What would you do?

[Pastor Scott Markle]

12 hours ago, Brother Stafford said:

While I personally agree that we should dress as DaveW said, "as though they were meeting their king/president/ruler," I don't believe that people should be denied entrance to a service if they are dressed more casually, as long as they are dressed modestly as defined by God's word.  We are commanded to dress modestly and according to our gender, but I have not yet found passages that command new testament Christians to dress formally for gatherings.  I believe that we should, as a sign of respect and devotion to our Lord, but I wouldn't set it in stone; it is just my preference.

When watching the television show, Little House on the Prairie, I wouldn't call Laura Ingalls' school dress a formal dress.  It was casual, yet biblically appropriate.  Similarly, Charles Ingalls' work clothes, although informal, should not have prevented him from attending services.  Modern day equivalents may be a t-shirt and jeans for men and a t-shirt and inexpensive, loose fitting, knee length skirt for women.  They are casual, yet modest and appropriate for each gender, which is what God commands.

I have also seen the extreme opposite, with which I disagree.  I have been to some services where people are dressed so extravagantly, in expensive clothing and costly jewelry, that I believe it also goes against Gods command against extravagance (1 Tim. 2:9).

I can express broad agreement with the above (with some reservations because I am aware that you and I hold a different view concerning Deuteronomy 22:5).

(On the other hand, my thought question from an above posting still remains -- Is there any Biblical PASSAGE which indicates that "laymen," or even church leadership, should "dress up" for church gatherings?  Please understand that I DO "dress up" and that I encourage the congregation of believers to do the same, because it is culturally appropriate and necessary as a sign of respect for the Lord our God.  However, I am asking if there is actually a BIBLICAL mandate for it.)
 

12 hours ago, Brother Stafford said:

As long as your robe could be distinguished as a robe and not a dress, I think that you would probably get a lot of strange looks, but I don't think that you would be denied entrance.

By the way, my attire also includes a "beautiful bonnet."  

As far as the "strange looks," how many of those are judgmental that I am wearing the attire of a woman?  (I believe that there would be a great deal of that judgmental spirit.)

In addition, would I be permitted to be a LEADER in a Fundamental Baptist church while consistently wearing such attire?  (I greatly doubt it.)

So, why do I present such an outfit in my example -- Because such is similar to the VERY outfit that God HIMSELF designed for the male religious LEADER of Israel, the High Priest.  (I wonder, since the book of Hebrews seems to indicate that the tabernacle on earth was designed after the likeness of the heavenly, was the High Priest's attire Old Testament similar to that which our Lord Jesus Christ, our Great High Priest, is now wearing in heaven?)

Finally, I would ask -- What exactly distinguishes a "robe" garment from a "dress" garment?  (Not sure that I even have a clue.) 

Edited August 31, 2018 by Pastor Scott Markle

[Pastor Scott Markle]

14 hours ago, Brother Stafford said:

I am aware that this is a much debated topic, which has most definitely been discussed elsewhere on this forum, but I believe that the issue of pants being a specific garment for men is in line with biblical teachings. 

There has to be clothing that is gender specific, otherwise Deut. 22:5 would be meaningless.

First, it would be better to say -- "There has to be attire that is gender specific, otherwise Deuteronomy 22:5 would be meaningless."  Using the word "clothing" already biases the discussion in a direction that (I believe) is not quite accurate to the original meaning of Deuteronomy 22:5.

Second, I myself have already made clear my position on Deuteronomy 22:5, based upon extensive Bible study, in another thread, as per the following:

https://onlinebaptist.com/forums/topic/27213-the-morality-behind-christian-women-wearing-pants/?do=findComment&comment=440065

https://onlinebaptist.com/forums/topic/27213-the-morality-behind-christian-women-wearing-pants/?do=findComment&comment=440069

https://onlinebaptist.com/forums/topic/27213-the-morality-behind-christian-women-wearing-pants/?do=findComment&comment=440074

https://onlinebaptist.com/forums/topic/27213-the-morality-behind-christian-women-wearing-pants/?do=findComment&comment=440077

