguided.

There is certainly no question in my mind that the topic has relevance to the broader culture wars that are sadly very current.

That is not to condemn anyone or imply that people are intentionally supporting the ends of these culture wars. But it should be recognised that dress is indeed relevant to them.

I will say, anecdotally, that in my experience conservative reformed Christians in the UK generally hold to more traditional practices on this topic. It is not at all a cult position.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Jie-Huli (Oct 15, 2019)

Phil D. said:


> Just such a claim does appear to be an important basis for the FPCoS's position. While Rev. Buchanan's post dealt with that aspect of the question at least in the abstract, I wouldn't mind seeing this rationale hashed-out a bit more in this specific connection. I think various principles related to such a line of reasoning can also have implications in a number of other matters of Christian prudence.
> 
> PS: I really, REALLY don't want to turn this thread into a direct critique of the FPCoS itself...


 In brief, yes, historical context is relevant to meaning.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Phil D. (Oct 15, 2019)

Jie-Huli said:


> historical context is relevant to meaning.



Agreed. But more specifically:

- Does the position that the historical impetus behind women adopting pants in Western cultures was extreme women's liberation - with a specific event in 1933 cited as evidence - constitute a valid reason for saying that present-day Christians should not follow suite? Why or why not? 

- Does the fact that we are now several generations removed from such a possible genesis adequately alleviate any connection to that purpose, and so now make it alright? Why or why not? 

- What of the intervening generations of Christian women closer to the origins of the practice who may have begun wearing pants - were they necessarily partakers of that act of rebellion? - or as Grant has credibly suggested, is a principle matter here that of personal motive regardless of how society at large may perceive it?​

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Miller (Oct 15, 2019)

As long as they aren't THE pants


----------



## Jie-Huli (Oct 15, 2019)

Phil D. said:


> Agreed. But more specifically:
> 
> - Does the position that the historical impetus behind women adopting pants in Western cultures was extreme women's liberation - with a specific event in 1933 cited as evidence - constitute a valid reason for saying that present-day Christians should not follow suite? Why or why not?
> 
> ...


I do understand the point you are trying to make. You are positing (I believe) that there is nothing inherently masculine about trousers, that this is purely cultural; and so whether or not women should wear them is governed by whether the current culture regards them as distinctively masculine. I.e. the living out of the requirement for women not to wear that which appertains to men will be determined by what the culture at large deems to appertain distinctively to men. And, granting for the sake of argument that the original motives for donning trousers were based on feministic principles, you essentially pose the question of how much time must pass before that becomes irrelevant and the only real question is how the current culture regards the wearing of trousers. Is that a fair restatement of the line of thought?

Without commenting on all of these premises, I would say there is one thing which cuts through all of this in any event, and that is that current Western culture is not really as removed from the implications of trousers being a distinctive as is supposed.

As just one significant example, there are, today, serious movements to ban girls from wearing skirts/dresses at some schools precisely because they DO create a distinction between the sexes - which is regarded as verboten. (And, no, there is no significant difference between the uniform trousers for boys and those being proposed for girls). I do not know how this can be squared with the proposition that trousers have no cultural significance.

If trousers are not regarded by the proponents of this as “masculine”, they are certainly regarded as unisex. So in either event, the distinction between the sexes is being obscured, if not lost.

What is being missed in this debate is the positive case for maintaining the traditional demarcation of the sexes in our culture in the first place. Inherent in the command for men and women not to dress like each other is the idea that there is a difference in dress to begin with; the clearer the difference, the better. If trousers lose the connotation of masculinity in our culture, that is already a cultural loss, from the Biblical perspective, as it is one more step in blurring the lines. That is a matter that merits special concern and caution given all of the ungodly movements currently afoot in the culture.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1


----------



## Tom Hart (Oct 15, 2019)

Jie-Huli said:


> I don’t think these generally result in the same proximity (at the same angle) as a private staircase.


Try an escalator in a Korean department store, or the stairs at Seoul Station.


Jie-Huli said:


> Anyway, the dress length is naturally a factor as well.


Very true. I'm quite conservative in my view of appropriate skirt length.


Jie-Huli said:


> My broader point was that traditionally good manners and discretion have been the answers to most “difficulties”.
> 
> I appreciate the question was meant to make a point (and answering questions of detail always opens one up to ridicule), but surely the point is not one of women “needing” to wear trousers. Many women wear only dresses and do so without mishap, so that is not really the issue.


I just think it's unhelpful discuss who should go first or second on the stairs. Maybe it'd work in a private context, but not in many public ones. I think you solved the problem easily enough, though, when you addressed skirt length.


