Deuteronomy 22:5

[JerryNumbers]

While this prOBably won't happen in our lifetimes and for another couple of generations after us, it could be possible that our society would accept skirts for men. They wouldn't be called skirts, of course; prOBably something like "kilts" maybe. Look at how modesty standards have changed over the last 100 years, even among IFB folks.

What if you were conducting services in the Scottish highlands? The formal attire could be kilts for men. Now, they would prOBably defer to your sensitivities and not force you to wear a kilt, but your messages from God might have more impact if you deferred to their culture.

So it would be OK to do that which is sin, that is if good comes out of it?

That is the very thing many churches are doing right now, and at this point its just a matter of how far they will take it. Of course we know some have carried it so far as to accept homosexuality, even in pastors.

Ac 5:29 Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to OBey God rather than men.

No, I hope that I would OBey God and suffer the consequences. After all, trusting and OBeying is much more important than going along with culture when its wrong.

[HappyChristian]

Actually, Mitch, just to let you know: skirts for men are gaining in popularity - and they are called skirts. A kilt is a specific style of skirt, and some men who wear skirts prefer to call them kilts...but a skirt is a skirt, no matter what it's called. It's interesting to note that the movement is declaring that the men who want to wear skirts wish to be free to move around better than they can in pants, and that is supposed to be one of the reasons kilts were worn in battle in Scotland (and Ireland, though not as much).

[chev1958]

So it would be OK to do that which is sin, that is if good comes out of it? ... No, I hope that I would OBey God and suffer the consequences. After all, trusting and OBeying is much more important than going along with culture when its wrong.

I know I shouldn't do this, but I just can't help myself - Bro. Jerry808, you have never answered this question in the numerous times this subject has been brought up. Please give me chapter and verse that defines male and female clothing. Where in Scripture does God tell us that dresses/skirts are for women? If you can and will answer that one question, then your position will be based on Scripture and not your personal preferences, but you can't give any Scripture because it's not in there.

I find you statement about not going along with culture interesting. If you think about it, dresses were floor length 100 years ago, and it was considered scandalously immodest to show an ankle. Now, IFB'ers agree that just below the knee is modest. Open-toed shoes for women were verbotten at one time, now they're accepted by IFB'ers. Guess what, Bro. Jerry, culture decided that. Nowadays, modesty standards have gone too far, and I don't think you and I disagree on that, and so we stand against immodest clothing.

Because of your insistence that women must wear dresses, you are adding to Scripture, which makes you a Pharisee, Bro. Jerry. Yes, I believe women should look like women and men should look like men, but who decides those standards? God hasn't defined for us what clothing for men and women should look like. You continue to claim to preach God's standard on dress, when God doesn't give us specific standards, other than modesty. The only other standard prohibits wearing clothes made of different materials, yet you seem to ignore that command. Make up your mind, Bro. Jerry.

Scripture does not - I repeat - does not define male and female clothing. Today, we wear clothing completely different than what the Israelites wore when God issued the Law. So who, Bro. Jerry, pray tell, decided that men wear pants and women wear dresses? Because God sure didn't.

[John81]

Actually, Mitch, just to let you know: skirts for men are gaining in popularity - and they are called skirts. A kilt is a specific style of skirt, and some men who wear skirts prefer to call them kilts...but a skirt is a skirt, no matter what it's called. It's interesting to note that the movement is declaring that the men who want to wear skirts wish to be free to move around better than they can in pants, and that is supposed to be one of the reasons kilts were worn in battle in Scotland (and Ireland, though not as much).

You've rightly pointed out in other posts that the attire of ancient Israel was rOBes for both male and female, with differences that made one for male and the other for female.

The same applies to the Scottish kilt. The Scottish kilt is a specifically male form of attire while the skirts Scottish women wear have their differences.

If we are consistent then wouldn't the Scottish kilt be acceptable attire for male Scots? This especially in a Scottish type setting.

