Jump to content
Online Baptist
  • 0

The Morality Behind Christian Women Wearing Pants


Go to solution Solved by Jordan Kurecki,

Question

  • Members

The question that I would like to raise is whether or not it is considered sinful for Christian women to wear pants, and why that is the case.

The controversy within this community regarding women's apparel has manifested itself countless of times whether it be in small local churches, such as my own, or large scale conventions and conferences where the attire of an individual, typically a woman's, is criticized or condemned. Personally, I believe that one should place more emphasis on behavior/actions and our faith than in the triviality of appearances. However, I am aware of the fervent stance that many of us have regarding this issue and I would like to hear/see our opinions on the matter, and whether they differ at all.

Edited by Katherine Solarte
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Answers 115
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters For This Question

Top Posters For This Question

Popular Posts

Hello! Welcome! You will receive differing views here on that subject. My view is that there's nothing wrong with women wearing pants as long as the pants are modest...the same with dresses,

An old timer, I knew years ago, once said "It's a sin if you look twice". I do think there's some wisdom in that. But I remember a deacon's daughter, in the IFB church I was a member of, coming to God

Well, let's see. We have a country where it's been fashionable to "come out of the closet" and proudly proclaim that you're "gay" for a few decades now.  But just 5 decades ago, when I was learning to

Posted Images

Recommended Posts

  • 1
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • Solution

Personally, Pants tends to draw the attention of men's eye to the woman thighs and bottom. I will say however i much more prefer loose pants than a short skirt no a lady, however I would prefer NEITHER. I do not really feel comfortable with woman wearing pants, I do think they blur somewhat of the distinction between the sexes, however our culture is changing and though my preference is against them, I have a hard time with my own conscience to condemn pants from scripture. 

Modesty is definitely an attitude, but that attitude should manifest itself in the way one dresses. I detest when people who are selfish and just want to dress their own way use the "modesty is a heart thing" excuse. Not that anyone here is necessarily doing that. Every issue is a heart issue, but the heart issue manifests itself in many ways. 

I have noticed also however that dresses and skirts on Christian women are becoming thinner and more form fitting... the other day I was at a Baptist Church and young teenage girl was wearing a long skirt that was tight and EXTREMELY thin, in fact it was so thin and tightthat anyone could see the outlines of her underwear and  basically see all the contours of her bottom. I find that very troubling. 

Edited by Jordan Kurecki
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
29 minutes ago, The Kitchen Help said:

This is such an old diversion, able still to get us all off track. Anything that distracts from the Holy Spirit working in hearts has to be examined carefully. 

Interesting that a Holy Spirit inspired command is considered "an old diversion."  Yet the Holy Spirit Himself DID indeed INSPIRE the command of Deuteronomy 22:5, which would move me to conclude that the Holy Spirit Himself DOES care about this matter and that this matter IS a part of the Holy Spirit's working in our hearts.

31 minutes ago, The Kitchen Help said:

If someone visits our church, don't care what they dress like as long as they stay long enough to hear the preaching and the altar call. So maybe if our group looks a little...different...from time to time, it just means we are reaching the target.  

Yet this matter is NOT about the unsaved visitors or the brand new converts, but is about the obedience and spiritual growth of believers.

33 minutes ago, The Kitchen Help said:

Personally I wear skirts at church just because pastor doesn't want a needless distraction in the leadership, and I'm an adult teacher, organist, etc, so visible.  He's responsible for the flock, I'm responsible to be a good team member, so there you go.  

Yet this matter is NOT about following the leadership of a pastor, but is about faithful submission and obedience unto the Lord our God Himself.  The command of Deuteronomy 22:5 is in GOD'S WORD.  it is not the word of a pastor.  it is the WORD OF GOD.  It supersedes the authority of ANY pastoral leadership. 

37 minutes ago, The Kitchen Help said:

We have a clear goal, "bring them in."  Don't get side-tracked from that, and the rest will follow.  

