Modest appearal

[Pastorj]

I agree with your last post that women who choose to dress modestly are rare. However, you have yet to prove that pants are immodest on a woman. As stated by others, Britches were an undergarment worn by the priest.

In order for you to prove pants are not allowed on a woman, you must prove they are either immodest or clothes pertaining to only men. I will await your proof.

[John81]

I've noticed these past few years at least that even in IFB circles many women who believe in dressing moderately with regards to dresses and skirts have taken to wearing very form fitting outfits. The tops worn with skirts and the top portions of dresses being very form fitting and sometimes even the skirts a lower half of dresses being rather form fitting rather than flowing. Such attire isn't truly modest yet I've seen very little said to confront this problem.

In many non-IFB churches I've noticed the trend (this one has been going on longer) for women who wear dresses and skirts to wear such dresses which leave a lot of skin exposed in the back, shoulder and chest areas.

Along with all of this, it seems even among IFBs that dress/skirt lengths are in many cases getting shorter.

One can't place all the blame for this totally upon the women either. Their husbands, dads, pastors and other men in their lives see this as well and have not brought a stop to this.

It also seems a lot more Christian men are wearing shorts and tank tops to some outdoor Christian functions these days as well.

Co-ed pool events seem to be much more popular and acceptable among Christians now as well and the swimsuits are anything but modest (for both male and female).

[IM4given]

I agree with your last post that women who choose to dress modestly are rare. However, you have yet to prove that pants are immodest on a woman. As stated by others, Britches were an undergarment worn by the priest.

In order for you to prove pants are not allowed on a woman, you must prove they are either immodest or clothes pertaining to only men. I will await your proof.

I have to absolutely LAUGH when I hear MEN arguing with one another over this issue! No hiding me under no chair - y'all need to come up out of there and participate in this discussion! :hide Come on out now. It is okay - we are Christians and we need to be able to discuss things with one another without having to be fearful.

Now here is my conclusion about MEN who argue about whether or not women should wear pants. You can tell me if I am right or if I am wrong about this assumption, but it is just my own personal experiences that I have to draw on here. Now a MAN who says it is OKEY DOKEY for his wife and daughters to wear pants will never have to tell his wife and daughters that they can't wear all those new clothes that are filling their colsets to the brim, and he will never have to go shopping with his wife and daughters or look for sewing patterns to find appropriate feminine attire for his family.

Women need to have Bible study and just read all the things in the scriptures that tell us what God loves and what God hates (abominations). If we love God like we say that we do, then we will do our best to do the things that God loves, and try our best to avoid the things that God hates. It is as easy as that.

[bzmomo7]

I have to absolutely LAUGH when I hear MEN arguing with one another over this issue! No hiding me under no chair - y'all need to come up out of there and participate in this discussion! :hide Come on out now. It is okay - we are Christians and we need to be able to discuss things with one another without having to be fearful.

Now here is my conclusion about MEN who argue about whether or not women should wear pants. You can tell me if I am right or if I am wrong about this assumption, but it is just my own personal experiences that I have to draw on here. Now a MAN who says it is OKEY DOKEY for his wife and daughters to wear pants will never have to tell his wife and daughters that they can't wear all those new clothes that are filling their colsets to the brim, and he will never have to go shopping with his wife and daughters or look for sewing patterns to find appropriate feminine attire for his family.

Women need to have Bible study and just read all the things in the scriptures that tell us what God loves and what God hates (abominations). If we love God like we say that we do, then we will do our best to do the things that God loves, and try our best to avoid the things that God hates. It is as easy as that.

:hide Alright, I'll come out to just say one thing that is obvious. The original poster was addressing the "modesty" issue. If pants are "immodest" for a woman, than why are they not "immodest" for a man, was basically what she wanted to know. The men side-stepped her question. I understand the "what pertaineth to a man" issue as well, but if it were speaking of him wearing his "undies" as pastorharrison spoke of (breeches under the priestly garment), then why would he want to wear them on the OUTSIDE where people can see them? That would be immodest, for sure, wouldn't it? That was what her question was about I think. I had the same questions, too, when I first became an IFB. I'm not trying to be arguementative or anything here, just pointing out that especially people who have not always been IFB, will have tough questions about why we do what we do and we need to address the questions as completely as possible otherwise we look like we're saying, "Do ________ because I said so!" I have resigned myself to the conclusion that we women ARE NOT to dress like the world around us and are to be modest. I mostly wear dresses, skirts, and culottes or loose fitting gouchos, but IMHO, split skirts are still pants as well......just very, very loose, feminine and modest. (and well, of course, no man would want to wear them, so they are not "pertaining" to a man) I'll go back under my chair now. :lol :hide

[PastorHarrison]

I agree with your last post that women who choose to dress modestly are rare. However, you have yet to prove that pants are immodest on a woman. As stated by others, Britches were an undergarment worn by the priest.

In order for you to prove pants are not allowed on a woman, you must prove they are either immodest or clothes pertaining to only men. I will await your proof.

