women The Morality Behind Christian Women Wearing Pants

[Martyr_4_FutureJoy]

There were it seems and I expect many IFB teachers and preachers who showed clearly from KJV that it was immodest and sinful.  I don't think those lessons , sermons , or teachings will be found here.  

Instead,  revealing perhaps a starting point,    as Christian teachers and Jewish teachers with, from, and in line with all Scripture have revealed > 

"According to Rabbi Colon, modesty was still a criterion for wearing gentile clothing, writing: "...even if Israel made it as their custom [to wear] a certain item of clothing, while the Gentiles [would wear] something different, if the Israelite garment should not measure up to [the standard established in] Judaism or of modesty more than what the Gentiles hold as their practice, there is no prohibition whatsoever for an Israelite to wear the garment that is practised among the Gentiles, seeing that it is in [keeping with] the way of fitness and modesty just as that of Israel."^[31]

"Rabbi Joseph Karo (1488–1575), following in the footsteps of Colon, ruled in accordance with Colon's teaching in his seminal work Beit Yosef on the Tur (Yoreh De'ah §178), and in his commentary Kessef Mishneh (on Maimonides' Mishne Torah, Hilkhot Avodat Kokhavim 11:1), making the wearing of gentile clothing contingent upon three factors: 1) that they not be promiscuous clothing; 2) not be clothing linked to an idolatrous practice; 3) not be clothing that was worn because of some superstitious practice (or "the way of the Amorites"). Rabbi Moses Isserles (1530–1572) opines that to these strictures can be added one additional prohibition of wearing clothes that are a "custom" for them (the gentiles) to wear, that is to say, an exclusive gentile custom where the clothing is immodest.^[32] Rabbi and posek Moshe Feinstein (1895–1986) subscribed to the same strictures.^[33]"

Edited August 7, 2021 by jeff_student_of_Jesus

[BrotherTony]

I was referred to this article by a Rabbi I know. It's just a small portion of what his sect of Judaism believes.

https://responsafortoday.com/en/women-and-the-wearing-of-pants/

[heartstrings]

1 Timothy 2

⁶Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time. ⁷Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not;) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity. ⁸I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting. ⁹In 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; ¹⁰But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works. ¹¹Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. ¹²But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

In other words, "modest and shamefaced" involves not intentionally drawing attention to one's appearance. What kind of apparel does that? We all should know. So men are to help the ladies by "praying and lifting up holy hands without wrath and doubting", regardless of what the ladies do, and ladies likewise are to help the men by doing their specified part as well. So, yeah, knowing do do good and doing it not is sin.

[BrotherTony]

7 minutes ago, heartstrings said:

1 Timothy 2

⁶Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time. ⁷Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not;) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity. ⁸I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting. ⁹In 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; ¹⁰But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works. ¹¹Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. ¹²But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

In other words, "modest and shamefaced" involves not intentionally drawing attention to one's appearance. What kind of apparel does that? We all should know. So men are to help the ladies by "praying and lifting up holy hands without wrath and doubting", regardless of what the ladies do, and ladies likewise are to help the men by doing their specified part as well. So, yeah, knowing do do good and doing it not is sin.

So, are you making the statement that womens slacks are wrong? Coullottes? Skirts...I've seen them long, short and micro-mini this past week. Modest apparel doesn't necessarily rule slacks out. Just looking for clarification. Thanks.

[Pastor Scott Markle]

So, let us consider a corresponding question --

Deuteronomy 22:5 teaches that a man should not "put on a woman's garment."  Here then is the question -- Is skirt-wear "a woman's garment?"

If you say "yes" to the above question, did you come to that conclusion through the actual declarations of God's own Word, or through some other "authority"?

[heartstrings]

25 minutes ago, BrotherTony said:

So, are you making the statement that womens slacks are wrong? Coullottes? Skirts...I've seen them long, short and micro-mini this past week. Modest apparel doesn't necessarily rule slacks out. Just looking for clarification. Thanks.