Indeed, we DO have a clear goal; for the greatest command of all, as per the estimation of our Lord Jesus Christ Himself is -- "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind." (See Matthew 22:37; Mark 12:30)  So then, if you really feel the need to narrow all of the doctrine and instruction within God's Holy Word unto one responsibility, then THIS should be that one responsibility.  Even so, how shall we demonstrate this "all-heart," "all-soul," "all-mind" love unto the Lord our God?  Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself gave answer in John 14:21, "He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him."  

Furthermore, how can a believer be empowered to be an effective witness unto the lost world?  Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself gave answer in John 15:4-5, "Abide in me, and I in you.  As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me.  I am the vine, ye are the branches.  He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing."  So then, how can a believer abide in Christ?  Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself gave answer in John 15:10, "If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love."  

It appears to me that understanding and obeying all of the commandments that the Lord our God has given us in His Holy Word (including the command of Deuteronomy 22:5) is SIGNIFICANTLY and SPIRITUALLY IMPORTANT, not "an old diversion" that "side-tracks" us.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

As a woman, I don't think it's a sin...there are times when wearing pants/jeans is appropriate. I had to wear them for years for safety reasons...construction sites are NOT set up for someone in a dress or skirt. I think modesty is more a state of mind rather than what's on your body. Its an attitude that doesn't call attention to self. That said, since I no longer have to deal with construction sites, I wear skirts/dresses much more often now. 

I think the idea is that women should look like women and men should look like men. I think each woman should pray about what the Lord would have her do when it comes to wardrobe. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
  • Members

...and then what about necklines or form-fitting tops on women.  I believe modest apparel and appropriate apparel is quite Biblical.  A woman working with Preschoolers may best be serving in clothing that keeps areas covered when bending or turning.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Modesty is the key to clothing and both Men and Women fail in this area far too often, even in church. I am amazed at the clothes Christians wear. The short shorts, the low necklines, tight clothes, etc.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
On 5/17/2018 at 8:16 AM, Pastorj said:

Modesty is the key to clothing and both Men and Women fail in this area far too often, even in church. I am amazed at the clothes Christians wear. The short shorts, the low necklines, tight clothes, etc.  

In the sermon, "The Mule Walked On," by Lester Roloff, uploaded by Matt in "Sermon," Lester Roloff stated, "We need to learn  how to dress like Christians."

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Not addressed in this post is that to dress like a man is an abomination.  Men wear pants.  It was the leftists, the God-haters, who began the unisex movement.  Why would a Christian want to follow after them?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Going back even further, it was the men who carried hunting pouches, possibles bags and such.  Now the ladies where them and they are called purses!  

If an activity causes one to sin, then maybe one shouldn't be doing it?  Just a thought!  My children ask me about dressing properly and then ask about water sports like diving or hunting and I reply that if you cannot dress for the Lord in that activity, you should not do it.  Cheerleaders, ballerinas, most competitive sports all put the woman into immodest forms of dress.    

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Heartstrings stated, "Bruce Jenner, the once mighty athlete is now "Kaitlin Jenner" wearing a dress".  Why?  Because wearing a dress clearly pertains unto a woman, which Bruce Jenner and other transvestites, effeminate, and gay people understand more than it seems many Christians.  You don't find those that are trying to look like women wearing blue jeans for some reason.

Deuteronomy 22:5 King James Version (KJV)

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.

The issue is clear and the clothing can even differ in many cultures, but in EVERY culture and time there is always a clear difference between what is considered women and men clothing.  For me, if I can't tell from 200 yards away whether someone is male or female by what they are wearing, then the line has already been crossed.  If I have to look and examine closely parts of a persons body that I should not be resting my eyes on just to determine whether it is a man or a woman in those pants, then it is clearly clothing that pertains unto a man.  The strongest word God uses when listing anything as a sin is "abomination".  I try to steer very clear of even approaching anything called an abomination by God.

2bLikeJesus

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

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
On 5/15/2018 at 2:01 PM, RayTX said:

...and then what about necklines or form-fitting tops on women.  I believe modest apparel and appropriate apparel is quite Biblical.  A woman working with Preschoolers may best be serving in clothing that keeps areas covered when bending or turning.