https://onlinebaptist.com/forums/topic/27213-the-morality-behind-christian-women-wearing-pants/?do=findComment&comment=440190

https://onlinebaptist.com/forums/topic/27213-the-morality-behind-christian-women-wearing-pants/?do=findComment&comment=440193

https://onlinebaptist.com/forums/topic/27213-the-morality-behind-christian-women-wearing-pants/?do=findComment&comment=440227

https://onlinebaptist.com/forums/topic/27213-the-morality-behind-christian-women-wearing-pants/?do=findComment&comment=440237

https://onlinebaptist.com/forums/topic/27213-the-morality-behind-christian-women-wearing-pants/?do=findComment&comment=440249

https://onlinebaptist.com/forums/topic/27213-the-morality-behind-christian-women-wearing-pants/?do=findComment&comment=440253

https://onlinebaptist.com/forums/topic/27213-the-morality-behind-christian-women-wearing-pants/?do=findComment&comment=440254

https://onlinebaptist.com/forums/topic/27213-the-morality-behind-christian-women-wearing-pants/?do=findComment&comment=440260

https://onlinebaptist.com/forums/topic/27213-the-morality-behind-christian-women-wearing-pants/?do=findComment&comment=440262

https://onlinebaptist.com/forums/topic/27213-the-morality-behind-christian-women-wearing-pants/?do=findComment&comment=440264

https://onlinebaptist.com/forums/topic/27213-the-morality-behind-christian-women-wearing-pants/?do=findComment&comment=440266

https://onlinebaptist.com/forums/topic/27213-the-morality-behind-christian-women-wearing-pants/?do=findComment&comment=440287
 

14 hours ago, Brother Stafford said:

Breeches are mentioned five times in the Bible (Ex. 28:42, Ex. 39:28, Lev. 6:10, Lev. 16:4 and Eze. 44:18).  They are described as what would today be called men's knickers or knee length shorts.  They are only mentioned in connection with men and are therefore a male garment.  Other than a top coat or a robe, there are only two types of garments that can cover the lower half of the human body: a dress/skirt or shorts/pants; I know of no other way.  If men were to wear a dress or a skirt, nearly everyone would agree that they are wearing clothing that pertains to a woman.  The only other option that a man has is to wear pants/shorts.  If that is the only option for a man, and there are only two options, then the other option, a dress/skirt, is the only option that a woman can make.

If the argument is, "Well, there are styles of pants that are specifically styled for women and those are okay for women to wear."  If that can be true, then there should be certain styles of dresses and skirts that are specifically designed for men to wear that would be appropriate to wear.  The only example of this, of which I am aware, is the kilt worn by Scottish men and some Irish men, but they are the only ones that think so; the rest of the world mocks them for wearing women's skirts.

1.  In every one of the passages that you have presented in the above quote, the "breeches" are UNDERWEAR garments.  Therefore, they would not be equivalent to men's knickers or knee length shorts as outerwear, but would be equivalent to men's boxer shorts as underwear.  

2.  By definition, since these "breeches" were underwear, they were not to be generally observable to the public eye.  Therefore, by definition they did not serve as a publicly observable attire of distinction between male and female.  (Unless one holds to the position concerning Deuteronomy 22:5 that it was about the distinction of under-garments, which in fact is the position that I was taught throughout the years of my upbringing.)

3.  In every one of the passages that you have presented in the above quote, the "breeches" were a part of the priesthood's HOLY garments, to be worn specifically when the priest was engaged in his priesthood (sacrificial) responsibilities.  However, there is no indication that he was required to wear them when he was not engaged in these priesthood responsibilities, or that he ever did wear that when he was not so engaged.  Thus these "breeches" were a part of the Holy garments that distinguished him, not as a male from the female, but as a priest in priesthood duties, from everyone else.

