women The Morality Behind Christian Women Wearing Pants

[Pastor Scott Markle]

11 minutes ago, heartstrings said:

Brother Scott, No need for a commendation; it was just an observation. You will also notice, for what it's worth, the Biblical mention of "shepherds" being an "abomination" to the "Egyptians". And another thing I noticed is that Deuteronomy 22:5 doesn't appear to have been a stoning offense, even though it was an abomination to the Lord..

Indeed, I did take notice of both of those matters also.  The first of those is really not a moral matter, but an interesting cultural matter in relation to the Egyptian culture.  On the second of those, I had to correct my son just the other day on that very point; for he just assumed that an "abomination" offense was equivalent to a stoning judgment.

[1Timothy115]

On ‎5‎/‎30‎/‎2018 at 9:16 AM, Pastor Scott Markle said:

( If I may bare one of my heart's ongoing burdens at this point - This lack of diligence in Bible study is one of the things that grieves and burdens my heart deeply about the Fundamentalist movement.)

This is a point which must concern us all. Satan and his hoard of demons as well as his host of unwitting minions were never so hard at work. Working to destroy fundamental faith and allegiance to our Lord and His Word. I have allowed too much to interfere with my own diligence to tear into God's Word with hunger and with fervor. 

[Pastor Scott Markle]

12 minutes ago, 1Timothy115 said:

This is a point which must concern us all. Satan and his hoard of demons as well as his host of unwitting minions were never so hard at work. Working to destroy fundamental faith and allegiance to our Lord and His Word. I have allowed too much to interfere with my own diligence to tear into God's Word with hunger and with fervor. 

Indeed, Brother "1Timothy115,"

Even for myself, who is somewhat driven by personality and ability to study diligently, I find that the battle against true Bible study rages daily; and I must confess that I fail therein all too often, and thereby commit sin against my precious Lord and Savior.

[heartstrings]

I have a question, Brother Scott; If the King James Bible is an accurate translation of God's Word, providentially provided for English speaking peoples, then why would Deuteronomy 22:5 say "that which pertaineth to a man" instead of just calling it "armor"? I mean, seeing that the word "armour" is a KJV word appearing 24 times, why not use it here if that's what it really means?

Edited June 1, 2018 by heartstrings

[Pastor Scott Markle]

8 minutes ago, heartstrings said:

I have a question, Brother Scott; If the King James Bible is an accurate translation of God's Word, providentially provided for English speaking peoples, then why would Deuteronomy 22:5 say "that which pertaineth to a man" instead of just calling it "armor"? I mean, seeing that the word "armour" is a KJV word appearing 24 times, why not use it here if that's what it really means?

Brother Wayne,

The best answer that I can give is that which I provided earlier to Brother Carl --

On ‎5‎/‎30‎/‎2018 at 4:36 PM, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Brother Carl,

I believe that they did so in order that the principle of the verse might be applied more readily unto all cultures at all times and in all places, rather than to be focused strictly upon the idea of armor itself.

If the translators had translated the verse with the word "armor," then many would likely conclude that since men no longer wear armor, the verse has no application for us today.  However, by translating the verse with the phrase that they did, they allowed the PRINCIPLE of the verse to be communicated across times and cultures.  Furthermore, since the Hebrew word itself does NOT strictly mean "armor," but actually means "that which is manufactured (from natural substances)," they were quite accurate in their translational choice.  It is through a diligent Hebrew word study throughout the entire Old Testament that the Bible student is able to discern the Biblical reality that the Hebrew word is never even once used for "that which is made of clothe, clothing," but is used a number of times for the attire of armor and of jewelry.

[DayByDay]

Why is there so much debate about submission to various ways to please The Lord? Is not the deviation from God’s plan for the family (homosexuality) enough in itself for to realize the importance of reflecting the traditional family? Women need to be feminine. Yet today, there are men who are more feminine than women.

Worldly women are flailing about for their “rights”, as are the Christians. We have no rights, but Christ. What example are we to the world if we ourselves must have our way? It’s not about us! 

I personally find the change in women’s attire very discouraging spiritually. I crave the influence of sweet, submissive ladies and wise, seasoned older women. 

[Pastor Scott Markle]

5 minutes ago, DayByDay said:

Why is there so much debate about submission to various ways to please The Lord? 

Yet this is just wherein this debate originates, with the question - Is this a debate about submission in pleasing the Lord, or is this a debate about a man-made law of the fundamentalist movement?  The only way to answer this question aright is through thorough Bible study on the matter, for God's Word alone is our only and final authority concerning the matter of submission in pleasing the Lord.

[Jordan Kurecki]

2 hours ago, DayByDay said:

Why is there so much debate about submission to various ways to please The Lord? Is not the deviation from God’s plan for the family (homosexuality) enough in itself for to realize the importance of reflecting the traditional family? Women need to be feminine. Yet today, there are men who are more feminine than women.

Worldly women are flailing about for their “rights”, as are the Christians. We have no rights, but Christ. What example are we to the world if we ourselves must have our way? It’s not about us! 

I personally find the change in women’s attire very discouraging spiritually. I crave the influence of sweet, submissive ladies and wise, seasoned older women. 