----------



## Tom Hart (Oct 15, 2019)

Jie-Huli said:


> One thing I think this argument and some of the other arguments on here miss is that the cultural significance of dresses vs trousers in Western culture is not at all a dead historical topic. For example, the phrase “who wears the trousers in the family” has been mentioned - this phrase is still used (or at least people know what it means). People still recognise that dresses are distinctively feminine and for formal occasions it would be bad manners for a woman not to wear a dress. The Queen, for example, is never seen in trousers. Some of the women in this thread have said they wear dresses whenever they go to church. There is an implicit recognition of seemliness.


These are important observations on the culture. Yes, still dresses are regarded as feminine. But that is not yet an argument against trousers.


Jie-Huli said:


> Traditionally (and still for the most part today) girls’ school uniforms entail skirts while boys’ uniforms entail shorts/trousers. The current increasing movement in the UK to change to unisex uniforms of trousers for all is very much (and explicitly) rooted in ideas of gender equivalence and accommodation of transgenderism.


This is obviously very disturbing. But the way trousers are used by some leftist radicals does not make trousers themselves improper for women. I could use a spoon to kill a man. It does not follow that a spoon is necessarily a weapon.


Jie-Huli said:


> So I think that to treat the choice of dresses vs. trousers as something as archaic as Roman togas is rather misguided.


I had in mind rather the dress of plebeian men, or of Roman soldiers, since the long toga was reserved for the upper classes.

The point was that diffeeent cultures bave different standards of what constitutes appropriate dress for male and females. It had not been shown here (as far as I have seen) that trousers for women is necessarily a violation of such standards.


Jie-Huli said:


> There is certainly no question in my mind that the topic has relevance to the broader culture wars that are sadly very current.


Yes. It is arguable that women's trousers started out as a sort of cultural rebellion, and that they're by some being used in a similar way again. But, again, I don't see that all feminine trousers are inappropriate.


Jie-Huli said:


> That is not to condemn anyone or imply that people are intentionally supporting the ends of these culture wars. But it should be recognised that dress is indeed relevant to them.


Relevant to the current culture wars, yes, but is dress essentially bound up in them?


Jie-Huli said:


> I will say, anecdotally, that in my experience conservative reformed Christians in the UK generally hold to more traditional practices on this topic. It is not at all a cult position


This is good to hear. One thing that bothers me around here is how loosely Korean Christian women dress, even coming to church in short skirts and shorts, bare legs exposed to everyone. I remember it was bad in Canada, too, but I wasn't paying as much attention then.

There are a lot of well-dressed cult members propagating their heresies on the street here. They're usually very nicely dressed. I often say to my wife that one thing I appreciate about the JWs is that the women are dressed modestly. The same cannot be said of professing Christians.

I will add that I have always found dresses and skirts more attractive on women, but since becoming Reformed I've taken more of a liking to them. I encourage my wife to buy dresses and wear them.


----------



## B.L. (Oct 15, 2019)

Some dear friends of my wife and I hold the view that pants are not fitting attire for women (no pun intended). They are a large family with nine children; five of whom are girls and all the women in the family wear skirts and dresses in public and when hosting guests at their home. I've never inquired as to the reasoning for this, but I know the wife came out of a fundamentalist baptist background in the deep south where I believe this was the norm for her growing up.

Personally, I respect the decision my friends have made. In a culture that ditched the word "modesty" from its vocabulary long ago and in a time when we've tossed our young boys and girls into a giant gender blender I can appreciate attempts to differentiate between male and female dress.

May Christian women wear pants? ABSOLUTELY. However, I'd love to see dresses and long skirts make a comeback!

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## OPC'n (Oct 15, 2019)

Thank you, Rev Buchanan, and case closed.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Andrew35 (Oct 15, 2019)

If there _were_ something essentially masculine about pants, then it would follow that Scotsmen were more effeminate than their trousers-sporting English neighbors.

Anyone care to argue that?


----------



## OPC'n (Oct 15, 2019)

Andrew35 said:


> If there _were_ something essentially masculine about pants, then it would follow that Scotsmen were more effeminate than their trousers-sporting English neighbors.
> 
> Anyone care to argue that?



and yet Scotsmen seem more masculine in movies...


----------



## Tom Hart (Oct 15, 2019)

Andrew35 said:


> something essentially masculine about pants


This is precisely what needs to be shown, but cannot be.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## VictorBravo (Oct 15, 2019)

Bah. If you let a woman wear pants, next thing you know she'll want to go fishing.







I remember my demur and modest grandmother putting on insulated coveralls to feed calves in -40F Montana winters. Sometimes circumstances trump convention.

They were men's coveralls, by the way. Nobody made insulated coveralls for women in the 30s when my puritanical and practical grandfather bought them for her.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## nickipicki123 (Oct 16, 2019)

This is one of those things that gets my OCD going.... I'm looking forward to being forced to wear scrubs when I start working so that I don't have to work about things like this

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Jie-Huli (Oct 16, 2019)

I will only reiterate that, in order for what I will call the “traditional” view to hold weight, it is not necessary to prove that trousers are intrinsically masculine.

