Should Women Wear Pants?

[John Young]

Personally, with issues such as "pants on women" (and others like it, drinking, smoking, movie theaters, etc) the issue on both sides center around "is it permissible?" I think the better argument would be to encourage the Christian to adopt a position that "Most glorifies God's created order" regardless of whither or not something is "permissible". In our current culture pants are an accepted form of ladies wear and have some practical applications and is certainly "permissible" if that particular family decides to let the ladies use them to the extent they decide.

However, The modest dress and skirt are still seen as more feminine than a modest pair of pants and would give more glory to the distinction between man and woman. So many, while not disallowing pants, opt to limit their uses. For example, some conservative women still use women's  pants for practical reasons, but in a modest way under a skirt combo in winter or during physical activities to ensure modesty at all times, which would be considered better then one or the other alone. 

1 Corinthians 10:23 All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.

Edited September 16, 2016 by John Young

[Pastor Scott Markle]

8 hours ago, John Young said:

Personally, with issues such as "pants on women" (and others like it, drinking, smoking, movie theaters, etc) the issue on both sides center around "is it permissible?" I think the better argument would be to encourage the Christian to adopt a position that "Most glorifies God's created order" regardless of whither or not something is "permissible". In our current culture pants are an accepted form of ladies wear and have some practical applications and is certainly "permissible" if that particular family decides to let the ladies use them to the extent they decide.

However, The modest dress and skirt are still seen as more feminine than a modest pair of pants and would give more glory to the distinction between man and woman. So many, while not disallowing pants, opt to limit their uses. For example, some conservative women still use women's  pants for practical reasons, but in a modest way under a skirt combo in winter or during physical activities to ensure modesty at all times, which would be considered better then one or the other alone. 

1 Corinthians 10:23 All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.

Having presented above my position that I do not believe "pants-wear" is inherently man's wear and thus that I do not believe it is inherently sinful for a woman to wear "pant-wear," I do indeed agree with the sentiment of Brother Young's posting.  As such, it is extremely rare for my own wife to wear "pants-wear" of any form in the public arena.  Furthermore, although I cannot honestly preach against "pants-wear" on women as inherently sinful, we do prohibit "pants-wear" on women for certain ministry activities and responsibilities.

[WellWithMySoul]

I would just like to express appreciation to those in this thread that though their conviction is strong, have maintained a spirit of meekness.  "In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth..." (II Tim. 2:25).  God forbid that any of us would be as that Pharisee in Luke 18:11 - "The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are..."  Indeed, we need to consider the publican's attitude and example in Luke 18:13.  May what we say be motivated by "that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers" (Eph. 4:29).  We can yet stand with boldness applying Col. 4:6 - "Let your speech be alway with grace, seasoned with salt, that ye may know how ye ought to answer every man."

It's very interesting and thought-provoking to ponder on how we have absolutely no right to condemn another's heart (Matt. 7), yet another's heart is what we should care about the most.

[Pastor Scott Markle]

Earlier in this thread I presented three basic questions that Biblical, doctrinal integrity would compel us to consider in relation to this subject, as follows:

On ‎9‎/‎2‎/‎2016 at 0:02 PM, Pastor Scott Markle said:

In order to answer the issue of the question in the opening post, Biblical, doctrinal integrity compels us to answer the following three questions:

1.  Is it a spiritual abomination for a woman to wear that which is inherently man's wear?  The answer to this question is Biblically easy, since Deuteronomy 22:5 directly declares, "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."

(Note: Both sides of this declaration should be honestly considered.  Since God's Word indicated that it is equally a spiritual abomination for a woman to "wear that which pertaineth unto a man" and for a man to "put on a woman's garment," then this matter should not be a one sided consideration.  Thus we are moved also to ask -- What is inherently "a woman's garment," such that a man should never put it on?)

2.  Is pants-wear inherently man's wear?

(Note: If one answers to the affirmative, what Biblical evidence might be provided in order to support this answer?  Indeed, wherein does God's Word speak concerning "pants-wear" at all, in relation to men or women?  In those places wherein God's Word does speak concerning "pants-wear" (if it actually does), does God's Word ever speak negatively concerning a woman's wearing of "pants-wear"?  On the other hand, in those places wherein God's Word does speak concerning "pants-wear" (if it actually does), does God's Word ever speak positively (or, even neutrally) of a godly woman's wearing of "pants-wear"?)

3.  What exactly is the definition for "pants-wear"?

(Note: A basic English dictionary definition for "pants-wear" would be "an outer garment extending from the waist to the knees or ankles and divided into separate coverings for the legs."  Within this definition culottes, although commonly accepted among Fundamental Baptists for women to wear, are indeed "pants-wear."  In fact, an English dictionary definition for "culottes" would be "a women's or girl's garment consisting of trousers made full in the legs to resemble a skirt."  Furthermore, wearing any form of "pants-wear" under the skirt or for bed clothes would still be wearing "pants-wear."  So then, how absolute and consistent do we believe the declaration of God's Word in Deuteronomy 22:5 actually is?)