I will say that I have known girls who wore dresses and skirts that I would not consider to be sweet and submissive and I have known ladies who have worn pants that were very sweet and submissive. 

[Jordan Kurecki]

2 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Yet this is just wherein this debate originates, with the question - Is this a debate about submission in pleasing the Lord, or is this a debate about a man-made law of the fundamentalist movement?  The only way to answer this question aright is through thorough Bible study on the matter, for God's Word alone is our only and final authority concerning the matter of submission in pleasing the Lord.

I think it would do some people well to consider what makes something a man’s garment or a woman’s garment. Because the Bible does not spell it out specifically. The answer is that culture dictates what a man’s garment is and what a woman’s garment, which is why men wear kilts in Scotland but not in America. I think the problem is an unwillingness to admit to ourselves that culture does in fact determine certain things associated with gender. I also think we need to realize that 1970s American Fundamentalist culture is not identical to biblical morality. 

I know some will object and say “but we should let the Bible dictate to us our culture”, well if that’s the case the only true biblical culture was that which was given to the Israelites in the OT, so unless you want to follow all of those laws then your out of luck, I believe God intends for us to follow the biblical principles within our culture and obviously where there are differences then we follow the Bible, for instance fornication is always wrong regardless of what the culture says.

I also find it interesting that the Bible says so much about men having beards, yet the same fundamentalists who so strongly condemn pants on woman and refuse to make any allowance for change in culture  are so quick to condemn beards as worldly based on the cultural change of the hippie movements of the 70s. It’s hypocrisy. 

Edited June 25, 2018 by Jordan Kurecki

[Alan]

12 hours ago, DayByDay said:

Worldly women are flailing about for their “rights”, as are the Christians. We have no rights, but Christ. What example are we to the world if we ourselves must have our way? It’s not about us! 

I personally find the change in women’s attire very discouraging spiritually. I crave the influence of sweet, submissive ladies and wise, seasoned older women. 

Amen and amen.

[heartstrings]

10 hours ago, Jordan Kurecki said:

I think it would do some people well to consider what makes something a man’s garment or a woman’s garment. Because the Bible does not spell it out specifically. The answer is that culture dictates what a man’s garment is and what a woman’s garment, which is why men wear kilts in Scotland but not in America. I think the problem is an unwillingness to admit to ourselves that culture does in fact determine certain things associated with gender. I also think we need to realize that 1970s American Fundamentalist culture is not identical to biblical morality. 

I know some will object and say “but we should let the Bible dictate to us our culture”, well if that’s the case the only true biblical culture was that which was given to the Israelites in the OT, so unless you want to follow all of those laws then your out of luck, I believe God intends for us to follow the biblical principles within our culture and obviously where there are differences then we follow the Bible, for instance fornication is always wrong regardless of what the culture says.

I also find it interesting that the Bible says so much about men having beards, yet the same fundamentalists who so strongly condemn pants on woman and refuse to make any allowance for change in culture  are so quick to condemn beards as worldly based on the cultural change of the hippie movements of the 70s. It’s hypocrisy. 

As for myself, I have been saying that all through this thread: and our Western culture happens to have been pants on men and dresses on ladies. Everybody knows we don't wear what they did back in the Old Testament; Arab/Bedouin cultures might, but we don't. The point is" culture does in fact determine certain things associated with gender" just like you said. And God put beards on our faces for all time;  I have one.

[Martyr_4_FutureJoy]

On 5/2/2018 at 2:48 PM, Katherine Solarte said:

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.

In the op, you asked for opinions.    Opinions won't be helpful to anyone.

There are times God considers it sinful, and says so,  for any woman, Christian or not, to wear pants.  Like anything,  it is sinful when God Says So, because He Says So.

What God says and thinks is what is necessary , life-giving, helpful and important and eternal.

  Whatever men (or women) think,  mainly flesh, is just like them - like grass or flowers growing one day,  and the next day withering and blowing away in the wind.

 

 

Note fwiw that the OP posted once,  visited one week,  and left.

[robycop3]

I agree with Jim_Alaska. When God gave the command against cross-dressing, hardly anyone of either gender wore pants in Israel or the peoples they came in contact with.

   When a pentecostal friend chided my wife, who usually wears pants, for doing so, & quoted the Scripture to her she immediately replied, "Womens' pants don't pertain to men. They're shaped differently, & almost always have feminine colors & designs on them. Remember, I worked 7 years for the old Corbin Co, making both mens' & womens' pants, so I know something about the differences. Now, are you gonna go off about Scottish mens' kilts?"

[BrotherTony]

While in Augusta, GA for my nieces graduation from Augusta Universities pinning ceremony for those who had completed their nurses training, most of the women who were graduating as nurses were wearing skin-tight, exceptionally short dresses. I was very proud to see that SOME of those who were graduating were wearing dresses knee-length or longer. The men, of course, we wearing nice slacks and ties. 

I can say that my wife wears jeans to work as her job is in logistics and requires a sturdy pair of slacks. She pulls orders, loads and moves pallets all day, and that just wouldn't work in a dress or skirt, nor would it work in coulottes. He pants aren't skin-tight like some of the ladies wear where she works. 

[SureWord]

The public school I drive bus for has more dress codes than many churches in America.