All that is necessary is to show that:

- the Bible contemplates a distinction of the sexes in the matter of dress;

- dresses vs trousers are a traditional marker of distinction of the sexes in Western culture; and

- in making trousers “unisex”, a clear and bright line distinction between the sexes is lost.

If there were a society where everyone dressed in identical brown sackcloths, it would obviously be impossible to “cross-dress” per se, as the sackcloth would be neither distinctively masculine nor feminine. But Scriptural order would still not be observed, because of the lack of distinction between the sexes.

I shall probably let my argument rest there, as I do not wish to labour the point. I do commend the article that was linked in the opening post, as it establishes the case better and more methodically than I have done.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## My Pilgrim Way (Oct 16, 2019)

Jie-Huli said:


> (No disrespect intended towards any ladies who have posted here).
> 
> It would be difficult to deny that 100 years ago (actually less) one would never see women in trousers. Obviously something has changed since that time. It is useful to ask what the primary catalysts for this change were.


For those interested, here is an informative booklet that was actually written for men rather than women. It gives insight into the fashion industry. I think it's good to at least consider these things whether or not someone fully agrees with it.

For the record, modesty is much more than how one dresses and men can be just as immodest with their tight shirts and skinny jeans.

The booklet can be downloaded as a PDF.

http://www.chapellibrary.org/book/cmod/christian-modesty-pollardjeff

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Oct 16, 2019)

Jie-Huli said:


> I will only reiterate that, in order for what I will call the “traditional” view to hold weight, it is not necessary to prove that trousers are intrinsically masculine.
> 
> All that is necessary is to show that:
> 
> ...


I appreciate the points you’ve made and the way you’ve made them. Christians should think seriously about modest, appropriate dress and what changes we may need to make. At work or in some school situations unisex clothing may be required, but women should give some thought as to how to dress distinctively as a woman at other times (again, when not milking cows in -40 degree weather or fishing).  Even if it doesn’t involve switching entirely to dresses and skirts. I’m certainly reviewing my own habits of dress again, as I think there are age-related issues of modest dress as well.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Phil D. (Oct 16, 2019)

Jie-Huli, I've really appreciated much of what you've had to say here, as well as your winsome demeanor. Allow me to state a few of my own thoughts:

- I think there are simply too many subjective factors involved to say that Scripture categorically forbids women wearing pants. As such it can't be inherently sinful, and to strictly insist otherwise becomes legalistic. I've definitely experienced just such an environment.​
- With respect to societal perceptions, I think the association of pants with men and authority has largely faded into more of a metaphorical abstract (..."who wears the pants"... bathroom/wc signage...) rather than there being a literal or even conscious connection in current Western cultures. I don't think it's necessary or realistic that every lingering perception a given society may have ever associated with something must be completely gone (which would be impossible to determine anyway) before Christians can "accept" or participate in them. An admittedly limited comparison might be something like using the normal names of days and months despite their utterly pagan origins.

- Your point about maintaining a clear distinction between the sexes is absolutely valid and well-taken. Yet I believe that with care this can be accomplished apart from a strict demarcation based on wearing pants. Having said that, I think Christians should be more conscientious about this clear biblical precept than they often seem to be when choosing their attire.

- I do think personal motives and comprehension are considerable factors in debatable matters such as dress (cf. John 9:41; John 15:22; James 4:17)

- I think taking a conservative, deferential approach vs. simply claiming Christian liberty in this area is highly commendable and even virtuous (cf. Rom. 14:13, 19, 21; 1 Cor. 6:12; 1 Cor. 10:23).

- It is my personal opinion that the issue of modest dress is largely neglected in too many evangelical and even Reformed churches. Not that I think a pastor should get up and say "don't wear a, b or c ", or "you must wear x, y and z". But, especially in today's debased culture, I think it would be very good and useful if being conscious, considerate and careful about maintaining modesty and sexual differentiation in our dress - with regard to both men and women - were made an ongoing topic in pastoral exhortations of the saints.


EDIT: In retrospect it was inappropriate for me to put Jie-Huli in the spotlight the way I did in the original version of this post, so I have removed a question I posed. My motive was out of respect for his perceptive interaction here, but to single him out with such a direct question was not prudent. Without further comment, and though they were intended to be complimentary, I have also edited out some remarks I made concerning his church affiliation. I apologize for these things, brother.​

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## My Pilgrim Way (Oct 16, 2019)

Jeri Tanner said:


> I appreciate the points you’ve made and the way you’ve made them. Christians should think seriously about modest, appropriate dress and what changes we may need to make. At work or in some school situations unisex clothing may be required, but women should give some thought as to how to dress distinctively as a woman at other times (again, when not milking cows in -40 degree weather or fishing).  Even if it doesn’t involve switching entirely to dresses and skirts. I’m certainly reviewing my own habits of dress again, as I think there are age-related issues of modest dress as well.