It appears that there is no real dispute concerning the questions and thoughts of the first question and the third question.  However, there would be some level of dispute concerning the second question.  Therefore, in this posting I wish to engage with some of the sub-questions under that second question.

1.  Wherein does God's Word speak concerning "pants-wear" at all, in relation to men or women?

The only specific reference unto "pants-wear" in Scripture is that of the "breeches" for the priests of Israel who were to engage in making sacrifices. (See Exodus 28:14; 39:28; Leviticus 6:10; 16:4; Ezekiel 44:18)  The reason for these "breeches" is given in Exodus 28:14 in order to "cover their nakedness," covering "from the loins even unto the thighs."  The context for this requirement was because the priests wore a robe form of garment that possessed an open-bottomed skirt, and because the priest performed his duties on a somewhat elevated level before people.  Even so, it was possible that someone might get a glimpse up the skirt of the priest's garment, and might thereby get a glimpse of his "nakedness."  Therefore, the Lord God required that the priest wear a pair of "breeches" (shorts) as an undergarment in order to prevent this possible glimpse of his "nakedness."

So then, how might this apply unto the present day?  First, let us recognize that our Lord required this specifically for the sake of modesty.  Second, let us consider the case of our present time.  In our present culture today, our men do not generally wear garments with an open-bottomed skirt.  However, in Fundamental Baptist circles our women are strongly encouraged to wear such garments.  Furthermore, in our present culture our women do go up stairs and reside on platforms (or, bleachers) before people.  Even so, I wonder if we should encourage the principle that females should wear a form of undergarment "breeches" in order that their "nakedness" might not perchance be glimpsed.  Even more, I wonder if we should encourage this principle the more in accord with the shortening of "accepted" skirt lengths from the floor or ankles unto the knees.

2.  Wherein does God's Word speak concerning "pants-wear" at all, in relation to men or women?

Except the matter presented above concerning the priests, Scripture does not speak concerning the matter of "pants-wear" in a direct fashion.  In fact, within the culture of Israel (and much of the Middle East) throughout the time of the Old Testament and into the New Testament, neither men nor women wore "pants-wear."  Thus it would appear to be a legitimate question whether the prohibition of Deuteronomy 22:5 had any direct meaning concerning "pants-wear" for the people unto whom it was originally delivered, that is -- the children of Israel.  Would any individual among the children of Israel have thought of "pants-wear" when that prohibition was given?  If not, then the prohibition of Deuteronomy 22:5 must have had some other primary meaning and application for them at that time; and it would seem legitimate for us to ask what that primary meaning and application might have been.  For in the precision of "rightly dividing" God's Holy Word of truth, it is in the realm of that primary meaning and application wherein we also must primarily apply and obey the principle of the verse.

3.  In those places wherein God's Word does speak concerning "pants-wear" (if it actually does), does God's Word ever speak positively (or, even neutrally) of a godly woman's wearing of "pants-wear"?

Although the only specific reference unto "pants-wear" in Scripture concerned the "breeches" of the priest, there is an implication of "pants-wear" which may be considered.  This implication concerns the reference unto "girding up the loins."  Wearing a robe form of garment, sometimes individuals would gird up that garment by drawing the hem from the back of the garment's skirt up between the legs and tucking it into a belt around the waist.  By so doing, a form of "pants-wear" would be created.  So then, does God's Word ever speak concerning a woman "girding the loins;" and if it does, does God's Word speak negatively, positively, or neutrally thereof?  In answer, I would present two possible cases.  First, we might consider Exodus 12:11 and whether the women of Israel were included in the instruction of the Lord to have their "loins girded."  Second, we might consider the case of the virtuous wife in Proverbs 31:17.  So then, I shall make no argument concerning these cases, but shall simply leave them for individual consideration.

Edited September 17, 2016 by Pastor Scott Markle
spelling

[MountainChristian]

Breeches

[No Nicolaitans]

On 9/9/2016 at 2:21 PM, HappyChristian said:

NN - I began with a book titled Manners and Customs of the Bible by James M. Freeman.

I finally have this installed on my Bible Software. I couldn't find it in any of the extra sources (that I'm aware of) that provide modules for theWord. However, eSword has it available for download, and I was able to convert the eSword module over so that it works on theWord. 

Thanks again HC!