4.  Exodus 28:42-43 specifically reveals the divine purpose for these "breeches," and that purpose is not given as the distinction between genders.  Rather, that specific purpose is one of modesty, to cover the priest's nakedness, which he was to wear when he came in unto the tabernacle or when he came near unto the altar to minister in the Holy Place, lest someone might perchance get a glimpse up his skirt and see his nakedness, and thereby he bear iniquity and die.  (By the way, I believe that we Fundamental Baptists could learn something about modesty from this principle, that our women who wear skirt-wear in public should be wearing something similar UNDERNEATH their open-bottomed garments, since platforms and stairways are now such a common part of public life.)

5.  It is interesting to me that every time wherein I have encountered the "breeches" argument and evidence has been present to support the "pants are man's wear" position, these others points of Biblical information are NOT mentioned.  I wonder if the reason for that neglect is because it would weaken the argument of the agenda.

__________________________________

Now, it is true that there only two basic ways for the lower half of the human body to be covered --

(1) by an open-bottomed garment, wherein the part of the garment which covers the body down from the waist is precisely called a "skirt."
(2) by an split-legged garment which is divided in accord the division of the two legs, wherein the part of the garment which covers the body down from the waist is precisely called a "pant."

In the time when Deuteronomy 22:5 was delivered by the Lord God through Moses unto the Israelites, BOTH the men AND the women wore garments with a "skirt."  At that time, neither the men nor the women wore a "pant" garment as outerwear.  Even so, the ORIGINAL meaning of Deuteronomy 22:5 did NOT concern the matter of "skirts" as women's wear and "pants" as men's wear.  Furthermore, I myself most certainly would NOT say that a man wearing "skirt" wear is inherently wearing women's wear.  If that were true, then our Lord Jesus Christ wore women's wear (an EXTREMELY OFFENSIVE implication in my estimation).  If that were true, then the Lord God HIMSELF designed women's wear for the High Priest of Israel to wear (another EXTREMELY OFFENSIVE implication in my estimation).  If that were true, then our Lord Jesus Christ is portrayed as wearing women's wear in Revelation 1 (yet another EXTREMELY OFFENSIVE implication in my estimation).  No sir, the reason for so many to claim that "skirt-wear" is women's wear is founded and influenced by a few hundred years of THIS WORLD'S cultural development.  It is NOT a Biblical truth.  

Therefore, your logical argument above about the two possible options for male and female attire is built upon faulty premises.  First, it is built upon a premise that the possible attires of distinction must be a form of common clothing.  Second, it is built upon a premise that the possible attires of distinction must concern the lower half of the human body.  Third, it is built upon the premise that the possible attires of distinction must be through the shape of clothing, as opposed to the coloring or other decor of the clothing.  In fact, your viewpoint has to some extent been created BECAUSE OF the WORLD"S culture (from a number of hundreds of years of European culture); and now you attempt to read that culturally influenced viewpoint BACK onto God's Word.  IF you had studied the subject of clothing ONLY from the Scriptures themselves, you yourself would be wearing a garment that contains a SKIRT.   

[Jordan Kurecki]

4 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

First, it would be better to say -- "There has to be attire that is gender specific, otherwise Deuteronomy 22:5 would be meaningless."  Using the word "clothing" already biases the discussion in a direction that (I believe) is not quite accurate to the original meaning of Deuteronomy 22:5.

Second, I myself have already made clear my position on Deuteronomy 22:5, based upon extensive Bible study, in another thread, as per the following:

https://onlinebaptist.com/forums/topic/27213-the-morality-behind-christian-women-wearing-pants/?do=findComment&comment=440065

https://onlinebaptist.com/forums/topic/27213-the-morality-behind-christian-women-wearing-pants/?do=findComment&comment=440069

https://onlinebaptist.com/forums/topic/27213-the-morality-behind-christian-women-wearing-pants/?do=findComment&comment=440074

https://onlinebaptist.com/forums/topic/27213-the-morality-behind-christian-women-wearing-pants/?do=findComment&comment=440077

https://onlinebaptist.com/forums/topic/27213-the-morality-behind-christian-women-wearing-pants/?do=findComment&comment=440190

https://onlinebaptist.com/forums/topic/27213-the-morality-behind-christian-women-wearing-pants/?do=findComment&comment=440193