The way I'm built, they're ALL form-fitting. If I want to try to hide what's in front, I might as well wear a tent. I don't wear low cut but there's absolutely NO question I am a woman.

 

On 5/21/2018 at 8:57 AM, swathdiver said:

Not addressed in this post is that to dress like a man is an abomination.  Men wear pants.  It was the leftists, the God-haters, who began the unisex movement.  Why would a Christian want to follow after them?

Yes, men wear pants...however, in certain situations, it's a safety matter. And, if I AM wearing pants, it's still pretty obvious I am a woman. Women's pants are cut quite differently from men's pants. I cannot wear pants that are cut for men. They just do not fit right. I'm short, on the chubby side, and it isn't hard to figure out I'm female from the back or the front. 

For the record, I wear dresses/skirts and tops most of the time. I will not swim in a public pool or a beach. Any time I'm wearing shorts/tank tops, I'm inside my home. I get dressed for church. I don't normally wear make up or jewelry other than my wedding rings. My hair is to my waist. However, in the days when I was walking around construction sites, I wore the appropriate personal protective equipment including jeans, workboots, reflective vest, hard hat, etc 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
On ‎5‎/‎21‎/‎2018 at 11:57 AM, swathdiver said:

Not addressed in this post is that to dress like a man is an abomination.  Men wear pants.  (emphasis added by Pastor Scott Markle)

Indeed, when God Himself designed an outfit for Adam, He created pants for Adam, right?

Indeed, when God Himself designed an outfit for the high priesthood of Israel, He designed pants as outer wear for them, right?

Indeed, when God Himself commanded Moses to deliver the instruction of Deuteronomy 22:5 unto Israel, the men wore pants, right?

Indeed, when God's Word represents God Himself as wearing some form of clothing, it represents Him as wearing pants, right?

Indeed, when our Lord Jesus Christ engaged in His ministry upon the earth, He wore pants like any truly godly man would, right?

Indeed, when our Lord Jesus Christ appeared in His exalted form before John in Revelation 1, He is portrayed as wearing pants, right?

Certainly, since pants-wear is THE clothing piece that represents masculinity and masculine authority, then the highest male authority of all the creation would be wearing pants, right?

I wonder - Who invented pants-wear (even for men)?  Was it God?  Was it a godly culture or a godly individual?  Or was it a pagan culture?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
21 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Indeed, when God Himself designed an outfit for Adam, He created pants for Adam, right?

Indeed, when God Himself designed an outfit for the high priesthood of Israel, He designed pants as outer wear for them, right?

Indeed, when God Himself commanded Moses to deliver the instruction of Deuteronomy 22:5 unto Israel, the men wore pants, right?

Indeed, when God's Word represents God Himself as wearing some form of clothing, it represents Him as wearing pants, right?

Indeed, when our Lord Jesus Christ engaged in His ministry upon the earth, He wore pants like any truly godly man would, right?

Indeed, when our Lord Jesus Christ appeared in His exalted form before John in Revelation 1, He is portrayed as wearing pants, right?

Certainly, since pants-wear is THE clothing piece that represents masculinity and masculine authority, then the highest male authority of all the creation would be wearing pants, right?

I wonder - Who invented pants-wear (even for men)?  Was it God?  Was it a godly culture or a godly individual?  Or was it a pagan culture?

It says "that which pertaineth to a man" . If you're an Eskimo, you wear a man-styled "parka". If you're a 'bronze age" Jew, you wear whatever men wore back then. But there was a DISTINCTION in the clothes of the sexes.  In our culture, "Pants" "leggings" or "breeches" have long "pertained" to the men, and likewise dresses or skirts to women. But then you should already know that; right?

