May Christian women wear pants?

[Phil D.]

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.

 

[Ryan J. Ross]

Yes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Grant]

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

 

[NaphtaliPress]

May rather than Should for the subject line question?

 

[Phil D.]

May rather than Should for the subject line question?

Yes, thank you Chris.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Yes, thank you Chris.

I changed it.

 

[TylerRay]

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.

 

[Ryan J. Ross]

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]

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

 

[Grant]

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.

 

[Ryan J. Ross]

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

 

[Ryan J. Ross]

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

 

[Grant]

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

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]

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.

 

[bookslover]

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.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

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

 

[Pergamum]

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.

 

[ZackF]

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.

 

[Tom Hart]

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.

 

[jwithnell]

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

 

[Minh]

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).

 

[StephenMartyr]

First plants now pants!!?!!!

 

[bookslover]

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.

 

[OPC'n]

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

 

[Phil D.]

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.

 

[OPC'n]

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]

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.

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.

 

[Elizabeth]

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]

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]

(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.