P.O.W.

[robycop3]

How about P ants O n W omen?

My former church, which was IFB, was torn apart by this issue, along with some others which I won't bother with in this thread. My current IFB church doesn't have this problem. We are sola scriptura, free of all man-made religious doctrines.

But wait!

The antipants gang cites Deut. 22: 5The 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.

Another lady(I use that term with tongue in cheek when referring to this person) who was one of the wreckers of our old church, drove by & saw my wife working in our yard while wearing a pair of long pants. She stopped her car & began shrieking, "You're disgracing our church wearing pants!" My wife replied, "Womens' pants do NOT pertain to men! they're designed to fit a WOMAN'S anatomy, & have feminine embellishments & decorations. Now, wouldn't my hubby look silly in these pedal-pushers if they'd fit him?" The other woman drove off, shaking her head.(Thankfully, she's NOT in our current church!)

Here's MY take on this subject: My wife is absolutely RIGHT about womens' pants not pertaining to men. Mens' & womens' blue jeans are cut differently to better fit the anatomy of the gender for which they're intended. Men & women dressed MUCH more "unisex" in Biblical times & part of the world than they do now. But there were certain articles of clothes that were gender-specific such as veils & kinds of bling that were gender-specific, plus, prostitutes wore some kind of specific garb. This is what God was referring to.

It's our policy to follow our own beliefs on this subject, while not criticizing those who believe differently. But OTOH, we won't accept criticism from those who believe differently, as we've seen that the greatest critix are generally members of some cult such as the Jabroney False Witlesses, or Onenutt Penny-Pinchers. Unfortunately, some IFBs fall into this category, criticizing their sisters insteada simply not wearing pants & letting it go at that.

I know, I know, this whole issue sounds silly, but it's dead-serious to certain folx, and it HAS torn more than one church apart.

I just wanna get some feedback here IN A CHRIST-HONORING manner about the subject, & not start a war.

[trc123]

Seems to me that while some folk are spending much time fighting over such things there are others who are actually loving and leading souls to Christ! Guess which ones I respect more!

[Revelation3:20]

I know, I know, this whole issue sounds silly, but it's dead-serious to certain folx, and it HAS torn more than one church apart.

I just wanna get some feedback here IN A CHRIST-HONORING manner about the subject, & not start a war.

Since you obviously have made up your mind on the issue and are fully aware of the tension over it, I am inclined to disbelieve the last part of this quote. :2cents

[1Timothy115]

How about P ants O n W omen?

My former church, which was IFB, was torn apart by this issue, along with some others which I won't bother with in this thread. My current IFB church doesn't have this problem. We are sola scriptura, free of all man-made religious doctrines.

But wait!

The antipants gang cites Deut. 22: 5The 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.

Another lady(I use that term with tongue in cheek when referring to this person) who was one of the wreckers of our old church, drove by & saw my wife working in our yard while wearing a pair of long pants. She stopped her car & began shrieking, "You're disgracing our church wearing pants!" My wife replied, "Womens' pants do NOT pertain to men! they're designed to fit a WOMAN'S anatomy, & have feminine embellishments & decorations. Now, wouldn't my hubby look silly in these pedal-pushers if they'd fit him?" The other woman drove off, shaking her head.(Thankfully, she's NOT in our current church!)

Here's MY take on this subject: My wife is absolutely RIGHT about womens' pants not pertaining to men. Mens' & womens' blue jeans are cut differently to better fit the anatomy of the gender for which they're intended. Men & women dressed MUCH more "unisex" in Biblical times & part of the world than they do now. But there were certain articles of clothes that were gender-specific such as veils & kinds of bling that were gender-specific, plus, prostitutes wore some kind of specific garb. This is what God was referring to.

It's our policy to follow our own beliefs on this subject, while not criticizing those who believe differently. But OTOH, we won't accept criticism from those who believe differently, as we've seen that the greatest critix are generally members of some cult such as the Jabroney False Witlesses, or Onenutt Penny-Pinchers. Unfortunately, some IFBs fall into this category, criticizing their sisters insteada simply not wearing pants & letting it go at that.

I know, I know, this whole issue sounds silly, but it's dead-serious to certain folx, and it HAS torn more than one church apart.

I just wanna get some feedback here IN A CHRIST-HONORING manner about the subject, & not start a war.

I would suggest some study in the following areas of scripture but, I have two questions first.

1. What scripture do you have that supports women wearing "anatomy designed" pants?

2. Do you like Christian men to be attracted to your wife's anatomy?

The following is a good study for both husband and wife. This all deals with how we act and interact with our Christian brothers and sisters.