Image result for eskimo clothing

Image result for 18th century american clothing

 

Image result for 19th century american clothing

Related image

 

Edited by heartstrings
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
14 minutes ago, heartstrings said:

It says "that which pertaineth to a man" . If you're an Eskimo, you wear a man-styled "parka". If you're a 'bronze age" Jew, you wear whatever men wore back then. But there was a DISTINCTION in the clothes of the sexes.  In our culture, "Pants" "leggings" or "breeches" have long "pertained" to the men, and likewise dresses or skirts to women. But then you should already know that; right?

Certainly, Brother Wayne, I am aware of the cultural element to this issue, which is the very reason for my series of questions above.  In the present-day Fundamental Baptist movement, this issue is being preached with such statements as -- "Men wear pants; pants-wear IS men's wear."  Yet such statements are NOT precisely accurate.  It would be somewhat more accurate to say something like -- "For the last few hundred years, in European and American culture, pants-wear has been men's wear."  However, if we actually acknowledged the cultural element to this issue, then we would also have to acknowledge that culture itself can change, and even has changed from past times.  For example, hosen was originally men's wear; but I most certainly do not intend to wear hosen today.  For another example, high heels were originally men's wear; but I most certainly do not intend to wear high heels today.  For yet another example from a different perspective, culottes are defined in a dictionary as "a women's or girl's garment consisting of trousers made full in the leg to resemble a skirt;" yet although many in the Fundamental Baptist movement declare that pants-wear (trousers) are men's wear and are therefore an abomination for a woman to wear, they still allow (and even recommend) females to wear culottes.

Now, let us consider another point.  It is taught that the principle of Deuteronomy 22:5 still has application today, and I FULL-HEARTEDLY AGREE.  It is further taught that the application of that principle for today is to forbid women from wearing pants-wear (except possibly culottes).  However, it is my understanding that we should NOT seek to apply a principle unto our present situation until we FIRST understand the original meaning of that principle in its original Biblical context.  So then, I am compelled to ask -- What did the instruction of Deuteronomy 22:5 originally mean when it is was originally delivered by the Lord God through Moses unto the children of Israel?  Do we even know?  (By the way, having done a fairly extensive word study JUST IN THE OLD TESTAMENT SCRIPTURES concerning Deuteronomy 22:5, I am prepared to contend that the phrase, "that which pertaineth unto a man," did NOT originally refer unto a piece of clothing (a garment made from clothe) AT ALL.)  For example, an argument was made in an above posting that if an individual cannot discern whether someone is a male or a female from 200 yards away, then a line has been crossed.  Well, I am compelled to ask -- During the time when Deuteronomy 22:5 was originally delivered by the Lord God through Moses unto the children of Israel, when BOTH males and females wore a robe-type garment, could an individual discern whether someone was a male or a female from 200 yards away simply from the type of clothing that was being worn?

Yet another thought - I have a pastor friend who often makes fun of the Roman Catholic priest for his priestly garment, claiming that the priest's robe-garment is a dress (since that would be somewhat accurate within present-day American culture), and thus that the priest is wearing woman's wear.  Now, if that pastor friend is correct that a robe-garment is equivalent to a dress and thus to women's wear, then our Lord Jesus Christ Himself wore women's wear when He engaged in His ministry on the earth.  To me, implying any such thing is highly offensive.  Maybe, just maybe, we need to be a little more precise and a little more accurate with our arguments and our declarations about this issue.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
13 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Certainly, Brother Wayne, I am aware of the cultural element to this issue, which is the very reason for my series of questions above.  In the present-day Fundamental Baptist movement, this issue is being preached with such statements as -- "Men wear pants; pants-wear IS men's wear."  Yet such statements are NOT precisely accurate.  It would be somewhat more accurate to say something like -- "For the last few hundred years, in European and American culture, pants-wear has been men's wear."  However, if we actually acknowledged the cultural element to this issue, then we would also have to acknowledge that culture itself can change, and even has changed from past times.  For example, hosen was originally men's wear; but I most certainly do not intend to wear hosen today.  For another example, high heels were originally men's wear; but I most certainly do not intend to wear high heels today.  For yet another example from a different perspective, culottes are defined in a dictionary as "a women's or girl's garment consisting of trousers made full in the leg to resemble a skirt;" yet although many in the Fundamental Baptist movement declare that pants-wear (trousers) are men's wear and are therefore an abomination for a woman to wear, they still allow (and even recommend) females to wear culottes.