https://onlinebaptist.com/forums/topic/27213-the-morality-behind-christian-women-wearing-pants/?do=findComment&comment=440227

https://onlinebaptist.com/forums/topic/27213-the-morality-behind-christian-women-wearing-pants/?do=findComment&comment=440237

https://onlinebaptist.com/forums/topic/27213-the-morality-behind-christian-women-wearing-pants/?do=findComment&comment=440249

https://onlinebaptist.com/forums/topic/27213-the-morality-behind-christian-women-wearing-pants/?do=findComment&comment=440253

https://onlinebaptist.com/forums/topic/27213-the-morality-behind-christian-women-wearing-pants/?do=findComment&comment=440254

https://onlinebaptist.com/forums/topic/27213-the-morality-behind-christian-women-wearing-pants/?do=findComment&comment=440260

https://onlinebaptist.com/forums/topic/27213-the-morality-behind-christian-women-wearing-pants/?do=findComment&comment=440262

https://onlinebaptist.com/forums/topic/27213-the-morality-behind-christian-women-wearing-pants/?do=findComment&comment=440264

https://onlinebaptist.com/forums/topic/27213-the-morality-behind-christian-women-wearing-pants/?do=findComment&comment=440266

https://onlinebaptist.com/forums/topic/27213-the-morality-behind-christian-women-wearing-pants/?do=findComment&comment=440287
 

1.  In every one of the passages that you have presented in the above quote, the "breeches" are UNDERWEAR garments.  Therefore, they would not be equivalent to men's knickers or knee length shorts as outerwear, but would be equivalent to men's boxer shorts as underwear.  

2.  By definition, since these "breeches" were underwear, they were not to be generally observable to the public eye.  Therefore, by definition they did not serve as a publicly observable attire of distinction between male and female.  (Unless one holds to the position concerning Deuteronomy 22:5 that it was about the distinction of under-garments, which in fact is the position that I was taught throughout the years of my upbringing.)

3.  In every one of the passages that you have presented in the above quote, the "breeches" were a part of the priesthood's HOLY garments, to be worn specifically when the priest was engaged in his priesthood (sacrificial) responsibilities.  However, there is no indication that he was required to wear them when he was not engaged in these priesthood responsibilities, or that he ever did wear that when he was not so engaged.  Thus these "breeches" were a part of the Holy garments that distinguished him, not as a male from the female, but as a priest in priesthood duties, from everyone else.

4.  Exodus 28:42-43 specifically reveals the divine purpose for these "breeches," and that purpose is not given as the distinction between genders.  Rather, that specific purpose is one of modesty, to cover the priest's nakedness, which he was to wear when he came in unto the tabernacle or when he came near unto the altar to minister in the Holy Place, lest someone might perchance get a glimpse up his skirt and see his nakedness, and thereby he bear iniquity and die.  (By the way, I believe that we Fundamental Baptists could learn something about modesty from this principle, that our women who wear skirt-wear in public should be wearing something similar UNDERNEATH their open-bottomed garments, since platforms and stairways are now such a common part of public life.)

5.  It is interesting to me that every time wherein I have encountered the "breeches" argument and evidence has been present to support the "pants are man's wear" position, these others points of Biblical information are NOT mentioned.  I wonder if the reason for that neglect is because it would weaken the argument of the agenda.

__________________________________

Now, it is true that there only two basic ways for the lower half of the human body to be covered --

(1) by an open-bottomed garment, wherein the part of the garment which covers the body down from the waist is precisely called a "skirt."
(2) by an split-legged garment which is divided in accord the division of the two legs, wherein the part of the garment which covers the body down from the waist is precisely called a "pant."