It was meant "in general". If the whatever the clothes make one look "provocative", especially with intent, then yeah, I'm saying it's wrong to dress in such a way as to knowingly look provocative to the opposite sex.

But as to what Bro Scott just mentioned; it is a different matter. I say that if, in our culture, "pants" have been historically men's wear and "skirts" or dresses were traditionally women's then yes, wearing the clothes of the opposite sex is "cross dressing" or whatever you want to call it. In my opinion, that has contributed to the feminization of our men and the masculinization of our women because this and other factors have caused the distinctions of what it means to live, look, dress and act like a man to be blurred to say the least,. No wonder we have so many effeminates and homosexuals. But, again, that's another subject.

 

[Pastor Scott Markle]

Here is a very serious set of questions on the matter of standards in general (and thus also on the matter of standards in the realm of clothing) --

Is it possible for us to mandate a "standard" in a given area (not simply for our own behavior, but over the behavior of others) that is more strict than the Lord our God Himself would mandate?

Is it possible for us to mandate such a "stricter standard" than the Lord our God, and even base that standard on principles from God's own Word?

If it is possible for us to so mandate such a "stricter standard" than the Lord our God, how bad of a thing is it for us to do?

(Note: Consider 1 Timothy 4:1-3 -- "Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; fobidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth."

Edited August 7, 2021 by Pastor Scott Markle

[BrotherTony]

1 hour ago, heartstrings said:

It was meant "in general". If the whatever the clothes make one look "provocative", especially with intent, then yeah, I'm saying it's wrong to dress in such a way as to knowingly look provocative to the opposite sex.

But as to what Bro Scott just mentioned; it is a different matter. I say that if, in our culture, "pants" have been historically men's wear and "skirts" or dresses were traditionally women's then yes, wearing the clothes of the opposite sex is "cross dressing" or whatever you want to call it. In my opinion, that has contributed to the feminization of our men and the masculinization of our women because this and other factors have caused the distinctions of what it means to live, look, dress and act like a man to be blurred to say the least,. No wonder we have so many effeminates and homosexuals. But, again, that's another subject.

 

I can agree with that to a point. In the beginning, when women started wearing pants, it was usually utilitarian...so they could work their land, ride their horses in a manner that was more efficient than side-saddle. The pants began to change, and eventually had two distinct styles...one for women with different buttoning, fitting, etc. I do agree, however that it was the beginning of the women becoming more masculine and the men becoming more effeminant. Sad, really. But, in and of themselves, the slacks are not sinful. Depends upon the way they do or don't reveal the human form. I've seen some this past week that looked like the people wearing them (both men and women) were poured into them rather than having them put on. Remember, I was raised with my parents owning a Western store, promoting womens and mens jeans and styles. This was a huge point of contention for me when I was at Fellowship Baptist College in E. Peoria, Il and Christian Brothers Western Store tried to hire some of the students from the college. They were barred because "the owners wives wore tight jeans and looked like sluts." This was uncalled for on the part of the administration of the college and the pastor of the church, as it wasn't true.

[robycop3]

 Seems the gang that hollers the most about POW are pentecostals. one of the most-legalistic pseudo-quasi-Christian gangs around.

  Yeah, I know there are many branches of pentecostals, but most are more-concerned with "speaking in tongues", etc. than steering people to Jesus.

[SureWord]

My Baptist pastor friend was once a Holiness preacher and his wife's Holiness church had two women preachers who would screech at the same time (literally, they would preach at the same time hollering over each other) during the service and would constantly preach against the evil of pants on women while usurping the pulpit.

They also would screech:

1) No toes.

2) No hose.

3) No  shows.

Women would go to hell if they wore toeless shoes or wore pantyhose and everyone would go to hell if they watched TV or went to a movie theater. 