Now, let us consider another point.  It is taught that the principle of Deuteronomy 22:5 still has application today, and I FULL-HEARTEDLY AGREE.  It is further taught that the application of that principle for today is to forbid women from wearing pants-wear (except possibly culottes).  However, it is my understanding that we should NOT seek to apply a principle unto our present situation until we FIRST understand the original meaning of that principle in its original Biblical context.  So then, I am compelled to ask -- What did the instruction of Deuteronomy 22:5 originally mean when it is was originally delivered by the Lord God through Moses unto the children of Israel?  Do we even know?  (By the way, having done a fairly extensive word study JUST IN THE OLD TESTAMENT SCRIPTURES concerning Deuteronomy 22:5, I am prepared to contend that the phrase, "that which pertaineth unto a man," did NOT originally refer unto a piece of clothing (a garment made from clothe) AT ALL.)  For example, an argument was made in an above posting that if an individual cannot discern whether someone is a male or a female from 200 yards away, then a line has been crossed.  Well, I am compelled to ask -- During the time when Deuteronomy 22:5 was originally delivered by the Lord God through Moses unto the children of Israel, when BOTH males and females wore a robe-type garment, could an individual discern whether someone was a male or a female from 200 yards away simply from the type of clothing that was being worn?

Yet another thought - I have a pastor friend who often makes fun of the Roman Catholic priest for his priestly garment, claiming that the priest's robe-garment is a dress (since that would be somewhat accurate within present-day American culture), and thus that the priest is wearing woman's wear.  Now, if that pastor friend is correct that a robe-garment is equivalent to a dress and thus to women's wear, then our Lord Jesus Christ Himself wore women's wear when He engaged in His ministry on the earth.  To me, implying any such thing is highly offensive.  Maybe, just maybe, we need to be a little more precise and a little more accurate with our arguments and our declarations about this issue.

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.

Nobody is questioning whether it was "cloth" or animal skins or whatever. The point is; it was a "garment".  It's really very simple.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
1 hour ago, heartstrings said:

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.

Nobody is questioning whether it was "cloth" or animal skins or whatever. The point is; it was a "garment".  It's really very simple.

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

Brother Wayne, do you know why the first phrase is translated as "that which pertaineth" and why the second phrase is translated as "garment"?  The answer is because these two very DIFFFERENT English phrases are translated from two very DIFFERENT Hebrew words that each have two very DIFFERENT meanings from each other.  Now, the Hebrew word that is translated with the English word "garment" means "something made of (woven) clothe, clothing."  However, that is NOT what the Hebrew word that is translated with the English phrase "that which pertaineth" means.  Rather, that Hebrew word means "something manufactured from natural substances (such as wood, metal, stone, precious stone, animal skin)."  Furthermore, a word study of the Hebrew word that is translated with the English phrase "that which pertaineth" throughout the entire Old Testament will show that this Hebrew word is used in the Old Testament over 300 times, yet that it NEVER, NOT EVEN ONCE, refers to something made of (woven) clothe."  (By the way, when my oldest son wanted to discuss this subject with me, I required him to look up all 300+ Old Testament passages BEFORE I would engage in the discussion, because his position needed to be rooted in actual Bible study, rather than in his dad's thoughts and opinions.)  Yet Deuteronomy 22:5 clearly indicates that it is speaking about something that a woman might "wear."  So then, what was it originally, if it was not clothing?  Maybe it is not so simple after all.

