women The Morality Behind Christian Women Wearing Pants

[Jim_Alaska]

12 hours ago, Jordan Kurecki said:

 Bible Baptist

Well Jordan, I guess I probably do not know them. I only fellow-shipped with Independent Baptist Churches in Alaska. The Bible Baptist church on Farmers Loop Rd. is affiliated with the Bible Baptist Fellowship, so is not Independent. Thanks for the information though.

[heartstrings]

On 5/27/2018 at 10:25 PM, Saved41199 said:

If you claim you "can't help" looking then I think you need to develop some SERIOUS self-control. 

And, if you think a woman in pants looks like a man, then you've obviously not understood part of this conversation. Women's pants are cut MUCH differently than men's pants. 

That's funny! I know a few female medics, firemen and police officers who could take down a man in a minute. A friend of mine is a retired officer from my hometown. She's 5'-nothing and 110lbs on a good day. She had NO problems taking down men twice her size. 

But, I get it...you want to control women...because YOU can't control YOUR OWN thoughts...Ok...my advice on that is grow up and get you some of that fruit of the spirit...that self-control fruit. I have a husband and two sons who don't turn into slobbering fountains of testosterone around women. 

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's house wearing a dress with a "slit" WAY up her thigh. Another lady would come to the church exposing most of her "cleavage"....Really, WHY? . Just last week, my wife mentioned that the pastor's daughter showed up downtown with shorts so minuscule that her "gluteus maximi" were "protruding".  Ma'am, I agree, men should not be "slobbering fountains of testosterone", but at least when we come to GOD'S HOUSE, we shouldn't be having to walk around looking at the ceiling to prevent ourselves from "seeing once" just because some of the "women professing godliness" can't seem to dress better than "the attire of an harlot" (1 Timothy 2::10) and (Proverbs 7:10) Responsibility goes BOTH ways as God expects women to "control" themselves too;  and most do. God bless you ma'am.

Edited May 29, 2018 by heartstrings
to clarify

[OLD fashioned preacher]

On 5/27/2018 at 7:36 PM, Jim_Alaska said:

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.

 

 

Addressing the above scenario only: I have a friend who is a missionary in Saint Mary, AK. His wife wears dresses. I have a son working with the Russian speakers near Delta Junction, AK - his wife and daughter wears dresses. One of my daughters-in-law lived in Magadan and Krasnoyarsk Russia (both in Siberia) - she, her mother and both her sisters wore dresses. My wife and daughters-in-law wore (or wear) dresses in Kansas -- but it only dipped to a balmy 14 below zero with winds that seldom drop below 10mph.

[OLD fashioned preacher]

1 hour ago, heartstrings said:

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's house wearing a dress with a "slit" WAY up her thigh. Another lady would come to the church exposing most of her "cleavage"....Really, WHY? . Just last week, my wife mentioned that the pastor's daughter showed up downtown with shorts so minuscule that her "gluteus maximi" were "protruding".  Ma'am, I agree, men should not be "slobbering fountains of testosterone", but at least when we come to GOD'S HOUSE, we shouldn't be having to walk around looking at the ceiling to prevent ourselves from "seeing once" just because some of the "women professing godliness" can't seem to dress better than "the attire of an harlot" (1 Timothy 2::10) and (Proverbs 7:10) Responsibility goes BOTH ways as God expects women to "control" themselves too;  and most do. God bless you ma'am.

My wife said "AMEN!"

[Saved41199]

15 hours ago, swathdiver said:

I don't believe your statements about the female medics, firemen and police officers.  The women medics and firemen are just too physically weak (as God created them) to lift and move large men like men can do.  The police officer's ability to control men was no doubt assisted by her badge and gun.  History is replete with lady officers being overwhelmed and subdued by criminals who were not deterred by their guns and badges.  

Are you calling me a liar? You think women are too "physically weak"? Sir, before I got hurt, I could bench press 225lbs, leg lift over 400lbs. I was a competitive swimmer. Athletically I could take on the boys and beat them in just about anything including wrestling. My father taught judo and taught me well. 

It seems to me YOU have an issue with women. I invite you into the 21st century where women excel in many careers from firefighter to astronaut. I double dog dare you to walk up to a veteran like Senator Tammy Duckworth and tell HER that you think she was too weak to pilot that Apache. Go ahead. 

[Pastor Matt]

On 5/27/2018 at 8:36 PM, Jim_Alaska said:

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. 

Where we are, its not uncommon to see drag queens in the mall or other public events. Needless to say in our solid churches around here both is preached evenly.  

[Pastor Scott Markle]

10 hours ago, heartstrings said:

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's house wearing a dress with a "slit" WAY up her thigh. Another lady would come to the church exposing most of her "cleavage"....Really, WHY? . Just last week, my wife mentioned that the pastor's daughter showed up downtown with shorts so minuscule that her "gluteus maximi" were "protruding".  Ma'am, I agree, men should not be "slobbering fountains of testosterone", but at least when we come to GOD'S HOUSE, we shouldn't be having to walk around looking at the ceiling to prevent ourselves from "seeing once" just because some of the "women professing godliness" can't seem to dress better than "the attire of an harlot" (1 Timothy 2::10) and (Proverbs 7:10) Responsibility goes BOTH ways as God expects women to "control" themselves too;  and most do. God bless you ma'am.