Culture does play a difference and as Mitch has pointed out, the command is that we dress modest. Along with this there is to be a difference between the male and female clothes. In many parts of the world male and female clothing are similar yet have specific differences for male or female. So long as they are modest isn't such as appropriate for them as were the rOBes of ancient Israel both sexes wore?

[HappyChristian]

You've rightly pointed out in other posts that the attire of ancient Israel was rOBes for both male and female, with differences that made one for male and the other for female.

The same applies to the Scottish kilt. The Scottish kilt is a specifically male form of attire while the skirts Scottish women wear have their differences. Actually, a true kilt, whether male or female, opens on the right. A kilted skirt opens on the left and is only for a woman. Women don't usually don kilts unless they play in pipe bands. And it is interesting to note that some men have noted that women don't have any prOBlem wearing men's kilts, but a man would be horrified to wear a woman's (longer from waist to hip ratio, so someone who is familiar with kilts would know the difference by looking at it).

If we are consistent then wouldn't the Scottish kilt be acceptable attire for male Scots? This especially in a Scottish type setting. Since I'm not living in Scotland (although I have some Scotch in me), I really don't need to be too concerned about accepting kilts as male attire. And since my hubby wouldn't wear one no matter where we live, it doesn't matter there, either. The wearing of the kilt is actually formality or when piping. It's not everyday wheear.

Culture does play a difference and as Mitch has pointed out, the command is that we dress modest. Along with this there is to be a difference between the male and female clothes. In many parts of the world male and female clothing are similar yet have specific differences for male or female. So long as they are modest isn't such as appropriate for them as were the rOBes of ancient Israel both sexes wore? So culture has okayed women's pants...and is in the process of okaying men's skirts. As long as there are specific differences this should be okay. Right? I truly don't think any men on here would be caught dead in a skirt. But women can wear pants...That, to me, seems just a wee bit inconsistent (please note: I'm not casting stones!! Something like this completely falls under the realm of what the head of the household decides)

[JerryNumbers]

I know I shouldn't do this, but I just can't help myself - Bro. Jerry808, you have never answered this question in the numerous times this subject has been brought up. Please give me chapter and verse that defines male and female clothing. Where in Scripture does God tell us that dresses/skirts are for women? If you can and will answer that one question, then your position will be based on Scripture and not your personal preferences, but you can't give any Scripture because it's not in there.

I find you statement about not going along with culture interesting. If you think about it, dresses were floor length 100 years ago, and it was considered scandalously immodest to show an ankle. Now, IFB'ers agree that just below the knee is modest. Open-toed shoes for women were verbotten at one time, now they're accepted by IFB'ers. Guess what, Bro. Jerry, culture decided that. Nowadays, modesty standards have gone too far, and I don't think you and I disagree on that, and so we stand against immodest clothing.

Because of your insistence that women must wear dresses, you are adding to Scripture, which makes you a Pharisee, Bro. Jerry. Yes, I believe women should look like women and men should look like men, but who decides those standards? God hasn't defined for us what clothing for men and women should look like. You continue to claim to preach God's standard on dress, when God doesn't give us specific standards, other than modesty. The only other standard prohibits wearing clothes made of different materials, yet you seem to ignore that command. Make up your mind, Bro. Jerry.

Scripture does not - I repeat - does not define male and female clothing. Today, we wear clothing completely different than what the Israelites wore when God issued the Law. So who, Bro. Jerry, pray tell, decided that men wear pants and women wear dresses? Because God sure didn't.

Mitch, Its very clear.

De 22:5 The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.



Are you saying God did not give us the information needed so we could OBey the above verse? It's easy, don't wear woman's stuff if your a man & or vice versa if your a woman.

God did not tell us certain things were an abomination to Him and not give us the information we need to enable us not to do these abominations.

[John81]

I was just seeking your take in relation to what you had previously stated. ROBes for those in the Middle East and kilts for those in Scotland have a very long cultural history.

When those in contemporary times attemt to take clothes pertaining to another sex and specifically promote their use for the other sex, this isn't necessarily a cultural matter but a sin matter. Such may become a part of the contemporary culture but it's a perversion of the actual culture.