Edited by Pastor Scott Markle
numeric correction
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
25 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

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

Brother Wayne, do you know why the first phrase is translated as "that which pertaineth" and why the second phrase is translated as "garment"?  The answer is because these two very DIFFFERENT English phrases are translated from two very DIFFERENT Hebrew words that each have two very DIFFERENT meanings from each other.  Now, the Hebrew word that is translated with the English word "garment" means "something made of (woven) clothe, clothing."  However, that is NOT what the Hebrew word that is translated with the English phrase "that which pertaineth" means.  Rather, that Hebrew word means "something manufactured from natural substances (such as wood, metal, stone, precious stone, animal skin)."  Furthermore, a word study of the Hebrew word that is translated with the English phrase "that which pertaineth" throughout the entire Old Testament will show that this Hebrew word is used in the Old Testament over 200 times, yet that it NEVER, NOT EVEN ONCE, refers to something made of (woven) clothe."  (By the way, when my oldest son wanted to discuss this subject with me, I required him to look up all 200+ Old Testament passages BEFORE I would engage in the discussion, because his position needed to be rooted in actual Bible study, rather than in his dad's thoughts and opinions.)  Yet Deuteronomy 22:5 clearly indicates that it is speaking about something that a woman might "wear."  So then, what was it originally, if it was not clothing?  Maybe it is not so simple after all.

 "Neither shall a man put on a woman's garment".  Just by implication, that phrase tells us that men weren't wearing women's "garments", correct? So if they weren't already wearing women's fashions they must ahve been wearing 'men's duds" right?.  Brother, it is talking about wearing the clothes(or things if you must) of the opposite sex. If you want to add a sword, a sling or anything else a "man" might "wear" on his person, I'm sure that could be included too. 

Edited by heartstrings
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Two DIFFERENT phrases in translation:

1.  "that which pertaineth unto a man"
2.  "a woman's garment"

Two DIFFERENT Hebrew words:

1.  כְּלִי ("kaliy," Strong's #3627)
2.  
שִׂמְלָה ("simlah," Strong's #8071)

Two DIFFERENT meanings:

1.  Something manufactured from natural substances (such as wood, metal, stone, precious stone, animal skin).
2.  Something made of (woven) clothe, clothing.

Two DIFFERENT Biblical uses when applied to an individual's attire:

1.  With 325 occurrences in the Old Testament, it NEVER once refers to clothing itself, but does refer to something a man might wear - and that is . . . (yes, I have an answer).
2.  With 29 occurrences in the Old testament, it always refers to clothing (made from clothe) of some kind.

So, that which is DIFFERENT is NOT the same, right?  I did not choose these differences.  Rather, God the Holy Spirit Himself inspired these DIFFERENCES.  I wonder if He had a reason.  I wonder if we should consider His reason.

Edited by Pastor Scott Markle
grammar
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
  • Administrators
1 hour ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

1.  With 325 occurrences in the Old Testament, it NEVER once refers to clothing itself, but does refer to something a man might wear - and that is . . . (yes, I have an answer).
_____________________________________________________________

Possibly armor and not clothing at all.

Unlike Bro. Scott, I am not well versed in Hebrew. But I am not, nor have I ever been in the camp that earnestly contends that "that which pertaineth unto a man" must be pants.

As I said early in this thread, this is a non-issue for me. I consider it very much in the same line as folks that make a big deal about other pet peeves like women must wear a hat because Scripture says that a woman praying must have her head covered.  :4_12_2:

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I will try to tread carefully, for I don't want to cause offense to any of my dear brothers or sisters here.

Why do we not hear preachers get up and scorn the congregation for eating things like...lobster, shrimp, catfish, calamari (squid), crayfish, etc. According to God's word in Leviticus, eating such is an abomination.

We are free from the law. We are free from the law that God gave to...Israel.

We have a new testament, and despite those animals being labeled an abomination in the old testament, the new testament says that we can eat whatever as long as it's done with thanksgiving...God has made them all clean.

We have a new testament, and all that the new testament says is that women should wear modest clothing...period. Is a dress more modest than pants? Possibly. Are pants more modest than a dress? Possibly. Modesty is modesty...

However...

