.

[...]

.

Edited March 19, 2023 by ...

[Salyan]

I was going to comment that Judges 3:24 and 1 Samuel 24:3 were talking about resting or sleeping - and now I see that the modern versions think it's talking about using the bathroom. Which is pretty weird, cause you'd think Saul would have noticed David sneaking up on him if he was doing that! I don't get where the modern versions translate it that way - but we don't believe in them anyways. I still think those verses refer to resting.

[Salyan]

So Br. Stafford, what is your position on women wearing any kind of bivurcated garments (breeches)? Are all breeches prohibited, or just external ones?

Just so you know, a good number of the articles in your list that are listed as both are actually gender-specific. Men's shirts & ladies' shirts button on opposite sides. Ladies' boots and men's boots are very different in design - all shoes tend to have very gender-specific designs, except for perhaps runners. Hats also tend to traditionally be more gender specific (although that's getting blended more). Coats have the same button specs as shirts, and robes (I'm assuming you're talking bathrobes) also have very different designs for men vs women. Even pants (I know, I know...) and t-shirts are actually designed differently for men and women. It's not quite as clear cut as you're presenting it. (BTW, do we really need to bring underwear into it? That's a bit crude...)

I'm not against people being against pants, but I think one ought to be consistent and have reasonable arguments for it. It helps no one to bring outdated, culturacentric eisegesis to the table.

[...]

.

Edited March 19, 2023 by ...

[Ukulelemike]

Can I wear a kilt? As long as it covers my knees?

I agree on the pants thing, actually, as does my wife. The difficulty is in getting others to accept it. There are verses concerning keeping clear differences between men and women, but since the Bible doesn't refer to 'pants' there are those who just will not accept it. I once taught about it and had a 'mature' Christian lady, who ALWAYS wore dressed, come to me and tell me I was absolutely wrong and she started wearing pants. They left shortly thereafter so I didn't have to put them out, but it would have been tough, since she and her husband were the first to befirend me when I became the pastor. She has since apparently recanted of it in their current church. BUt it's like the rock music thing, people will say "Where does the Bible say we can't listen to rock and roll", even though clearly there would be no reason to mention it specifically since it didn't exist. Or cigarettes. Some people just insist on keeping their sin no matter what.

As for the hair, I disagree-it IS doctrine. I did my master's thesis on the head covering. What I found is, 1Cor 11 is one chapter that is part of a series of answers to questions sent to Paul by the Corinthian church. In Chapter 7 he begins Vs 1 by saying, "Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me:..." Things. Then notice, from that point for the next few chapters, Paul jumps from subject to subject very quickly, very diverse subjects, completely unrelated to each other. Like he jumps right from the head covering to the Lord's Supper without hardly a pause. He is answering 'the things whereof ye wrote unto me", and this is one. So, the question was more than likely something like, "Women are ceasing wearing headcoverings in society: should our women continue to wear them?" I base this question on the fact that, historically, this is exactly what was happening in society in that time. It also explains Paul speaking on the extreme hair styles woen were doing, because shortly before this, they tended to wear a covering, so did little with their hair-now that they were stopping wearing them, they began to go nuts with extreme hairstyles. So, Paul makes clear that the woman's long hair was given to her as a covering, so the woman should wear it long and the man, short, or uncovered, (though not bald, just short).  Verse 16 merely wraps up the question by saying, 'If anyone wants to argue the point, no, we have no such custom of women wearing a haircovering, ie, a veil or a cloth cover.'

So the answer to the question is, Long hair is the covering for a woman, and the church doesn't follow a custom of a woman having to veil herself. But the hair length is absolutely vital, because the long and short hair indicate the obedience to God's divine order of Father/Son/Husband/Wife. Short hair is uncovered, for the man, and long hair is covered, for the woman. If a man wears his hair long, he shows himself to be in the place of the woman.

[Salyan]

36 minutes ago, Brother Stafford said:

From your responses, I can surmise that you disagree with my position.  I am quite familiar with the arguments for allowing women to wear pants.  What I am more interested in, at the moment, is why people, who share my convictions, avoid standing up for them.

I agree that women shouldn't wear pants. What I disagree with is the idea that verses regarding a specific subset of the male population somehow become binding on everyone, and how cultural garments from a specific time and place have somehow become the definition of gendered garb for all times & cultures. I also find it hypocritical for men to disapprove of bivurcated garments externally (pants) and allow them if hidden (warm layers).  I think there is a sufficient argument against pants from the modesty perspective without using outdated arguments from the 1970's.  Like I said before, I would love there to be a chapter and verse against wearing pants, but the fact is it just isn't there.
 

And you didn't answer my question. ;-)

[...]

.

Edited March 19, 2023 by ...

[Invicta]

2 hours ago, Brother Stafford said:

 

What are braziers?  The only brazier I have heard of is the fire that night watchmen used to have to keep themselves warm.

Makeup only for women.  Xenophon said the grandfather of Cyrus wore makeup.  

Did men in the bible wear pants?  "Gird up thy loins" would suggest not.

.

Edited September 8, 2016 by Invicta

[...]

.

Edited March 19, 2023 by ...

[Pastor Scott Markle]

Brother Stafford,

Are you aware that the King James translation makes reference unto the "skirt" 19 times in the Old Testmant, and that it reveals the skirt to be apparel for BOTH men and women?

In fact, in Ezekiel 16:8 the Lord God presents an illustration wherein He HIMSELF is wearing a skirt.

Edited September 9, 2016 by Pastor Scott Markle

[...]

.

Edited March 19, 2023 by ...

[Pastor Scott Markle]

10 hours ago, Brother Stafford said:

Regardless, as I have stated above several times now, I am interested in hearing about why people, who share my convictions, avoid standing up for them. 

Indeed, I understand your stated purpose. So then, I can present at least three possible reasons, as follows:

1.  They are spiritual "wimps," who are not emboldened by the filling of the Spirit to stand against the opposition.

2.  They are spiritual compromisers, who are yielding to the lusts of the flesh so as to follow self-interests.

3.  They are spiritually confused, because they lack the Biblical evidence to hold with conviction a position which appears that it might be a man-made, movement driven regulation.

(By the way, many Independent Fundamental Baptist churches in my area of Michigan hold to this position with conviction and public proclamation.) 

Edited September 9, 2016 by Pastor Scott Markle

[DaveW]

You know of course that you can impose outward regulation on people but fail to reach their heart.

What you end up with is basically a Pharisee - concerning themselves with outward conformity, but with no spiritual understanding. 

Mat 23:27 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness.

 

[Invicta]

15 hours ago, Brother Stafford said:

Ha ha!  That's embarrassing.  I meant "brassieres."

 

I didn't think of that at the time, but after I posted it I did.  I thought that may be what you called them in the US. My mistake.

[HappyChristian]

IMO, we have a sad lack of older women teaching younger women the things they should be  - both in the home and in churches - regarding femininity. Inside and out. With emphasis first on the inside. The heart. "My son, give me thine heart" holds true with "my daughters" as well. If we do not teach and reach the heart - and it isn't just the responsibility of the pulpit, but the man in the pulpit must strive for that as well - if all we teach is the outward (like it was in the 70s), we produce a generation of hypocrites. Which is what has happened. Dress just so, but do anything you want...