Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

    For an ad free experience on Online Baptist, Please login or register for free

Can We Reclaim This Dress Standard?


WVPastor

Recommended Posts

  • Members
I suspect it is neither but don't know for sure, curious if anyone would have a reliable and accurate description. I am guessing there was not much difference and seriously doubt pants even existed but am not sure so a sincere question.
The dress hasnt changed. The Men wear pants, the women wear a dress that covers them down to the ankles. My people dress the same way. I just attended our traditional winter feast, and every woman there had an ankle-length, unparted hem. We have worn this for thousands of years. There is nothing new under the sun. The outer garment, we call a "coat" in 2014, was always parted on a man. The garment, which we call a "dress" or "skirt" on a woman, was always to the feet, and never parted. It isnt ancient history, that's the problem, but rather our own U.S. history, that is. Beginning with Amelia Earhart, we began to shame women for settling for their traditional, Biblical role. Anishinaabe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 234
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

What's being talked about is that if ones heart is set upon following the Lord that will be reflected by the lives we live, which includes our speech, actions, dress, conduct, etc.

 

Now, that doesn't mean the Lord will deal with a person regarding all things at once or in any particular order, yet over time one who is walking with the Lord will reflect that, including in how they dress.

 

Even being a guy (I know this thread is mostly dealing with how women dress) the Lord eventually turned me away from wearing certain things.

 

So, while a persons clothes don't tell us for sure what's in a persons heart, if a persons heart is set right their clothing choices will be a reflection of that just as our language and other choices will. Again, to be clear, we have to be mindful that we are all born again as babes in Christ and we all mature at different rates and in different areas. That said, if we are truly seeking to follow the Lord and are willing to learn and obey the Lord, we will mature in the Lord and our lives will reflect that growth in Christ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

What's being talked about is that if ones heart is set upon following the Lord that will be reflected by the lives we live, which includes our speech, actions, dress, conduct, etc.

 

Now, that doesn't mean the Lord will deal with a person regarding all things at once or in any particular order, yet over time one who is walking with the Lord will reflect that, including in how they dress.

 

Even being a guy (I know this thread is mostly dealing with how women dress) the Lord eventually turned me away from wearing certain things.

 

So, while a persons clothes don't tell us for sure what's in a persons heart, if a persons heart is set right their clothing choices will be a reflection of that just as our language and other choices will. Again, to be clear, we have to be mindful that we are all born again as babes in Christ and we all mature at different rates and in different areas. That said, if we are truly seeking to follow the Lord and are willing to learn and obey the Lord, we will mature in the Lord and our lives will reflect that growth in Christ.

This is the perspective from which I come.  What can be done among those who agree with your principle to resurrect this standard?  I believe there are some who do not know why this is right.  There are some who have been damaged by hard preaching which did not explain the principles behind the standard.  There are some who are resistant but would eventually submit under the Holy Spirit's conviction and teaching that is consistent, kind and thorough.  Is anyone seeing this happen?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

The dress hasnt changed. The Men wear pants, the women wear a dress that covers them down to the ankles. My people dress the same way. I just attended our traditional winter feast, and every woman there had an ankle-length, unparted hem. We have worn this for thousands of years. There is nothing new under the sun. The outer garment, we call a "coat" in 2014, was always parted on a man. The garment, which we call a "dress" or "skirt" on a woman, was always to the feet, and never parted. It isnt ancient history, that's the problem, but rather our own U.S. history, that is. Beginning with Amelia Earhart, we began to shame women for settling for their traditional, Biblical role. Anishinaabe

I'm curious: who are "Your people"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

From what I've seen over the years one of the biggest problems is trying to force people to adopt a standard without explaining the standard and why it's a standard biblically. That combined with a lack of teaching at all on the subject seems to have infected a great many churches.

 

This standard needs to be biblically taught and it needs to be taught to men as well as women; and applied to men as well as women. This, along with other biblical matters, should also be taught in Sunday school, youth groups, VBS, whatever things a church has from children and youth.

 

It's so easy to just make a list and try to tell everyone they must obey the list, and that's the lazy approach far too many take. Much more difficult, yet biblical, is actually teaching biblical standards while discipling those in the church.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

Focus seems to be what a woman wears is a measure of her spirituality,.. :smug:

Not if you carefully read what she said... :smug:  :frog:

 

It is a truth that one's spirituality will show on the outside.  We might not like to think about it, but it's true.  Does that mean that women who wear pants are wicked? Of course not.  

 

 

~~~~~~~

 

Prophet - you are Ojibwe, correct?  Or at least Algonquin?  Do you agree with Basil Johnston as to the meaning of your signature?  I like his definition - beings made out of nothing.  I have Narragansett roots, but that is from many generations ago....

 

 