Hi Pastorj - the Lord bless and keep you in his service and will!

In response to your points: Britches mentioned 5 times, all exclusively on men pretty well settles for me whether or not they pertaineth unto the man. For me, the argument that they were priests and hence it doesn't apply to us, is like saying that since Paul was speaking to Timothy about ministry in I & 2 Tim, none of the verses therein apply to anyone else.

Further, supposing that britches were intended as an undergarment for me, how does that make them ok for women if the women couldn't wear a thing pertaining to men anyway? I don't reckon (just me figurin) that saying britches were men's under-garments makes it ok for women to wear them proudly displayed .... I mean, using that logic a man could wear a bra outside his suit coat.... after all it is an under garment historically.

Proof? I couldn't prove cigarettes & beer are sinful.... but some things require discernment ehh?

[PastorHarrison]

I've noticed these past few years at least that even in IFB circles many women who believe in dressing moderately with regards to dresses and skirts have taken to wearing very form fitting outfits. The tops worn with skirts and the top portions of dresses being very form fitting and sometimes even the skirts a lower half of dresses being rather form fitting rather than flowing. Such attire isn't truly modest yet I've seen very little said to confront this problem.

In many non-IFB churches I've noticed the trend (this one has been going on longer) for women who wear dresses and skirts to wear such dresses which leave a lot of skin exposed in the back, shoulder and chest areas.

Along with all of this, it seems even among IFBs that dress/skirt lengths are in many cases getting shorter.

One can't place all the blame for this totally upon the women either. Their husbands, dads, pastors and other men in their lives see this as well and have not brought a stop to this.

It also seems a lot more Christian men are wearing shorts and tank tops to some outdoor Christian functions these days as well.

Co-ed pool events seem to be much more popular and acceptable among Christians now as well and the swimsuits are anything but modest (for both male and female).

Preach Brother!!!

[JerryNumbers]

Preach Brother!!!

I like that, under studies preachers. It might be to that many of the fear to take a stand on certain issues.

I do know in some churches if the pastor took a stand against pants for women, the pastor would be on his way out the door very quickly.

Today's people are more in love with the world than God and they lust after what the world has and even more than that they are going to do as the world does no matter what.

What gets me to is how hostile some who think pants on women is a great thing can get towards those who truly teach and hold to this verse.

Deuteronomy 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.

Can remind one of how hostile the homosexuals in California got because the law they wanted to pass so bad did not.

[bzmomo7]

I like that, under studies preachers. It might be to that many of the fear to take a stand on certain issues.

I do know in some churches if the pastor took a stand against pants for women, the pastor would be on his way out the door very quickly.

Today's people are more in love with the world than God and they lust after what the world has and even more than that they are going to do as the world does no matter what.

What gets me to is how hostile some who think pants on women is a great thing can get towards those who truly teach and hold to this verse.

Deuteronomy 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.

Can remind one of how hostile the homosexuals in California got because the law they wanted to pass so bad did not.

Yikes! I hope you don't think I'm "hostile"....quite the contrary. It's just for me, when you start down that road to no "pants" at all (like I said, I think that a split skirt is really pants that don't look exactly like pants and don't look exactly like a skirt) then you have to decide just what "pants" are. KWIM? And boy, do many people have different ideas what they are! I will definitely say that I think that the true pants that women today wear are yucky!

[Pastorj]

=Proof? I couldn't prove cigarettes & beer are sinful.... but some things require discernment ehh?

Discernment requires utilizing Scripture to base your beliefs. I am sorry that you can't utilize Scripture to prove cigarettes and beer are sinful as Scripture does clearly teach that.

I love how you have yet to give any Scripture to prove your point. At least Kitagrl in our last argument utilized Scripture to prove her point in prior debates. Give the Scripture that says that women wearing pants is a sin.

Britches are not equal to pants of 2008. They were worn under their outer garments (which were robes). These garments were distinctly different than the robes worn by women. Everyone knew the difference between the two robes.

Now in 2008, we don't wear robes in America. However, in many middle easter countries they still practice this way of dress.

I ask you again, give us the Scripture that proves your position that women wearing pants is a sin.

[Anon]

PastorJ (coming out from under my chair real quick)....there is actually more Scripture to support women avoiding pants (as well as low cut and form fitting dresses and blouses and skirts I might add) than there is to show us that smoking is wrong.
:hide

[Guest Guest]

At the very least, women in modest dresses are a better testimony in public and within the church(assuming all other things are equal). Instead of arguing CAN a woman wear pants, perhaps what should be considered is why should she?

[JerryNumbers]

Yikes! I hope you don't think I'm "hostile"....quite the contrary. It's just for me, when you start down that road to no "pants" at all (like I said, I think that a split skirt is really pants that don't look exactly like pants and don't look exactly like a skirt) then you have to decide just what "pants" are. KWIM? And boy, do many people have different ideas what they are! I will definitely say that I think that the true pants that women today wear are yucky!

NO, not at all, but some are, and some get right smarty about it.