I agree, and this should be a topic we revisit often - always reforming in necessary.

I see a lot of androgynous clothing/appearance in the church.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jie-Huli (Oct 16, 2019)

Phil D. said:


> EDIT: In retrospect it was inappropriate for me to put Jie-Huli in the spotlight the way I did in the original version of this post, so I have removed a question I posed. My motive was out of respect for his perceptive interaction here, but to single him out with such a direct question was not prudent. Without further comment, and though they were intended to be complimentary, I have also edited out some remarks I made concerning his church affiliation. I apologize for these things, brother.​



Thank you for your interaction. No offence was taken. Although I should perhaps note that right now I am not primarily attending the church you mentioned in your prior post before deleting, and my views do not necessarily speak for that church. (I think some there would agree and some not.)

It has been a while since I have contributed here, and there may be some outdated biographical information somewhere that I can’t see.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## OPC'n (Oct 16, 2019)

I will never ever wear a skirt I’ll wear a dress if I feel like it but I will always wear pants. I think I’ll get buried in pants if I’m not cremated


----------



## Smeagol (Oct 16, 2019)

OPC'n said:


> I think I’ll get buried in pants if I’m not cremated


Well that would certainly be a strange funeral. Here lies Sarah

Reactions: Funny 9


----------



## Jie-Huli (Oct 16, 2019)

My Pilgrim Way said:


> For those interested, here is an informative booklet that was actually written for men rather than women. It gives insight into the fashion industry. I think it's good to at least consider these things whether or not someone fully agrees with it.
> 
> For the record, modesty is much more than how one dresses and men can be just as immodest with their tight shirts and skinny jeans.
> 
> ...



Indeed, the topic at hand was women’s dress, but if the topic were men’s dress these days I might have a few things to say too . . .

Reactions: Amen 3


----------



## OPC'n (Oct 16, 2019)

Grant Jones said:


> Well that would certainly be a strange funeral. Here lies Sarah
> View attachment 6334


Haha that was funny


----------



## Knecht Christi (Oct 19, 2019)

It seems to me that many, if not all of the comments on this thread are assuming a critical matter: Cultural Relativism.

Cultural Relativism (how I am defining it here) teaches that moral principles though objective in the abstract, have no objective practice and must find their appropriate cultural expression.

An example of this ideology (which stems from Modernism) is its interpreting the Scripture to say that modesty, though commanded, is defined by the culture. Thus as a culture is desensitized to certain forms of dress, they meet the standard of modesty. So in an island culture, where bikinis are the accepted norm, those who hold to cultural relativism, to be consistent, must say that Christian women are permitted to wear these things. This also applies to nudist/topless cultures, thus by reductio ad absurdum, we cannot accept this.

The Scriptures teach that modesty is, like all moral truths, objective in its application. Just because a culture has adopted some form of immodest dress (cleavage in the victorian era for example), does not make that less sinful once it no longer becomes shocking, or even becomes an acceptable norm. In fact, one of the reasons why these styles tend to change is that, in order to be provocative, various forms of immodesty must be rotated to ensure their effectiveness after men are desensitized.

The Scriptures and the light of nature (e.g. what shows off the body vs frames the face, causes arrousal, etc.) provide plenty enough instruction on these things to know what modest dress is. (Genesis 24:65, Deuteronomy 22:5, Proverbs 7:10, 2nd Samuel 1, 1st Timothy 2:9, 1st Peter 3:3-4). 

Should Christian women wear pants?

No.
1. They are immodest showing off the legs and the buttocks
2. They are very much men's clothing, and historical distance or assimilation of this evil does not make it OK.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/wome...ation_l_5c7ec7f7e4b0e62f69e729ec?guccounter=1
Read the above article (and read the history for yourself) for how our culture sees pants today, they still know.

The biblical approach necessitates Christians dressing in a way that will be set apart from the godless culture around them, rather than following two steps behind a culture that descends further into lascivious obscenity. But is not what a people set apart are called to? Historically, Christians have understood this (Tertullian, John Chrysostom, Ambrose, Calvin, etc.)

"Luxurious clothing that cannot conceal the shape of the body is no more a covering. For such clothing, falling close to the body, takes its form more easily. Clinging to the body as though it were the flesh, it receives its shape and outlines the woman’s figure. As a result, the whole make of the body is visible to spectators, although they cannot see the body itself." - Clement of Alexandria 2.265

For further reading, I would highly recommend the book The Myth of Sexual Equality, by Howard Douglas King. It is nuanced and clear in its exegesis, and careful in its critique. It addresses the subjects of modernism, cultural relativism, and modesty very well. https://www.amazon.com/Myth-Sexual-Equality-Howard-Douglas/dp/1591607205

To those who say: "We cannot take one particular norm, and force it on another society or another time. Christians should be sensible and sensitive, not simply conforming or non-conforming." 