Then read what Paul says in Romans 14 with special consideration to verse 13:
Romans 14:13 Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way.
Also:
Romans 15:1 We then that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak, and not to please ourselves.
Romans 15:2 Let every one of us please his neighbour for his good to edification.
1 Corinthians 8 especially verses 9-13 and particularly this verse:
1 Corinthians 8:12 But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ.
This is a great husband first study then after you have a good understanding and much prayer study with your spouse.
I suggest you examine what you have just said here, "My wife is absolutely RIGHT about womens' pants..."
It isn't the way God established the man-woman relationship. I would encourage you to search the scriptures exhorting the husband to be spiritual leader of the Christian home beginning with Ephesians 5:21-33.

In Christ,
Dave

[robycop3]

First, if a woman doesn't wear pants made to fit her anatomy, they WOULD look indecent, fitting very tightly over certain portions.

Second, yes, muy mind IS made up- it's "much ado about nothing". Isn't YOUR mind made up about it?

Third, womens' pants didn't exist when God gave the Scriptures-at least not in that part of the world. And for that matter, neither did MENS'!

Fourth, it gets mighty cold in my 'hood. I don't know of too many women(or Scotsmen in kilts) who'd wanna be out in below-zero windy weather.

And finally, but succintly, womens' pants don't pertain to a man, simple as that. And "spiritual leader" does NOT mean "dictator".

[speerjp1]

And for that matter' date=' neither did MENS'![/quote']

Really?

I would challenge you to do two things:

1) Don't use flannel graph pictures or any other pictorial depiction of Bible characters as a reference for how men dressed in the times the Scriptures were given by inspiration-- they are typically wrong. :thumb

2) Study out the combination of these two words in the Bible: "gird" and "loins." :ideas:

Men in the Middle East today dress much like they did in the days when God gave his word to men. To this day they wear britches under the outer garment that extends to just below their knees. You will find that when God commands someone to gird his loins, He was always talking to a man and it was always in the process of fulfilling the responsibilities of a man, primarily: labor, priesthood, and warring. Girded loins pertain to a man exclusively in the Bible.

Also, even though the pagan-based tradition in Scotland is for men to wear kilts, it doesn't justify a child of God in his emulation of that invention of wicked men.

If you search this forum for "kilts" you will find that there is a rather long and rather ridiculous discussion already in existence that covers that issue quite thoroughly.
:2cents

[Annie]

Robycop, I'm with you on this one...but I do think that this is an issue that is open to personal application. The thing that troubles me is not that some people disapprove of POW, but that some make it a "sin issue" and judge all other Christian women by their own personal interpretations and applications of Scripture. I honestly can respect those who disagree with me on this issue, and I have met plenty of people who respect my viewpoint even though they don't agree with it. The trouble comes when people start pointing accusatory fingers and insinuate that all who disagree with them are not "right with God."

[Wilchbla]

Liberty folks. Stop trying to set dress standards of fellowship for Christians other than what is modest. If you want to have this standard in your church OK but leave it at that. There are more pressing issues.

[1Timothy115]

First, if a woman doesn't wear pants made to fit her anatomy, they WOULD look indecent, fitting very tightly over certain portions.

Second, yes, muy mind IS made up- it's "much ado about nothing". Isn't YOUR mind made up about it?

Third, womens' pants didn't exist when God gave the Scriptures-at least not in that part of the world. And for that matter, neither did MENS'!

Fourth, it gets mighty cold in my 'hood. I don't know of too many women(or Scotsmen in kilts) who'd wanna be out in below-zero windy weather.

And finally, but succintly, womens' pants don't pertain to a man, simple as that. And "spiritual leader" does NOT mean "dictator".

I pointed out two questions and scripture dealing with weak Christians. I didn't tell anyone what to wear but, did point to text from the original post. Ignore me but, the scriptures are very important. I can't over emphasize this one in particular, a scripture that comes with warning, 1 Corinthians 8:12.

For any others who ignored the scriptures and decided to go with personal opinions. I issue the same challenge to read all those scriptures I posted with earlier before you comment.

[robycop3]

I'm not ignoring you at all, Sir! First, i attend the IFB church that I do cuz it's SOLA SCRIPTURA, free of man-made doctrines of worship & private interps of Scripture that go beyond what it sez. Second-While it isn't true of EVERY community, of course, in MY 'hood, the women who go to extremes to avoid wearing pants, even dressing their girls in baggy culottes to play softball, are generally viewed as "religious extremists, religious nuts" by the unsaved community. And, unfortunately, mosta them are members of some cult such as the JWs or Oneness Pentecostals.

There are a coupla woman in our church who quietly go about wearing skirts or dresses all the time; there are a coupla others who always wear dresses to church. My wife does, unless the weather makes it impractical.

Seems in this case that those women who are misapplying the Deuteronomy Scripture are the ones who could wreck the weak faith of others. but again, we must remember that mosta them are CULT MEMBERS.

[1Timothy115]

I'm not ignoring you at all, Sir! First, i attend the IFB church that I do cuz it's SOLA SCRIPTURA, free of man-made doctrines of worship & private interps of Scripture that go beyond what it sez. Second-While it isn't true of EVERY community, of course, in MY 'hood, the women who go to extremes to avoid wearing pants, even dressing their girls in baggy culottes to play softball, are generally viewed as "religious extremists, religious nuts" by the unsaved community. And, unfortunately, mosta them are members of some cult such as the JWs or Oneness Pentecostals.