In the time when Deuteronomy 22:5 was delivered by the Lord God through Moses unto the Israelites, BOTH the men AND the women wore garments with a "skirt."  At that time, neither the men nor the women wore a "pant" garment as outerwear.  Even so, the ORIGINAL meaning of Deuteronomy 22:5 did NOT concern the matter of "skirts" as women's wear and "pants" as men's wear.  Furthermore, I myself most certainly would NOT say that a man wearing "skirt" wear is inherently wearing women's wear.  If that were true, then our Lord Jesus Christ wore women's wear (an EXTREMELY OFFENSIVE implication in my estimation).  If that were true, then the Lord God HIMSELF designed women's wear for the High Priest of Israel to wear (another EXTREMELY OFFENSIVE implication in my estimation).  If that were true, then our Lord Jesus Christ is portrayed as wearing women's wear in Revelation 1 (yet another EXTREMELY OFFENSIVE implication in my estimation).  No sir, the reason for so many to claim that "skirt-wear" is women's wear is founded and influenced by a few hundred years of THIS WORLD'S cultural development.  It is NOT a Biblical truth.  

Therefore, your logical argument above about the two possible options for male and female attire is built upon faulty premises.  First, it is built upon a premise that the possible attires of distinction must be a form of common clothing.  Second, it is built upon a premise that the possible attires of distinction must concern the lower half of the human body.  Third, it is built upon the premise that the possible attires of distinction must be through the shape of clothing, as opposed to the coloring or other decor of the clothing.  In fact, your viewpoint has to some extent been created BECAUSE OF the WORLD"S culture (from a number of hundreds of years of European culture); and now you attempt to read that culturally influenced viewpoint BACK onto God's Word.  IF you had studied the subject of clothing ONLY from the Scriptures themselves, you yourself would be wearing a garment that contains a SKIRT.   

Here's a question, what is the difference between culottes and pants? both are garments that have a seem running down the middle... in fact last time I looked up the definition of the word pants, culottes fit. So to be consistent, woman who refuse to wear pants should also not wear culottes. 

 

Edited August 31, 2018 by Jordan Kurecki

[No Nicolaitans]

Please forgive me for what I'm about to say...

Folks here know my stance (I think). I see nothing wrong with women wearing pants...if they are modest. Same with dresses. Sometimes, I feel that I'm the only one who draws a parallel between modern-day IFB "rules and regulations" and the Pharisees who placed the emphasis on outward appearance.

Whitewashed tombs? Clean the outside of the cup? 

Christ certainly wasn't in favor of those who "made proselytes".

I've said it before. I'm saying it now...and I'll continue saying it...

Allow the Holy Spirit to change a person as they grow in the knowledge and admonition of the Lord. When the change comes from him (and within), the change is real. When the change is forced by others...it's not real. It's done to please man.

All of this emphasis on forcing a change on the outward appearance usurps what Christ is doing on the inside. Often more than not, it forces people to seek to please man...and often more than not, it leads to man-worship.

I would much rather see a lady (who wears pants to church) yearning to know more of Christ...than to see a woman (who wears dresses only) that gives those who don't "measure up" looks of disgust and disdain, because they wear pants

...and the same for men.

Preach standards...yes! However, don't force them on people. Allow the Holy Spirit to change them through the preaching of his word.

Please? 

[wretched]

30 minutes ago, No Nicolaitans said:

Please forgive me for what I'm about to say...

Folks here know my stance (I think). I see nothing wrong with women wearing pants...if they are modest. Same with dresses. Sometimes, I feel that I'm the only one who draws a parallel between modern-day IFB "rules and regulations" and the Pharisees who placed the emphasis on outward appearance.

Whitewashed tombs? Clean the outside of the cup? 

Christ certainly wasn't in favor of those who "made proselytes".

I've said it before. I'm saying it now...and I'll continue saying it...

Allow the Holy Spirit to change a person as they grow in the knowledge and admonition of the Lord. When the change comes from him (and within), the change is real. When the change is forced by others...it's not real. It's done to please man.

All of this emphasis on forcing a change on the outward appearance usurps what Christ is doing on the inside. Often more than not, it forces people to seek to please man...and often more than not, it leads to man-worship.

I would much rather see a lady (who wears pants to church) yearning to know more of Christ...than to see a woman (who wears dresses only) that gives those who don't "measure up" looks of disgust and disdain, because they wear pants

...and the same for men.

Preach standards...yes! However, don't force them on people. Allow the Holy Spirit to change them through the preaching of his word.

Please? 

Now that is preaching!!!