Cannot a culture have sin? Would any of us be comfortable applying this idea consistently? Is morality bound in culture and time, if biology and Scripture do not change?

Scripture answers:
"I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service. And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God."

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Edward (Oct 19, 2019)

VictorBravo said:


> If you let a woman wear pants, next thing you know she'll want to go fishing.



I'm sure some hyper-Calvinists would be happy to point out that in EVERY reference to fishers in the New Testament, those catching the fish are male. 

On the other hand, her head is covered....


----------



## Tom Hart (Oct 19, 2019)

I move that this thread be closed for the Lord's Day.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Regi Addictissimus (Oct 19, 2019)

Tom Hart said:


> I move that this thread be closed for the Lord's Day.



I second that notion.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Oct 19, 2019)

Reformed Bookworm said:


> I second that notion.


Contact a moderator Monday to reopen. Go by PST.


----------



## VictorBravo (Oct 19, 2019)

Edward said:


> I'm sure some hyper-Calvinists would be happy to point out that in EVERY reference to fishers in the New Testament, those catching the fish are male.



Point duly noted...but rejected by the fisher-woman on the grounds that none of them used fly rods or even a spinning rig like she sometimes does.



> On the other hand, her head is covered....



Yes. She has head coverings for all occasions, including when our place of worship is cold (which often happens from the summer A/C).


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Oct 19, 2019)

No one has advocated, or even hinted at, cultural relativism. Admitting there are cultural variables in play is not abandoning morality or biblical principles. Ethics is a challenging field of application for moral standards, precisely because of the interplay between the fixity of human nature and ordinary fluctuations of human societies. We reject "situational ethics," but we admit the ethics of biblical wisdom. It is appropriate to answer the fool according to his folly, and appropriate to not answer him according to his folly, Prv.26:4-5.

Modesty is a principle, not a six inch ruler, to measure the minimum length of a woman's skirt (to the knee? to the floor?). The Bible isn't the K'ran, with expectations that those who respect it will live as if time stands still in the 1st century A.D. Respect/Love for others, not wishing to cause any to sin (as opposed to just not angering or offending someone) is the timeless, unchanging motive guiding us in the way we dress.

For every limit that is applied as a moral/legal norm, someone will think it's too little. Someone will fetishize the hand, the wrist, the ankle, the face or the neck if that alone is the "exposed skin." He or she will give imagination full vent, based on seeing whatever is accessible. The logical end of an ostensibly objective "remove every temptation" approach is the body-bag burka, with a net face-mask. And notice it's always the women, too, who are commanded to pay the price, far more than men.

Peter was out in his boat, making a living, _naked _in public (Jn.21:7), O my, the vapours. Time and place? Well then, there goes the objectivity of application because of manifold variables. Work, OK; but not the Games? Only men should watch the Male (only) Olympics? No sports for women? Know their role, and all that? What about hmsx temptations for somebody, despite what someone wears, or doesn't wear?

Clement probably was a valued ancient ethicist in his day. So were the reformers in theirs. So have been dutiful Christian pastors in every age including the present time. But in the USA in the 21st century (unlike Clement's Alexandria) men don't dress in tunics and togas; yet both sexes (still!) tend to wear certain distinctive clothing. Oops, _distinctiveness _itself could be a sinful prompting; voila, here's an argument for shapeless, unisex garb for everyone.

That is not the way Jesus and the Apostles give us instruction. Here's what the Bible says: Self control. Modesty. Love your neighbor. Human relationships are negotiations; when they come down to merely a bunch of rules of conduct, we've given up on actually living with one another in an endless series of informal accommodations of other people's preferences and weaknesses.

We need some rules. We need some structure, or else again--this time from the other direction--we're no longer living with one another, but living in a state of anarchy, of war and strength. Why would a Christian today wish to resurrect a rule concerning who can wear pants, or first define what "pants" are, and impose it on everyone all the time? Is there a current moral crisis involving pants-wearers?

Pants as basically a unisex item of clothing is a _given _in our social context. It is how things ARE; and unless one can marshal a careful argument from Scripture that WE NEED A RULE and believing women ought--they have a duty--to shun and repudiate pants as anti-Christian; so that churches everywhere declare, "we have no other custom" (1Cor.11:16) since the apostles... but there is no such apostolic teaching.

We've already encountered somewhere in this thread the "town mouse and the country mouse" realities that prove, regardless of the era, that universal standards of dress don't even work within a national compass of a single generation. Then, there are the variable clothing demands of those who live spread across the world's vastly different climates.

I live with farmers, men and women, and they all wear pants. And in the winter, they all wear insulated coveralls. I think the women are happy they don't feel obligated to put a fake frock on over their Carhartts. The same folk dress up in sex-appropriate suits and dresses fit for other occasions.