Whereas changes in culture were once limited and typically took generations, today we have evil forces specifically working to corrupt culture and to do so quickly. Such cultural changes are not natural and it has been argued that such should not even be termed as changes in culture.

In any event, to answer your question, no I don't believe that when a society makes evil changes to their culture Christians should accept them or adopt them.

For longstanding cultural matters with clear distinctions I believe there is room for consideration. That doesn't mean rOBes and kilts would be appropriate everywhere, but in their homelands perhaps.

[rancher824]

Just wondering, since the word skirt has been used consistently in this thred, how many have researched the word in the KJV? I am away from my notes and ways to check easily, but if I recall correctly it is used several times in the old testament all but one of which are used as masculine. The other one is gender neutral.

[chev1958]

It's very clear.

Bro. Jerry, I agree the verse is very clear, but my question - for the umpteenth time - is: Where in Scripture does God define men's and women's clothing?

[irishman]

Bro. Jerry, I agree the verse is very clear, but my question - for the umpteenth time - is: Where in Scripture does God define mens and womens clothing?

Chevy, you seem to be stuck on that one question, which has been answered logically, and not with chapter and verse. But let me ask you; do you wear woman's lingerie? If not, why? Just because it's not natural, (or spiritual) to do so? If you desire to, then you are not normal, and you promote homosexuality, which also is abomination to God. Can you tell the difference between mens clothes and womens clothes? Why can you? There is no scriptural guideline for you to go by!

A man is drawn to femininity, not manliness or "unisex", because he was made that way. Woman's pants, though different than mens now, because of people who rejected truth, are still modeled after mens, whether we like to admit it or not. We have become so worldly in our thinking that we now must distinguish mens pants from womens pants, but it ought not to be so.

Just to satisfy your need to be right, "No, there is no scripture condemning pants vs. skirts or dresses", per se, but some things we can figure out for ourselves! Like what the difference is, for instance! If you don't know the difference, you are in dire trouble, my friend. It matters not how they determined the difference in Bible days, but more importantly that they knew there was a difference. Seems to me that this ought not need to be explained, being it is so basic. Edited July 27, 2010 by irishman

[OFIB Preacher]

Many good posts!

Along with the idea of OBedience is the word so many Christian women hate: submission. This word has been distored by feminists (both those in the world and those in the church) to mean a woman being a doormat. That's not the biblical meaning and it's a shame that even when a preacher does mention submission he often spends more time trying to convince women what he doesn't mean that little is actually said as to what submission does mean.

Unless we are willing to submit our self (our will, our desires, our wants, out lusts, out selfishness) to the Lordship of Christ we won't be OBeying the Word.

Submission is generally thought of as a bad word, something women should avoid because women are supposed to be strong and liberated today. That's not Bible! According to the Bible both women AND men are to submit to Christ as Lord and OBey His Word.

Why is such so rarely preached anymore? Why are so many pastors fearful to preach the whole counsel of God? Why remain silent while the women in the church dress inappropriately in church and even worse out of church? Why preach so much about men needing to control their eyes and not lust while not at the same time preaching that women should dress modestly and give no occasion for a man to lust after her because of her attire?

Christianity in America has become far too Americanized. American Christians want Christianity their own way. They want to Christians while claiming their independence and freedom to do nearly anything they want.

While visiting a church a few years ago a woman in the church came up to me wear a pretty blue dress that was VERY low cut. As she was speaking ot me she dropped something and when she bent to retreive it (not a squat to pick it up, a full bend), I was so thankful my son wasn't standing next to me and so glad I wasn't an immature Christian.

Another woman I saw in church was wearing a mini-skirt (yes, a mini-skirt!) which was so short and tight she could barely sit down.

Why do the pastors allow this? Are there no older (mature) Christian women to speak to them? Do none of them have fathers, brothers, husbands or any man who can see what their style of dress reflects and try to set them right?

Yes, I know many women have been confronted with Scripture, and reality, yet they proclaim their freedom to dress the way they like and proclaim if anyone lusts it's because they are weak.