[HappyChristian]

1 hour ago, No Nicolaitans said:

I finally have this installed on my Bible Software. I couldn't find it in any of the extra sources (that I'm aware of) that provide modules for theWord. However, eSword has it available for download, and I was able to convert the eSword module over so that it works on theWord. 

Thanks again HC!

You're welcome! 

[Heir of Salvation]

Yes. There's nothing wrong with it.

 

[Ukulelemike]

Ever notice the weird phenomenon, that when a 'transgender' woman (male to female) is 'transitioning', they wil go to wearing dresses almost exclusively? Like, they somehow naturally associate being a woman with wearing dresses? What's with that? 

[Genevanpreacher]

On 10/24/2016 at 5:06 PM, Ukulelemike said:

Ever notice the weird phenomenon, that when a 'transgender' woman (male to female) is 'transitioning', they wil go to wearing dresses almost exclusively? Like, they somehow naturally associate being a woman with wearing dresses? What's with that? 

Yes. And they also create new names for themselves like Neptune or Aquarius or some other weird name (gotta quit hanging around Walmart so much...) - kinda reminds me of Hippies for some reason - and they wear make-up. Some wear it better than real women...even weirder!

So is it wrong to wear make-up too?

That might be opening another can of worms....

Edited November 4, 2016 by Genevanpreacher

[John Young]

On 10/24/2016 at 2:06 PM, Ukulelemike said:

Ever notice the weird phenomenon, that when a 'transgender' woman (male to female) is 'transitioning', they wil go to wearing dresses almost exclusively? Like, they somehow naturally associate being a woman with wearing dresses? What's with that? 

I'm not sure anyone can realistically or logically make a solid biblical argument for or against anything on the basis of 'transgender' people's ability to know what is natural.....So to answer your question....I don't know how they do it.......definitely is weird.....then again I do not spend much time reading about their transitioning habits to know.....nor to I currently care to find out. So.....

Edited November 4, 2016 by John Young

[HappyChristian]

I'm not Uke, so I can't claim to speak for him, but the point I got from what he said was that even perverted "men" seem to know what is women's wear. Which is why they choose it for themselves when they, erm, "come out."
 

[Pastor Scott Markle]

10 hours ago, HappyChristian said:

I'm not Uke, so I can't claim to speak for him, but the point I got from what he said was that even perverted "men" seem to know what is women's wear. Which is why they choose it for themselves when they, erm, "come out."

Indeed.  Although I myself do NOT believe (due to my above Biblical studies) that "pants-wear" is inherently "that which pertaineth unto a man" (as per Deuteronomy 22:5), and although I do NOT therefore believe that it is inherently sinful for a woman to wear "pants-wear," I DO believe that cultural realities SHOULD be factored into our decision concerning the matter.  Indeed, it has been a cultural reality for a past number of centuries (at least within European and American cultures) that "pants-wear" is "man's-wear," not "women's-wear.  No, this has NOT always been the case throughout world history and within every culture of the world.  However, it HAS been the case for numbers of centuries within the cultures in which we presently live.  (Note: Although I recognize that Wikipedia cannot be absolutely trusted for information, I do believe that the Wikipedia article on "Trousers" is a worthwhile read in relation to this matter, especially the sections on "History," "Society," and "Laws.")  Therefore, I believe that we SHOULD factor this cultural reality in our practice (at least, in our public practice) on the matter, in accord with the Biblical principles concerning "not offending brethren, but seeking their edification," and concerning "not offending the lost, so as not to hinder the gospel," and concerning "maintaining a clearly and culturally recognizable distinction between male and female." 

[Ukulelemike]

13 hours ago, HappyChristian said:

I'm not Uke, so I can't claim to speak for him, but the point I got from what he said was that even perverted "men" seem to know what is women's wear. Which is why they choose it for themselves when they, erm, "come out."
 

Thank you, that was pretty much my point. Though I guess it isn't that the recognize that women must ONLY wear dresses, but rather, they see and understand dresses to be particularly more feminine or female than pants. Even the lost can recognize that dresses are more feminine and female than pants. IS that a basis upon which we should base our truths? Maybe not, but it interests me that the lost often see things more biblically that Christians. An unsaved person might chide a believer for smoking or drinking as indulging in non-Christian behavior, which some Christians will fight for their absolute right to do so.Most unbelievers also clearly see the ridiculousness of CCM, and see it for what it is? Christians wanting to keep up in clearly un-Christian music, while pretending it is okay because they sometimes mention Jesus. I think Southpark, CLEARLY not a Christian program, did an entire episode about that.  Why do the lost see things that are actually correct, that we as Believers often don't, or won't?

 

[HappyChristian]

Yes, when I said women's wear I wasn't pushing the idea that women should only wear dresses (although I do not wear pants)...it was meant more that dresses are only for women, not men. Unless they are trans-something or other.