There is flaunting one's sex, and there is accepting oneself without shame. Jacob loved Rachel, who was "beautiful of form and appearance," Gen.29:17. How did he know her "form" unless her dress gave clues to it? Was he wrong in being attracted to her? There isn't a hint of that in the text. He was acting like a normal man, interested in marriage, while keeping in bounds. She might not have passed Clement's disapproving eye, but who cares?

Inordinate admiration of another human form is that which passes bounds, and becomes sin; as much as exhibitionism is sin. And that is as much as we can say, except for passing ordinances (when it is in our power) that set reasonable rules and limits in places such as home, school, work, church, etc. Those are "house rules," and house rules vary. We have to handle ourselves under the authority others possess, either exercising self-control or removing ourselves from temptation.

Reactions: Like 4 | Amen 3


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Oct 22, 2019)

Thread reopened for posting.


----------



## ZackF (Oct 22, 2019)

I suppose if they fit.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Ed Walsh (Oct 23, 2019)

Phil D. said:


> They go so far as to say that, based on that particular scripture, it is a violation of the Fifth and Seventh Commandments for a woman to wear pants. That's pretty serious stuff and in my opinion deserves a studious reply one way or the other.



Some have discussed the motive behind whatever you wear, but I don't think we've touched on the eye of the beholder. For me, as I always tell my beautiful wife, I think she and many women look a lot sexier in a dress than in pants. So much for dressing modestly by insisting on women dressing in only dresses.

I know the following passage is dripping with symbolism, but let's take a quick note how God dresses the woman and future bride He found abandoned in Ezekiel, chapter 16.

Ezekiel 16:8‭-‬14 ESV
"When I passed by you again and saw you, behold, you were at the age for love, and I spread the corner of my garment over you and covered your nakedness; I made my vow to you and entered into a covenant with you, declares the Lord God, and you became mine. Then I bathed you with water and washed off your blood from you and anointed you with oil. I clothed you also with embroidered cloth and shod you with fine leather. I wrapped you in fine linen and covered you with silk. And I adorned you with ornaments and put bracelets on your wrists and a chain on your neck. And I put a ring on your nose and earrings in your ears and a beautiful crown on your head. Thus you were adorned with gold and silver, and your clothing was of fine linen and silk and embroidered cloth. You ate fine flour and honey and oil. You grew exceedingly beautiful and advanced to royalty. And your renown went forth among the nations because of your beauty, for it was perfect through the splendor that I had bestowed on you, declares the Lord God.

To me, passages like this, and there are others, help to explain passages like the standard--let's not look too good girls--passage in 1st Peter 3. I think this is often a misunderstood verse when it comes to the appearance of women and wives in particular. Here are the verses:

1 Peter 3:2‭-‬5 [CSB]
"when they observe your pure, reverent lives. Don’t let your beauty consist of outward things like elaborate hairstyles and wearing gold jewelry or fine clothes, but rather what is inside the heart  — the imperishable quality of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God’s sight. For in the past, the holy women who put their hope in God also adorned themselves in this way, submitting to their own husbands,"

Take note that the verse says not to allow your outward appearance to be the end-all or your beauty. Note what it does not say. It does not say not to wear beautiful clothes, jewelry, or attractive hairstyles. In a way, the verse presupposes that women will try to look attractive, particularly for their husbands. It just teaches that that is not the important thing.

I have never thought that this was a dress down command for women. It is speaking mostly to heart matters. Don't let your appearance be a big deal in your life. It is in your godly Christian heart where your true beauty resides before God and your husband. But I don't think the 1st Peter 3 verse teaches at all that women are not to wear gold jewelry or fine apparel or if your culture dictates a lovely nose ring. But know this: "Charm is deceptive, and beauty is fleeting; but a woman who fears the Lord is to be praised." (Proverbs 31:30 NIV)

=======
Dictated to my tablet so pardon typos that slip through.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## arapahoepark (Oct 23, 2019)

Better pants than these new shorts ...

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Minh (Oct 23, 2019)

arapahoepark said:


> Better pants than these new shorts ...


I agree with it fully. I don't want to regulate women apparels here. While we should decide which clothing is appropriate for our genders depending on the cultural context, modesty means we should not dress so luxurious or sensually as you note.


----------



## Knecht Christi (Oct 23, 2019)

Contra_Mundum said:


> No one has advocated, or even hinted at, cultural relativism. Admitting there are cultural variables in play is not abandoning morality or biblical principles.



I didn't say people were abandoning the principles, that is moral relativism.

You very clearly ignored my definition:

"Cultural Relativism (how I am defining it here) teaches that moral principles though objective in the abstract, have no objective practice and must find their appropriate cultural expression."

No one even hinted at the fact that modesty (a moral principle) is subjected to culture? Multiple commenters outright asserted this.

Quoting here regarding modesty (a moral, biblical command):

"You'll get different standards in different parts of the world"

"It depends on the cultural context you live in."

"Times have changed"

"[Modesty is that which is] culturally plain or obvious."