There are a coupla woman in our church who quietly go about wearing skirts or dresses all the time; there are a coupla others who always wear dresses to church. My wife does, unless the weather makes it impractical.

Seems in this case that those women who are misapplying the Deuteronomy Scripture are the ones who could wreck the weak faith of others. but again, we must remember that mosta them are CULT MEMBERS.

Your opinions based on preference aren't SOLA SCRIPTURA. Please give me some scripture in return for my original questions and scripture I gave you...here they are again:

1. What scripture do you have that supports women wearing "anatomy designed" pants?

2. Do you like Christian men to be attracted to your wife's anatomy?

Romans 14 with special consideration to verse 13:
Romans 14:13 Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way.
Also:
Romans 15:1 We then that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak, and not to please ourselves.
Romans 15:2 Let every one of us please his neighbour for his good to edification.
1 Corinthians 8 especially verses 9-13 and particularly this verse:
1 Corinthians 8:12 But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ.

[Revelation3:20]

in MY 'hood, the women who go to extremes to avoid wearing pants, even dressing their girls in baggy culottes to play softball, are generally viewed as "religious extremists, religious nuts" by the unsaved community.

We wouldn't want the world to think we are "religious extremists, religious nuts" now would we. After all the primary goal of the Christian life is to be liked by the lost and to fit in with the culture of the world as much as we can. We wouldn't want them to think there is anything different about a Christian. Of course I am not serious, but some Christians live their own lives as if this were the case, and not content therewith, they insist on making unprovoked attacks on others who feel God holds believers to a higher standard. I suppose it must make them uncomfortable.

[John81]

Your opinions based on preference aren't SOLA SCRIPTURA. Please give me some scripture in return for my original questions and scripture I gave you...here they are again:

1. What scripture do you have that supports women wearing "anatomy designed" pants?

2. Do you like Christian men to be attracted to your wife's anatomy?

Romans 14 with special consideration to verse 13:
Romans 14:13 Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way.
Also:
Romans 15:1 We then that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak, and not to please ourselves.
Romans 15:2 Let every one of us please his neighbour for his good to edification.
1 Corinthians 8 especially verses 9-13 and particularly this verse:
1 Corinthians 8:12 But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ.

I think I understand the point you are trying to make but these two questions don't get there.

When Scripture says we are not to wear clothes that pertain to the opposite sex, that's telling us to wear clothes that pertain to our own sex. Clothes that are anatomically designed for a particular sex means they are not made for the opposite sex and don't pertain to them.

Asking whether a man likes Christian men to be attracted to his wifes anatomy misses as well. Plenty of men find a woman's anatomy to be very appealing when wearing a dress, blouse and skirt outfit, pants, or even other attire. While we should dress modestly, there is no way to prevent every man from finding even modestly dressed women wearing dresses attractive.

[Wilchbla]

I'm not ignoring you at all' date=' Sir! First, i attend the IFB church that I do cuz it's SOLA SCRIPTURA,[/quote']

steel, why do you insist that you are a fundamentalist all the time when you reject two major tenets of fundamentalism.

1) Preservation of scripture without error.

2) Eternal security

Plus you reject dispensationalism which may not be one of the tenets but is important in understanding the word of God and you postition concerning the nation of Israel is iffy.

[Annie]

steel, why do you insist that you are a fundamentalist all the time when you reject two major tenets of fundamentalism.

1) Preservation of scripture without error.

2) Eternal security

This is off-topic, I know, but I couldn't help commenting here. Wilchbla, why do you say that these are two major tenets of fundamentalism? Where did you get that information? Are you basing this statement on your own experience, or on documentation that every fundamentalist would agree with?

Eternal security (or perseverence of the saints) is the P in the Calvinist TULIP. I know plenty of fundies that aren't Calvinists. There are many fundamentalist free-will Baptist churches.

KJVO-ism is also not a "major tenet of fundamentalism." I know many, many fundamentalists (myself included) who are not KJVO.

A fundamentalist is someone who believes the fundamentals of the Christian faith. This would include the inspiration of the Bible, the creation of man, the virgin birth, crucifixion, resurrection, salvation by faith through grace, etc. Another defining doctrine/quality/behavior (that differentiates a fundy from a mainline evangelical) is separation. IMO, anyone who believes these things can be called a fundamentalist. Opinions about how Scripture was preserved (shades of KJVO-ism included), eschatological persuasion, and certain applicational issues (like pants on women or approval of musical styles) are disagreed upon within the group of fundamentalism. The very fact that you see things like these debated on an IFB board proves my point. Fundamentalists don't agree on everything. We're not unthinking zombies, blind followers, or conformers. Don't make us out to be these things.