Just once...I'd still like to hear a preacher get up and lambaste people with something like..."You bunch'a heathens...eatin' your catfish! You're not right with God! God says that's an abomination, but you're gonna do what you wanna do, and you're gonna follow the world and eat your ol' bottom-dwellin', algae-scarfin', yucky-scavengin' catfish, aren't you! YOU'RE NOT RIGHT WITH GOD!!! A CHILD OF GOD SHOULDN'T BE EATIN' NO CATFISH!!!"

:laugh:

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Slight difference there  brother

 

Lev 11:10

And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:

 

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.her

 

Should we go ahead and do all of those other "abominations unto the Lord" listed in the OT, simply because they were addressed to Old Testament Israel too? What about bestiality, homosexuality, incest, idolatry, witchcraft or cheating with weights and measures? There's nothing inherently sinful about eating a catfish or a crawdad, but being a "transvestite" or "crossdresser" is a whole different matter. The NEW Testament still condemns things like being "effeminate" and what do effeminate folks do? They try to act, look and dress like girls don't they? And I agree with the "modest" aspect too.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Perhaps, yet if God wanted Israel to view those things as an abomination unto themselves...how much more did God view them as an abomination? Either way, the Bible plainly calls eating them an abomination...there's no way around it. Why do we separate that from clothing when the new testament has clearly given us guidelines for both?

My fear is this...the Lord Jesus Christ was quick to condemn the Pharisees who laid more on the people than God did. I've seen it first-hand...modern-day Pharisaical tendencies; in which, the "Pharisees" require people to look and act a certain way...otherwise, they're not right with God. I've seen the hate-filled darts being stared at people who don't "measure up".  I've seen the pride. I've seen the arrogance. I've seen the devastation it brings. I've also seen the Pharisaical hypocrisy of those in "authority" who lay more on people than they can bear...

I'm not saying that you're that way Bro. Wayne, because I don't believe for one minute that you are

From my own studies, I think I know where Pastor Markle is going with this, and I would ask everyone to please consider what he has to say.

As a final note...if someone is convicted that they should wear only skirts and dresses, then I support that. It's when those in authority "require" it...that's what I have a problem with...

Take care Bro. Wayne. I love you brother.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
10 hours ago, No Nicolaitans said:

Perhaps, yet if God wanted Israel to view those things as an abomination unto themselves...how much more did God view them as an abomination? Either way, the Bible plainly calls eating them an abomination...there's no way around it. Why do we separate that from clothing when the new testament has clearly given us guidelines for both?

My fear is this...the Lord Jesus Christ was quick to condemn the Pharisees who laid more on the people than God did. I've seen it first-hand...modern-day Pharisaical tendencies; in which, the "Pharisees" require people to look and act a certain way...otherwise, they're not right with God. I've seen the hate-filled darts being stared at people who don't "measure up".  I've seen the pride. I've seen the arrogance. I've seen the devastation it brings. I've also seen the Pharisaical hypocrisy of those in "authority" who lay more on people than they can bear...

I'm not saying that you're that way Bro. Wayne, because I don't believe for one minute that you are

From my own studies, I think I know where Pastor Markle is going with this, and I would ask everyone to please consider what he has to say.

As a final note...if someone is convicted that they should wear only skirts and dresses, then I support that. It's when those in authority "require" it...that's what I have a problem with...

Take care Bro. Wayne. I love you brother.

 

 

Absolutely! 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Bro. Wayne is not the only person here on OnLineBaptist, and in some fine churches, with the personal conviction about  women wearing pants at church.

To call those who have that conviction, out of a heart to develop holiness in their lives, and to cleanse themselves from the worldliness in the church, "Pharisees," and having modern day "Pharisaical tendencies," or "legalistic," or "under the Law," is not the best way to have a brotherly discussion on this, or other issues in the church.

Some of the brethren have a sincere desire to develop holiness in their household that they develop their own convictions about the clothing issue and not because somebody "requires" it.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
On 5/2/2018 at 5:10 PM, No Nicolaitans said:

Hello! Welcome!

You will receive differing views here on that subject.

My view is that there's nothing wrong with women wearing pants as long as the pants are modest...the same with dresses, skirts, blouses, shirts, etc...