"It is no longer the case that..."

"But at this place and time it isn't."

"Clement was probably a valued ethicist in his day" (ethics is moral, this is assuming that ethics is relative to culture, at least in applying modesty)

"Dress is capable of evolving. The shifting of "style" is proof of it." (referring not only to mode, but to standards of modesty)

"We cannot take one particular norm, and force it on another society or another time. Christians should be sensible and sensitive, not simply conforming or non-conforming."

The final quotation, is asserting that what people wear regarding modesty, is subject (hence subjective) to culture and time. This an assertion of precisely what I defined cultural relativism.

I know some may not like the term, but this is no grounds to redefine it and then plead innocent.





Contra_Mundum said:


> Ethics is a challenging field of application for moral standards, precisely because of the interplay between the fixity of human nature and ordinary fluctuations of human societies. We reject "situational ethics," but we admit the ethics of biblical wisdom. It is appropriate to answer the fool according to his folly, and appropriate to not answer him according to his folly, Prv.26:4-5.



I heartily agree that wisdom is needed, but this passage says nothing about ethics being subjective to culture.



Contra_Mundum said:


> Modesty is a principle, not a six inch ruler, to measure the minimum length of a woman's skirt (to the knee? to the floor?). The Bible isn't the K'ran, with expectations that those who respect it will live as if time stands still in the 1st century A.D. Respect/Love for others, not wishing to cause any to sin (as opposed to just not angering or offending someone) is the timeless, unchanging motive guiding us in the way we dress.



Would you use this logic for other commandments of God? Modesty is based off of Scripture and biology, not whatever culture approves of (most certainly a lascivious one such as ours.

Furthermore, the lack of an exact dress code in the Bible is not the freedom to dress however culture approves. Scripture says far more regarding the specifics of modesty than people are willing to admit. For example, describing the humiliation of the daughter of Babylon as “making bare the leg and uncovering the thigh" (Isaiah 47). 

It is also logically fallacious to say that because the application of a principle is unclear, we don't apply it as best we can. The 6th and 7th commandments, for example, require diligent and wise application, this shouldn't make us less zealous for them though, or shy away from very specific application. It is this mentality that has caused many preachers to stop saying anything meaningful by way of application to modesty.



Contra_Mundum said:


> For every limit that is applied as a moral/legal norm, someone will think it's too little. Someone will fetishize the hand, the wrist, the ankle, the face or the neck if that alone is the "exposed skin." He or she will give imagination full vent, based on seeing whatever is accessible. The logical end of an ostensibly objective "remove every temptation" approach is the body-bag burka, with a net face-mask. And notice it's always the women, too, who are commanded to pay the price, far more than men.



This is the slippery slope fallacy. Again, we would never apply this logic to other commandments. "People disagree on what is too much on the sabbath, so lets just jettison that...". The Bible gives us far more boundaries (on both sides) than you are giving it credit for. Women clearly did not wear burkas (their faces were clearly seen). The logical conclusion of rejecting cultural relativism and observing the sufficiency of Scripture in modesty is a return to the Biblical standard, long, flowy dresses with a veil (covering the head), not a burka. 

Furthermore, the emphasis of Scripture on modesty is on women, thus is ours today.




Contra_Mundum said:


> Peter was out in his boat, making a living, _naked _in public (Jn.21:7), O my, the vapours. Time and place? Well then, there goes the objectivity of application because of manifold variables. Work, OK; but not the Games? Only men should watch the Male (only) Olympics? No sports for women? Know their role, and all that? What about hmsx temptations for somebody, despite what someone wears, or doesn't wear?



I, along with nearly everyone in this thread, are referring to mixed company. 

And no. Sports, work, or any other circumstance, is no reason for a godly women to expose herself to men.

It is hard to even take this point about Peter seriously. Peter was clearly not nude.

I will quote Christian Modesty: The Public Undressing of America here:

"Thomas Boston observed that “the Hebrews call him naked who hath cast off his upper garment.” So, probably, is the meaning in John 21:7—“Peter was wearing only the chiton.” Peter was not sinfully naked in the context of his work: as a fisherman he was laboring among men away from shore, not publicly socializing in a mixed gathering. Nevertheless, he obviously saw a difference between working in his boat and being on shore in the presence of His Lord, because he covered himself and then swam to Christ. Why? Because he was “naked.” So then, according to Scripture, one doesn’t have to be stark naked to be shamefully naked. Gumnos means “naked, stripped bare; and without an outer garment, without which a decent person did not appear in public.” This second kind of nakedness not only applies to Peter in John 21, but to the prophet Isaiah and King Saul. Peter’s undergarment actually covered more of his body than would most modern shorts or swimwear for men! Though this was not necessarily sinful, it was associated with public shame as Arndt-Gingrich’s definition implies. A decent person did not appear in public this way. This is why Peter put on his outer garment before swimming to shore and why Isaiah was a sign of shame, disgrace, and Judgment to Egypt and Cush. The same could be said for the humiliation of the “Virgin daughter of Babylon” (Isa 47:1-3) in her “making bare the leg and uncovering the thigh.” Isaiah’s “nakedness” would not even be noticed at your average Christian retreat today. Making bare the leg and uncovering the thigh are not only viewed as “normal” practice today, they are considered one’s liberty."