[JerryNumbers]

Discernment requires utilizing Scripture to base your beliefs. I am sorry that you can't utilize Scripture to prove cigarettes and beer are sinful as Scripture does clearly teach that.

I love how you have yet to give any Scripture to prove your point. At least Kitagrl in our last argument utilized Scripture to prove her point in prior debates. Give the Scripture that says that women wearing pants is a sin.

Britches are not equal to pants of 2008. They were worn under their outer garments (which were robes). These garments were distinctly different than the robes worn by women. Everyone knew the difference between the two robes.

Now in 2008, we don't wear robes in America. However, in many middle easter countries they still practice this way of dress.

Its a fact, its a poor testimony.

I ask you again, give us the Scripture that proves your position that women wearing pants is a sin.

If you will notice, that it exactly what PastorHarrison said, discernment of the Holy Scriptures.

And as Suqy said, there much more against women wearing pants than they are for it.

But let me say, its not Discernment of the Holy Scripture base your beliefs, its going to the Holy Scriptures and believing what God says about it.

For instant, the RCC has many beliefs and they discern according to it, and they are far from truly following Christ.

[Guest Guest]

Ephesians 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

Our salvation does not depend on how we dress, but how we dress reflects our beliefs.

Someone who is in the military knows how important it is to wear the right uniform - not to outdo each other, but to show whose side they are on. That is what Christians do when they dress according to the scriptures - they are showing the world whose side they are on. God's side. If people cannot tell whose side you are on or can't distinguish you from the rest of the crowd, how can you possibly present yourself as a living witness?

Now it all boils down to whether or not you believe ion what the Bible has to say:

Deuteronomy 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.

God is the same to day, yesterday and forever, right? what was an abomination all those centuries ago is still an abomination to Him today. I do not see how this verse can be misinterpreted by anyone. It is as plain as the nose on my face.

Ladies, if you wear your hair cropped short, and you dress in pants, then from a distance you may look like the women in the latest fashion magazines, but if you wear your hair long, and you wear a modest dress, then from a distance you will certainly look different from the rest of the world and people will be able to see whose side you are on.

:wvlf"

First off I would like to say my friend entered this for me to find out more on the subject so thank you for everyone who has replied. I have to give a big to you, the one quoted above.. I really feel this is the issue for us, women, today. It has become so main stream to wear mens clothing and look like men even though we are not. The Lord has convicted me lately on this subject. I felt very convicted and with in a day changed my dress from jeans and tops to long dresses and skirts and modest tops. However about a week later I started thinking about all the Godly women I see and respect that wear pants. So I got on my knees and prayed about it, knowing that Satan is the author of confusion, and asked God if what I have read was just for those times for a specific reason and His answer was "I am the same yesterday, today and forever." (Hebrews 13:8:

8Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.)

[kevinmiller]

Sounds like a logical argument, with one little glaring exception - these alleged women's pants uhh...not in the Bible. Men's pants yes, women's pants no.

So because a garment is not in the Bible, we shouldn't wear it? You don't wear suits, do you?

Yes....true... they may well be very intelligent, but then unstudied has a rather different definition that unintelligent wouldn't you agree? My comment wasn't that they're unintelligent. But, I concede..... bad phraseology.

Um...I was talking about being unstudied.

Yes to this question and yes, I have since studied as well what many others have written. I took that que from God who told us to study and from Paul who studied the commentaries of others after he finished school. I also bought a car instead of building one from scratch.... and I bought a house that was already constructed....

But considering it's your spiritual life, isn't it better to do the research and make the car yourself rather than to buy into what someone else has made? Scripture is inspired, man is fallible.

Hmm.... the Mormons say Jesus and Satan are brothers. The Jehovah's witnesses say Jesus isn't the Son of God and there's no hell. The Methodists ordain and embrace homosexual women pastors. The Catholics say the Pope is equal to God. Yep...you got me, I say they're false teachers & deceitful workers II Cor 13-15. I say they're position (which is different than mine) is liberal, uneducated, heretical, backslidden, carnal, wicked and ungodly. Still got II Thess 3:14 in my Bible...havn't even whited out II Tim 3:13 yet! In any doctrinal position there is a right and a wrong....differing perspectives is the shield of indifference that lets us be comfortable in disobedience and "subjective interpretation" is just another way to be rebellious to the things in the BIble we dont like. You're ok....I'm ok.... God's grace is good..... someone get me a beer and lets have a bible study on wine in the word.

There is a difference between rebellion to what you know is right and doings one's best to honor God while having a differing view(based on their interpretation of Scripture), especially where standards are concerned. Standards are derived from the Bible but are not specifically outlined in Scripture, such as music, dress and other things.

I'm not going to address the rest of your post since it's similar to the above and is distracting from the issue at hand, which is dress. The fact is, using Scripture, it is impossible to say that pants are a man's garment because pants are not mentioned in Scripture, at all. Britches are very obviously not pants, because pants go down to one's feet, not to their thigh. The Bible was clearly referring to underwear, not pants, and trying to make them the same is Biblically and intellectually dishonest.