That's all the bible they knew 

 

[Ukulelemike]

My personal preference is dresses and skirts: I find them to be much more feminine and womanly. My wife, bless her, never wore pants in her adult life, even when working the farm, milking the goats, slaughtering animals, whatever. In winter she might wear sweatpants under her skirt, but that was it. Oddly, it was, before she was saved, a homosexual friend that convinced her that wearing dresses and skirts was more womanly.  

But again, while we do see the issue of men not wearing that which pertains to a woman, and vise-versa, we do need to consider how that fully plays out. Proper pants, looser-fitting, comfortable and neat, can be fine on a woman in the right circumstances and times. But it is true that in most societies, for hundreds of years, pants have generally been considered men's clothing, and dresses, women's clothing.  I believe we ought to seriously consider: What will best bring honor to God in my decisions? How far should the gap be made between male and female in the area of clothes, considering God created us male and female and expects us to show that clearly in all areas, including hair length and clothing styles. What will glorify God, not please my flesh?, that is what the real question is.

[BrotherTony]

18 hours ago, Ukulelemike said:

My personal preference is dresses and skirts: I find them to be much more feminine and womanly. My wife, bless her, never wore pants in her adult life, even when working the farm, milking the goats, slaughtering animals, whatever. In winter she might wear sweatpants under her skirt, but that was it. Oddly, it was, before she was saved, a homosexual friend that convinced her that wearing dresses and skirts was more womanly.  

But again, while we do see the issue of men not wearing that which pertains to a woman, and vise-versa, we do need to consider how that fully plays out. Proper pants, looser-fitting, comfortable and neat, can be fine on a woman in the right circumstances and times. But it is true that in most societies, for hundreds of years, pants have generally been considered men's clothing, and dresses, women's clothing.  I believe we ought to seriously consider: What will best bring honor to God in my decisions? How far should the gap be made between male and female in the area of clothes, considering God created us male and female and expects us to show that clearly in all areas, including hair length and clothing styles. What will glorify God, not please my flesh?, that is what the real question is.

This is one area that my wife and I agreed on years ago. I would PREFER she wear dresses and skirts, but the jobs we had didn't allow for her to do that at all times. As we got older because of certain physical challenges after her accident in 2015, she has worn nothing but jeans. They're proper fitting, and that is fine by me. Outside of that, we don't believe it's anyone else's call. We don't see anything wrong with it, and if I wanted her to, I'm sure she would put on a dress if she still owned one that wasn't pretty much ruined by being in storage. We could always buy one. Even in our church, women wear mostly slacks or jeans. Some do get pretty tight/revealing, and sometimes there has to be something said about it. But, it's usually kept to a minimum. I've yet to see a man come in wearing a dress...though we have had a homosexual couple come a couple of times, and one was dressed more "feminine" than most of us men were used to seeing!

[Anonymous]

On 5/2/2018 at 3:48 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.

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.

I found this old post in the basement and found it very interesting. I personally believe that a woman looks beautiful in a dress, the length is important, when going to church, maybe at home a little shorter will be OK for me, but those that wear pants all the time, well they look nice, but all the time it does not. This is my personal opinion, humble opinion.

[Jerry]

If you care about what God says, you can study out what type of clothes they wore in the Bible (the men in Moses time wore breeches, which are pants - only some wore robes; there was never a unisex robe they all wore), and also the history of clothes/pants during the last hundred plus years - where they came from, when women started wearing them.

[Pastor Scott Markle]

I have studied what type of clothes they wore throughout the time of the Old Testament; and in all five cases wherein breeches are mentioned, they are a type of underwear, NOT outerwear.  In all five cases they are a part of the holy garments of the High Priest of Israel, which he was to wear ONLY when he was engaging in his holy service.  For the outerwear of the High Priest, the garment which God Himself designed for the High Priest included the "skirt" of his robe for the lower half of his body. (See Psalm 133:2)  In fact, an interesting study throughout the Old Testament is to consider who all wore a "skirt."

Edited June 6, 2022 by Pastor Scott Markle