Jump to content
Online Baptist
  • Welcome Guest

    Tired of all the fighting that goes on in facebook groups? Are you ready for a community where you can talk about things of God and the Bible without getting branded a heretic? Well, we are glad you found us. Why don't you give us a try and see how friendly and different we are. - BroMatt

  • 0
Katherine Solarte

The Morality Behind Christian Women Wearing Pants

Question

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Recommended Posts

  • 0
On ‎5‎/‎25‎/‎2018 at 9:44 PM, heartstrings said:

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:

Deut 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.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.

Brother Wayne,

I mentioned earlier my desire to post a commendation and thanks unto you for a previous posting that you had made.  The previous posting for which I commend and thank you is that which I have quoted above.  In that posting you pointed out the grammatical distinction between the "abomination unto you" statement in Leviticus 11:10 and the "abomination unto the Lord thy God" statement in Deuteronomy 22:5.  Your posting thereof compelled me to do a full Biblical study on all of the "abomination" passages in Scripture.  Being an individual who ever presses (hard) the importance of grammatical precision, I found through my study that Leviticus 11 is the only "abomination" passage wherein the grammatical "unto you" reference is made.  I found that the other "abomination" passages speak concerning abomination in general or concerning abomination unto the Lord in specific.  I myself found this to be instructive.  Thus I commend and thank you for posting the above.  Furthermore, I believe that sometime in the not too distant future, I shall be preaching a series of message on the "abomination" passages of Scripture.  Although you and I have not stood in full agreement concerning the primary discussion of this thread, I still wish to thank you for being used of the Lord unto my edification in this regard.

Edited by Pastor Scott Markle
spelling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
4 minutes ago, Pastorj said:

Hate to tell you that the transgender movement had no impact on women wearing pants. That started in the 40's our of necessity when women went to work in factories. Which is when pants on women became acceptable. By the 60's and 70's it was normal. Now in 2018, women wearing dresses has become the abnormal. And that is only in the US, which we do not base Bible doctrine on a country either. If you look in Europe and other countries, the culture changed years ago, unless you are basing it on a sign. Go sit in a mall and you will see the change in culture. If God wanted to declare pants an abomination, he would have made it clear. Instead he used a principle of distinction between the sexes. In the New Testament, God makes it about modesty. Hence Christians should look distinctly their sex and be modest. It's also one of the biggest problems in Christianity. Immodesty has overwhelmed our churches and a lot of the time, the woman is in a dress.

I did not say nor intend to convey that the transgender movement had any impact on women wearing pants;  but I would suspect the other way around. No we do not base Bible doctrine on a country, but a country SHOULD base it's doctrine on the Bible. Again, I did'nt base it on a sign and I told you that.The Bible does not say that God declared "pants"an abomination; it says "wearing what pertains to a man" is an abomination. I agree with the immodesty statements.

Share this post


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

Brother Wayne,

I mentioned earlier my desire to post a commendation and thanks unto you for a previous posting that you had made.  The previous posting for which I commend and thank you is that which I have quoted above.  In that posting you pointed out the grammatical distinction between the "abomination unto you" statement in Leviticus 11:10 and the "abomination unto the Lord thy God" statement in Deuteronomy 22:5.  Your posting thereof compelled me to do a full Biblical study on all of the "abomination" passages in Scripture.  Being an individual who ever presses (hard) the importance of grammatical precision, I found through my study that Leviticus 11 is the only "abomination" passage wherein the grammatical "unto you" reference is made.  I found that the other "abomination" passages speak concerning abomination in general or concerning abomination unto the Lord in specific.  I myself found this to be instructive.  Thus I commend and thank you for posting the above.  Furthermore, I believe that sometime in the not too distant future, I shall be preaching a series of message on the "abomination" passages of Scripture.  Although you and I have not stood in full agreement concerning the primary discussion of this thread, I still wish to thank you for being used of the Lord unto my edification in this regard.

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..

Edited by heartstrings

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

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 by heartstrings

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
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. 

Share this post


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×