[Pastor Scott Markle]

2 hours ago, Jordan Kurecki said:

Here's a question, what is the difference between culottes and pants? both are garments that have a seem running down the middle... in fact last time I looked up the definition of the word pants, culottes fit. So to be consistent, woman who refuse to wear pants should also not wear culottes. 

Brother Kurecki,

That is correct. BY DEFINITION, culottes are PANTS-WEAR.

[DaveW]

1 hour ago, No Nicolaitans said:

Please forgive me for what I'm about to say...

Folks here know my stance (I think). I see nothing wrong with women wearing pants...if they are modest. Same with dresses. Sometimes, I feel that I'm the only one who draws a parallel between modern-day IFB "rules and regulations" and the Pharisees who placed the emphasis on outward appearance.

Whitewashed tombs? Clean the outside of the cup? 

Christ certainly wasn't in favor of those who "made proselytes".

I've said it before. I'm saying it now...and I'll continue saying it...

Allow the Holy Spirit to change a person as they grow in the knowledge and admonition of the Lord. When the change comes from him (and within), the change is real. When the change is forced by others...it's not real. It's done to please man.

All of this emphasis on forcing a change on the outward appearance usurps what Christ is doing on the inside. Often more than not, it forces people to seek to please man...and often more than not, it leads to man-worship.

I would much rather see a lady (who wears pants to church) yearning to know more of Christ...than to see a woman (who wears dresses only) that gives those who don't "measure up" looks of disgust and disdain, because they wear pants

...and the same for men.

Preach standards...yes! However, don't force them on people. Allow the Holy Spirit to change them through the preaching of his word.

Please? 

You are not alone........

[Salyan]

5 hours ago, Jordan Kurecki said:

Here's a question, what is the difference between culottes and pants? both are garments that have a seem running down the middle... in fact last time I looked up the definition of the word pants, culottes fit. So to be consistent, woman who refuse to wear pants should also not wear culottes. 

 

I would modify that a bit to say that women who refuse to wear pants because they consider them to be men’s garments should also not wear culottes. 

If a woman does not wear pants because she considers them to be too form-fitting and immodest, then wearing culottes would not be hypocritical. 

[Jim_Alaska]

This (my comment) is not very biblical, but I have heard this topic bantered around all of my Christian life and I think it is silly. I also find it interesting, or maybe even telling, that the subject is usually brought up by men. 

[swathdiver]

Somehow we went from wearing culottes to shorts for sports activities.  At least the culottes were modest and identified one as a girl from a distance.

As to the earlier discussion, when folks in my local church tried to school an unbeliever about their immodest dress, without ears to hear with, they were offended and never came back.  Hard lesson.  When I pulled into the parking lot for the first time at our local church, my wife refused to get out of the car, saying it was a cult, all these ladies wearing dresses and long skirts!  We left but I prayed and persisted and we came back and the Lord wrought his Work on my dear wife's heart.  In the pew on a Wednesday night she leaned over and said we're home.  We did not live around women who dressed modestly.  Everything tight and or hanging out is the norm.

I had a job delivering to convenience stores once, it was tough being a child of God and going into those places with the ladies everywhere biblically naked.  I had to keep my thoughts on the Lord continually.  I loved the work but not that aspect, it was terribly stressful and soon after I was injured and could not do it anymore.

When these young ladies dress up, their dresses end barely below their belly buttons and barely the other way too!  Not a whole lot is left to the imagination.  But that is business attire, clubbing attire, its what they wear to weddings and funerals.  When not in dresses they're wearing those active wear skin tight clothes or even less.  Their momma's did too and they know no better. 

 

Only under conviction of the Holy Spirit will they begin to get curious and ask questions and have ears to hear with, then we can help win them for the Lord and get them to dress proper.

[Pastor Scott Markle]

8 hours ago, Salyan said:

I would modify that a bit to say that women who refuse to wear pants because they consider them to be men’s garments should also not wear culottes. 

If a woman does not wear pants because she considers them to be too form-fitting and immodest, then wearing culottes would not be hypocritical. 