Modesty of the apparel in how it adorns a lady is the essential key...not the make of the apparel.

(1 Timothy 2:9-10) In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;

 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.

Excellent.

Some folks develop convictions concerning the covering of the body due to personal holiness and not Deuteronomy 22:5.

Furthermore, to insinuate that all such persons, or pastors, are harsh in their preaching in this matter, is just not true. Yes, some of the brethren go overboard, but, to use those brethren as an example to all those who hold such convictions is not totally correct.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
27 minutes ago, Alan said:

Excellent.

Some folks develop convictions concerning the covering of the body due to personal holiness and not Deuteronomy 22:5.

Furthermore, to insinuate that all such persons, or pastors, are harsh in their preaching in this matter, is just not true. Yes, some of the brethren go overboard, but, to use those brethren as an example to all those who hold such convictions is not totally correct.

 

If my words were misconstrued, I apologize. I thought I was careful in saying...

 

Quote

if someone is convicted that they should wear only skirts and dresses, then I support that.

 

Also, if my words were misconstrued, I apologize. I also thought I was careful in saying...

 

Quote

It's when those in authority "require" it

 

To me, that's not an "all-inclusive" phrase (as I think you took it?). It only applies to those in authority who require it of others...it in no way reflects on those who have a personal conviction about the issue. My statements regarding "Pharisaical" issues...I don't apologize for...sorry. I've seen too many leaders/pastors who require that members look and act a certain way if they want to be a part of "the ministry"...but they are Pharisaical themselves. That doesn't imply that all leaders/pastors are that way...or if my words were misconstrued, it wasn't meant to imply that all leaders/pastors are that way.

Again, I ask that folks consider what Pastor Markle says when he responds...

I apologize if I offended you or anyone else.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I believe we won't find scripture which states, God forbids women to wear "pants". However, as Paul would say, "But to the rest speak I, not the Lord:" Ladies, do you want your husband's attention drawn to what a woman wears? Why, do I ask, "because, your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour". Greater men of faith than I have fallen and I dare say greater than anyone in the local church. As much as my flesh would like to say that I'm above any earthly, worldly, or demonic temptation and attack, it just ain't so. I only ask that caution with God's wisdom is used that no woman "put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way."

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
On 5/25/2018 at 8:27 AM, swathdiver said:

For example?  

Construction sites, certain workplaces like warehouses, EMT, Firefighter, Police officer. Working on a car. Up on a ladder. Nurses. Doctors. 

Or do you believe that women also should not work? 

I don't need to worry about what my husband is looking at. I can tell you he only has eyes for one woman...ME. 

 

Edited by Saved41199
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
20 hours ago, Saved41199 said:

Construction sites, certain workplaces like warehouses, EMT, Firefighter, Police officer. Working on a car. Up on a ladder. Nurses. Doctors. 

Or do you believe that women also should not work? 

I don't need to worry about what my husband is looking at. I can tell you he only has eyes for one woman...ME. 

 

Not that I am super hardcore against pants, but that is not really a legitimate excuse for women to wear pants, just because you named occupations that require pants or something similiar, does not mean it is ok for women to wear them.

if pants truly are immodest on a woman, then women should not be doing things that require them to wear them. 

To give you an example in the spirit of reductio absurdum, that would be like saying that since a woman can’t be a bikini model without wearing a bikini, then it must be ok for her to wear a bikini. I believe what you are doing is a form of circular reasoning. 

Edited by Jordan Kurecki
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
  • Administrators

Try telling a woman in Alaska that she should be wearing a dress or skirt when the temp is minus 40 degrees below zero or lower. I'm just saying that there are legitimate exceptions, it is not a "one size fits all" issue.

I find it interesting that whenever this subject of what church members should wear is brought up, it is always about women wearing pants. the subject of what a man should wear is avoided. How many sermons have you heard that focus on the last clause of this verse:  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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Answer this question...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online   1 Member, 0 Anonymous, 30 Guests (See full list)

×
×
  • Create New...