~~~~

 

Prophet pointed out earlier something that has long bothered me.  When Deut. 22:5 is preached as the standard for women not wearing pants, it is usually stated that it's an abomination to God.  But as was mentioned, it isn't the act that is abomination, it is the person doing it.  But that verse doesn't just mention women wearing men's garments - it mentions men wearing women's garments as well. 

 

I have heard it said that when men wear dresses as a joke (in a skit, for example) it's okay - it's not the same as women wearing pants.  Huh?  :puzzled3:   But, but...if you cite Deut. 22:5 as a reason for women not to wear pants, then it's a reason for men not to wear dresses...right?  I think we've done a good job of obfuscating what's actually being taught in that verse (and the principles contained therein do carry over into the NT).

 

The pagans of that day had a practice of men wearing women's clothes and women wearing men's (usually the armor) when going in to their temples to worship.  That being the background, we can see plainly that God doesn't want men dressing like women or vice versa.  We glean the principle of gender identity from that verse - something that God addresses as well in Corinthians regarding hair length. There is a difference, and God wants us to be obvious in that difference (yes, I know...they all wore robes back then.  But, among other things [like decoration on the robe], men's robes had girdles (belts) on the outside, women's did not.).  Then there is Christian identity - we are a peculiar people. No, that doesn't mean weird - it means set apart, different from the lost.

 

Culturally for many years, men wore pants (and, yes, priests in Israel had breeches under their robes) and women wore dresses here in America (England, too, and some other countries, but not all).  And, yes, pants on women was born in rebellion - claiming that it would free a woman from man's authority if she could dress like him.  Because of the decline in standards (because, you know, it's more spiritual to say that it's not spiritual to say that our exterior will change when our interior does...well, according to some, anyway), pants have become accepted wear for many, many Christian ladies. Heh - it was considered very wrong for lost women to wear them back in the day...

 

Now the culture, it's a' changing again....And, men, you will now have the opportunity to also be free.  You can now wear skirts/dresses if you so desire. Of course, that has been going on for a while - the pants-free movement.  Men who claim (and these are straight men, not gay, not transgender, and not cross-dressers) that they can move more freely in skirts than in pants.  (Isn't that hilarious?  Women wanted to be free and pants were the ticket...now men are claiming their pants don't let them be as free as women are  :nuts: )

 

Just recently, there was a fashion show in England.  What was it?  Why, the new line of men's dresses.  Minis, no less. Yes, it's going to become mainstream soon.  And we'll just have to accept it, you know.  Because if a Christian man wants to wear a dress, it's okay as long as he buys one made for a man.  Right?  If it's not okay with you, well, then - you (generic, not pointing any fingers) are doing the same thing  those who hold to Deut. 22:5 as the reason for no pants on women but who think it's okay for men to wear dresses when they are joking around....

 

Plain fact of the matter is: If a person - regardless of gender - is saved and growing in the Lord, there will be a difference on the outside.  What will that difference be?  I don't know - but it will be. Because God is in the life-changing business.  From the inside out.

 

(FWIW - I don't wear pants.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

if your talking about a works based salvation/sanctification, then your right.

If a lost person comes into your congregation immodestly dressed, they don't know any better, But after one has been saved and been exposed to Biblical teaching, they should know better. And when it's taught, it should be taught as to WHY this should be done. Dressing right and decent has nothing to do with salvation but everything to do with a desire to please God instead of self.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I'm curious: who are "Your people"?

from Wikipedia:

Anishinaabe or Anishinaabeg, which is the plural form of the word—is the autonym often used by the Odawa, Ojibwe, and Algonquin peoples. They all speak closely related Anishinaabemowin/Anishinaabe languages, of the Algonquian language family.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

If I can clearly see from over a hundred yards that an article of clothing is absolutely beyond doubt feminine, then I believe it satisfies "not wearing that which pertains unto a man", however, if I am forced to look at a woman's behind or shape (definitely NOT a good idea for me) to determine if those are "mens" or "womens" jeans (I think womens jeans is as much a misnomer as Christian Rock) then it should never be allowed on any Christ honoring woman.  My wife had one pair of trousers and one pair only and it was over the top plainly feminine, strictly as a covering for her legs and thigh in situations where a dress or skirt would be immodest apparel, such as; sledding, water recreation, and high wind locations (it is always infamously very windy at the Oregon coast).  I understand from our women that attend West Coast Baptist College that it is so often very windy there. They all have to sew fishing weights into the hems of their dresses and skirts in order to maintain any hope of modesty. There is a fight to allow leggings under your dress or skirt for this reason.

 

Bro. Garry

In His will.  By His power.  For His glory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...