Fully agreed.  IF the position is that Deuteronomy 22:5 forbids ANY pant-wear on women as an abomination against the Lord, then ANY and ALL pants-wear should be included for the sake of Biblical (and apparently -- "spiritual") consistency.  (By the way, without at all seeking to be crass, and praying that this will be taken in the correct spirit -- this would also include such things as PANTyhose and PANTies.)

(For the sake of the moderators, if that last parenthetical is deemed inappropriate for this discussion, let me know; and I will edit it out of the posting.)
 

3 hours ago, swathdiver said:

Somehow we went from wearing culottes to shorts for sports activities.  At least the culottes were modest and identified one as a girl from a distance.

As to the earlier discussion, when folks in my local church tried to school an unbeliever about their immodest dress, without ears to hear with, they were offended and never came back.  Hard lesson.  When I pulled into the parking lot for the first time at our local church, my wife refused to get out of the car, saying it was a cult, all these ladies wearing dresses and long skirts!  We left but I prayed and persisted and we came back and the Lord wrought his Work on my dear wife's heart.  In the pew on a Wednesday night she leaned over and said we're home.  We did not live around women who dressed modestly.  Everything tight and or hanging out is the norm.

I had a job delivering to convenience stores once, it was tough being a child of God and going into those places with the ladies everywhere biblically naked.  I had to keep my thoughts on the Lord continually.  I loved the work but not that aspect, it was terribly stressful and soon after I was injured and could not do it anymore.

When these young ladies dress up, their dresses end barely below their belly buttons and barely the other way too!  Not a whole lot is left to the imagination.  But that is business attire, clubbing attire, its what they wear to weddings and funerals.  When not in dresses they're wearing those active wear skin tight clothes or even less.  Their momma's did too and they know no better. 

 

Only under conviction of the Holy Spirit will they begin to get curious and ask questions and have ears to hear with, then we can help win them for the Lord and get them to dress proper.

Brother "Swathdiver,"

While (I believe) you and I do not hold precisely the same position concerning the "pants-wear on women" issue, I am compelled to commend the above posting with an expression of hearty agreement.  

Praise the Lord for the testimony concerning how the Lord our God worked in the heart of your dear wife.

[swathdiver]

Some food for thought for those who think ladies wearing trousers is ok.  Who started this?  Who started the trend of women dressing in pants and men's clothing being tailored for ladies?  Why the liberals in Hollywood did beginning in the 1920s in America.  So why would Christians adopt the lifestyle of Hollywood, allowing them to move the ancient landmarks that had been in place since the creation?

[Jordan Kurecki]

22 hours ago, swathdiver said:

Some food for thought for those who think ladies wearing trousers is ok.  Who started this?  Who started the trend of women dressing in pants and men's clothing being tailored for ladies?  Why the liberals in Hollywood did beginning in the 1920s in America.  So why would Christians adopt the lifestyle of Hollywood, allowing them to move the ancient landmarks that had been in place since the creation?

This is a guilt by association fallacy.it would be the equivalent of saying that if whoever created the first firearm did so to murder someone, that owning a gun is sinful because of that.

While the intentions behind the agenda for woman to wear pants may have been wrong, today women do not wear pants for the same reasons.

in fact, many of our wedding traditions can be traced back to idolatry and false religious beliefs. Does that make the traditions wrong? I don’t think so.

Cultural traditions can change in meaning, and so can the meaning and purpose of wearing particular articles of clothing.  

Women today as a whole do not wear pants to be masculine or to rebel against gender identity.

I also fail to see in the Bible where landmarks are set out since creation that woman are to wear dresses and men to wear pants. Pastor Markle study showed what the Bible says about clothing, men should be wearing skirts then right? 

Edited September 3, 2018 by Jordan Kurecki

[HappyChristian]

I can't believe how far from the OP this thread has gone. 

[Pastor Scott Markle]

10 hours ago, HappyChristian said:

I can't believe how far from the OP this thread has gone. 

Agreed, and it is partially my fault.  For that I do apologize, and I shall refrain from adding anything further in this thread discussion to the "rabbit trail."