Question: Why dress like that if you are not trying to get men to notice? How many of these professing Christian women are lying when they claim they are not trying to attract men by the way they dress?

Pride, lying, lust, putting oneself above God...there are a lot of sins tied up in this.

Brother, now that's what I call, an excellent post!
AMEN!

[OFIB Preacher]

So it would be OK to do that which is sin, that is if good comes out of it?

That is the very thing many churches are doing right now, and at this point its just a matter of how far they will take it. Of course we know some have carried it so far as to accept homosexuality, even in pastors.

Ac 5:29 Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to OBey God rather than men.

No, I hope that I would OBey God and suffer the consequences. After all, trusting and OBeying is much more important than going along with culture when its wrong.

AMEN!!!

[HappyChristian]

Just wondering, since the word skirt has been used consistently in this thred, how many have researched the word in the KJV? I am away from my notes and ways to check easily, but if I recall correctly it is used several times in the old testament all but one of which are used as masculine. The other one is gender neutral.

the term "skirt" (in old english - and even today in many instances) refers to the edge or hem of an item.

[OFIB Preacher]

I know I shouldn't do this, but I just can't help myself - Bro. Jerry808, you have never answered this question in the numerous times this subject has been brought up. Please give me chapter and verse that defines male and female clothing. Where in Scripture does God tell us that dresses/skirts are for women? If you can and will answer that one question, then your position will be based on Scripture and not your personal preferences, but you can't give any Scripture because it's not in there.

I find you statement about not going along with culture interesting. If you think about it, dresses were floor length 100 years ago, and it was considered scandalously immodest to show an ankle. Now, IFB'ers agree that just below the knee is modest. Open-toed shoes for women were verbotten at one time, now they're accepted by IFB'ers. Guess what, Bro. Jerry, culture decided that. Nowadays, modesty standards have gone too far, and I don't think you and I disagree on that, and so we stand against immodest clothing.

Because of your insistence that women must wear dresses, you are adding to Scripture, which makes you a Pharisee, Bro. Jerry. Yes, I believe women should look like women and men should look like men, but who decides those standards? God hasn't defined for us what clothing for men and women should look like. You continue to claim to preach God's standard on dress, when God doesn't give us specific standards, other than modesty. The only other standard prohibits wearing clothes made of different materials, yet you seem to ignore that command. Make up your mind, Bro. Jerry.

Scripture does not - I repeat - does not define male and female clothing. Today, we wear clothing completely different than what the Israelites wore when God issued the Law. So who, Bro. Jerry, pray tell, decided that men wear pants and women wear dresses? Because God sure didn't.

Pleas note, the following is not a personal attack. However, what I was thinking before I read the post I'm replying to, just fits so well!
Have you ever noticed, that, when people are confronted with something they're doing that goes against scripture, they often go to great lengths to justify themselves? More times than not, they go to the "what if" card and make up all kinds of off-the-wall situations!
Just a thought.

[OFIB Preacher]

Chevy, you seem to be stuck on that one question, which has been answered logically, and not with chapter and verse. But let me ask you; do you wear woman's lingerie? If not, why? Just because it's not natural, (or spiritual) to do so? If you desire to, then you are not normal, and you promote homosexuality, which also is abomination to God. Can you tell the difference between mens clothes and womens clothes? Why can you? There is no scriptural guideline for you to go by!

A man is drawn to femininity, not manliness or "unisex", because he was made that way. Woman's pants, though different than mens now, because of people who rejected truth, are still modeled after mens, whether we like to admit it or not. We have become so worldly in our thinking that we now must distinguish mens pants from womens pants, but it ought not to be so.

Just to satisfy your need to be right, "No, there is no scripture condemning pants vs. skirts or dresses", per se, but some things we can figure out for ourselves! Like what the difference is, for instance! If you don't know the difference, you are in dire trouble, my friend. It matters not how they determined the difference in Bible days, but more importantly that they knew there was a difference. Seems to me that this ought not need to be explained, being it is so basic.

Great question/response!
AMEN!