Homosexual temptations are not taken into account by the principles of modesty, generally speaking. Modesty is obviously different when not in mixed company (slave girls helped their women get dressed, etc.).



Contra_Mundum said:


> Clement probably was a valued ancient ethicist in his day. So were the reformers in theirs. So have been dutiful Christian pastors in every age including the present time. But in the USA in the 21st century (unlike Clement's Alexandria) men don't dress in tunics and togas; yet both sexes (still!) tend to wear certain distinctive clothing. Oops, _distinctiveness _itself could be a sinful prompting; voila, here's an argument for shapeless, unisex garb for everyone. That is not the way Jesus and the Apostles give us instruction. Here's what the Bible says: Self control. Modesty. Love your neighbor. Human relationships are negotiations; when they come down to merely a bunch of rules of conduct, we've given up on actually living with one another in an endless series of informal accommodations of other people's preferences and weaknesses.



The Bible commands distinctiveness in dress, so this is no argument. You seem to be attacking a straw man of "if anything offends anyone it is immodest". That is not my position, and I think I have been clear about that. I believe that the Scripture is sufficient to instruct us on these matters, and that modesty is not subject to culture, I am not referring to MODE of dress. To say that in other words, it is always immodest for a women to expose her thigh in public (Isaiah 47), that doesn't mean she must wear a toga or robe (dresses are a perfectly modest MODE of clothing). Modes of clothing can be subject to culture, the Church's judgment of whether they are modest or not should not be subject to culture.




Contra_Mundum said:


> We need some rules. We need some structure, or else again--this time from the other direction--we're no longer living with one another, but living in a state of anarchy, of war and strength. Why would a Christian today wish to resurrect a rule concerning who can wear pants, or first define what "pants" are, and impose it on everyone all the time? Is there a current moral crisis involving pants-wearers?
> 
> Pants as basically a unisex item of clothing is a _given _in our social context. It is how things ARE; and unless one can marshal a careful argument from Scripture that WE NEED A RULE and believing women ought--they have a duty--to shun and repudiate pants as anti-Christian; so that churches everywhere declare, "we have no other custom" (1Cor.11:16) since the apostles... but there is no such apostolic teaching.



Yes, the moral crisis is that pants are grossly immodest, and that they are still bowing to the feminists that to this day delight in this fact. (Read the article in my original post for the world's current perspective on the matter. They do not deny that they were meant to eliminate distinctions between the sexes, they celebrate it. Just as Lady Gaga stated in why she wears pants.



Contra_Mundum said:


> We've already encountered somewhere in this thread the "town mouse and the country mouse" realities that prove, regardless of the era, that universal standards of dress don't even work within a national compass of a single generation. Then, there are the variable clothing demands of those who live spread across the world's vastly different climates.
> 
> I live with farmers, men and women, and they all wear pants. And in the winter, they all wear insulated coveralls. I think the women are happy they don't feel obligated to put a fake frock on over their Carhartts. The same folk dress up in sex-appropriate suits and dresses fit for other occasions.



As someone who comes from a family of farmers, this is ridiculous. Women lived on farms for millenia without wearing pants, and dressed modestly. Modesty applies equally when one appears in mixed company, anywhere.



Contra_Mundum said:


> There is flaunting one's sex, and there is accepting oneself without shame. Jacob loved Rachel, who was "beautiful of form and appearance," Gen.29:17. How did he know her "form" unless her dress gave clues to it? Was he wrong in being attracted to her? There isn't a hint of that in the text. He was acting like a normal man, interested in marriage, while keeping in bounds. She might not have passed Clement's disapproving eye, but who cares?



Are you really suggesting a woman must be dressed revealingly for a man to recognize her beauty? (You also can't use the cultural argument here because that was a biblical culture). I for one, know I can recognize a woman's beauty even when she is dressed modestly.



Contra_Mundum said:


> Inordinate admiration of another human form is that which passes bounds, and becomes sin; as much as exhibitionism is sin. And that is as much as we can say, except for passing ordinances (when it is in our power) that set reasonable rules and limits in places such as home, school, work, church, etc. Those are "house rules," and house rules vary. We have to handle ourselves under the authority others possess, either exercising self-control or removing ourselves from temptation.



What house rules do you have in mind? It seems your own argumentation would eliminate any such rule-making? The society we live in is a very debaucherous one. We cannot use their accepting of something as a grounds for God's approval.

We desperately need purity in a time such as this.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------