Although I have engaged in this discussion with a push toward a more precise understanding of God's Word on the matter (which causes me to appear as the "contrarian"), I have NO ARGUMENT WHATSOEVER AT ALL with the above posting.  Something IS wrong among believers in the matter of attire, and it is NOT just about "pants on women."

By the way, I wish to add that something is NOT just wrong with the choices that the adult women and young ladies are making for their attire; but something is also VERY wrong with husbands and fathers who are not doing anything to prevent it.  Not all may agree with me on the following, but -- I say shame on the women; and I say shame on the men much, much MORE.

Edited May 29, 2018 by Pastor Scott Markle
added further comment

[Pastorj]

I would still hold that the passage is pertinent for us today. However, what clothing pertains to a man in 2018 is far different than what pertained to a man in 1930 or in 1750 or in 77AD

[Pastor Scott Markle]

1 minute ago, Pastorj said:

I would still hold that the passage is pertinent for us today. However, what clothing pertains to a man in 2018 is far different than what pertained to a man in 1930 or in 1750 or in 77AD

Brother "PastorJ,"

I whole-heartedly agree that the principles of Deuteronomy 22:5 are still relevant and applicable unto the present day.  However, I do NOT believe that we can rightly discern that relevance and application until we have FIRST discerned the Biblical meaning of the verse within its immediate context.  Attempting to apply the "principles" before we have discerned the Biblical, contextual meaning is likely to lead us astray in our doctrinal position on the matter.

[heartstrings]

9 hours ago, OLD fashioned preacher said:

My wife said "AMEN!"

Brother Middlebrooks, it was nice meeting you and your Wife the other day. Thank you for stopping by.

[heartstrings]

2 hours ago, BroMatt said:

Where we are, its not uncommon to see drag queens in the mall or other public events. Needless to say in our solid churches around here both is preached evenly.  

Exactly. What many seem to overlook is that if one of those "drag queens" walked into most churches wearing a frilly dress, folks would be shocked or at least do a double -take because a MAN just walked in wearing women's clothes. But let a woman walk into that same church wearing a plaid shirt and a pair of blue jeans and most wouldn't even notice(at least in Southern Baptist churches).  It's because, long ago, THAT became accepted. But why should it be considered any different?

[Pastorj]

19 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Brother "PastorJ,"

I whole-heartedly agree that the principles of Deuteronomy 22:5 are still relevant and applicable unto the present day.  However, I do NOT believe that we can rightly discern that relevance and application until we have FIRST discerned the Biblical meaning of the verse within its immediate context.  Attempting to apply the "principles" before we have discerned the Biblical, contextual meaning is likely to lead us astray in our doctrinal position on the matter.

I absolutely agree. I believe that the passage is clear that Men should not wear that which pertaineth to a women. The problem is the passage was written to Jewish people around 2000BC. 4000 years later culture has changed and what pertains to a man and a woman is different. This is why God wrote it this way. So that the principle would remain even though culture changes.

[Pastorj]

The struggle for a lot of people is how culture changes in their own lifetime. What pertained to a man in the 1940's is totally different than 2018. Someone said on this thread that the key is that from 50 feet away, can you tell that they are a woman or a man. I think that is really the key.

[Jim_Alaska]

3 hours ago, BroMatt said:

Where we are, its not uncommon to see drag queens in the mall or other public events. Needless to say in our solid churches around here both is preached evenly.  

I do understand that situation BroMatt. But in my case I have always lived remote enough that this sort of thing is not seen. I do understand that this is quite common in larger cities and towns.

Actually the post I made that you quoted was meant more about Christians in general that home in on women wearing pants  rather than having it actually coming from the pulpit. All my Christian life I have heard this subject beat to death, but nary a word about men in the same context.

I do agree that if this subject is coming from the pulpit then both should be addressed equally, that was sort of the point I was making; the inequality when it comes to this subject and from Christians in general.

 

[heartstrings]

5 minutes ago, Jim_Alaska said:

I do understand that situation BroMatt. But in my case I have always lived remote enough that this sort of thing is not seen. I do understand that this is quite common in larger cities and towns.

Actually the post I made that you quoted was meant more about Christians in general that home in on women wearing pants  rather than having it actually coming from the pulpit. All my Christian life I have heard this subject beat to death, but nary a word about men in the same context.

I do agree that if this subject is coming from the pulpit then both should be addressed equally, that was sort of the point I was making; the inequality when it comes to this subject and from Christians in general.

 

For the past six years or so, we have been attending a Southern Baptist church, where the women regularly wear "pants", even to church. But neither my wife and daughter, nor myself, have said ANYTHING to anyone there about it. We just treat them like brothers and sisters in Christ. Likewise, nobody there, to my knowledge, has said anything to or about my wife and daughter about their always wearing dresses. They just love us an treat us like family. And I figure that they were wearing pants when I got there, why judge them? But the QUESTION was asked, at the top of this thread, about the "morality" of it, so, here we are. You say "nary a word about men in the same context"? I have heard preachers preach against men wearing indecent clothes, quite a few times, and I would not allow my two boys to go shirtless or wear shorts out in public. But the reason you don't hear much about men wearing "women's attire" is because it just aint too common for men to be wearing dresses or even flowery "pant suits" to Baptist churches. They MAY wear them when they get home, but I haven't seen it.