Pants

[LindaR]

If it's a person's conviction to wear only dresses or skirts, that's great. However, IMO, the only thing that I see in scripture is that a woman should dress modestly. There are many dresses and skirts that are less modest than women's pants. There are many women's pants less modest than dresses and skirts.

I believe that women (and men) should dress modestly...as unto the Lord. However, I believe that Deuteronomy 22:5 is speaking against blurring the lines between female and male; in which, one looks like the other. The verse does not even mention pants.

Modesty is the key.

[JerryNumbers]

I,m sorry buddy, but your logic is wrong. Deut. 22:5 for one thing, says something is "abomination"--a very strong word for that which God hates. if He hated in the Old Book, wouldn't He hate it in the new? We are speaking of principles, not commands for the New Testament believer.

Secondly, as was previously stated, cross dressing is exactly what we have today--women wearing mens clothing! What else can you call it? The gender bending is very dangerous, and could be the birth of the homosexual movement; it confuses the sexes, and mixes everything together as one. Perhaps that is why it is abomination, and yes, it does dovetail Romans one.

You seem to have a problem with the letter of the law while ignoring the principle of the law. Be careful to make sure you get your priorities right.

There's some that tries to search out ever loop hole they can find, & of course they use wisdom from below.

[HappyChristian]

No, it isn't just about modesty. Gender distinction is important to God, also. He would not have put Deut. 22:5 in the OT nor the 1 Cor 11 parts about hair in the NT were it not important to Him.

Modesty is also an issue - a very vital one. And I agree that there are times that some pants (if they are very loose...I've seen pictures of "modest" jeans that are no more modest than a two piece....less skin might be exposed, but certainly the shape leaves the imagination wide open) are more modest than some skirts. I would rather see a woman in a loose-fitting pair of slacks than in a mini-skirt. I don't know what God would say about that - other than the fact that things He said in the OT (oh, no, there I go again - believing that the OT has things in it for us to learn ) would indicate that baring the thigh is a shameful thing for a woman to do. And mini-skirts definitely bare the thigh. But one thing we need to understand about scriptural modesty: nowhere is a man commanded to be modest. So, if we are to claim that men must be modest, we have to say women must wear shoes as well. Neither are in scripture...but neither is it written that it is wrong. HOWEVER - we do have the principle of gender distinction in both OT and NT.

Christian identity is also important to consider. It's funny. I was thinking last night - the restrooms in public places all have the picture of a woman in a skirt to identify it as a woman's restroom for those who can't read or who can't read English. It's universally understood that the picture indicates women's facilities. What the world seems to understand (at least at this point) is that women wear dresses. Oh, I know. Not all the time. And, it is a truth that men are wearing them more and more. And I'm talking straight men, not just gays or transgenders.

One thing I want to make clear, though. While I believe it is right for women to wear dresses/skirts, I think it is wrong for women to be made to feel like second class citizens if they don't. Let me explain...

I am open to the idea that there are pants that look feminine (I'm not open to them for myself - I do believe that I would be disobeying what God has shown me to do if I were to wear pants [now, if someone pointed a gun at me and told me to put them on or die...]. And I do know a number of women who truly love the Lord and who wear pants. And they don't resemble a man in any way, shape, or form. And, just as importantly, they don't ACT like a man, nor do they WALK like a man. I've seen young ladies who never wear pants but who walk and act masculine. To me, that is just as wrong...

The principle which we are taught in Deut. 22:5 is that genders are to be distinct (and don't think for a moment that robes weren't distinct back then...). I can see that some pants might look obviously feminine on men and therefore would be relegated to being women's pants (although I still disagree with women wearing them )

What I don't agree with is pounding a woman over the head that she's a horrid sinner if she wears pants. There is a way to teach biblical principles in every area of our lives without using threats (God's gonna curse you), etc. Many times I think a woman will stop wearing pants simply because it's what everyone else is doing and she doesn't want to be singled out as different. That is peer pressure, and it isn't biblical. We are to do what we do based on what scripture teaches us. God will confirm in us we are doing right.

The idea that women need to wear pants in order to be modest while doing things can be worked around. I've done a number of things that people might think require pants but I've done them modestly in skirts or dresses. Hay rides, skating (believe me, as often as I fall, I've learned to do it modestly ), horseback riding, painting (I don't climb ladders, no matter what I'm wearing!), etc. I don't wear culottes (except for the special pair I had made for doing my laps in the church pool), so I've never tried to ride a bike. But I know a number of ladies/girls who ride bikes modestly.

There is too much gender neutrality today. And it honestly began in this country when women fought for the right to wear pants. Research the history of it and you'll see. I know, I know, someone will come along and say that I'm allowing culture to dictate...But not really. The culture of women wearing dresses and men wearing pants in this country was rooted in obedience to scripture. All denominations practiced that once upon a time. And the reason was simple - gender distinction (as taught in both the OT and NT). It was what was understood to be the right thing. But along came the women who didn't like a lot of things about a "man's world." You know, like the husband being the head, women not voting, not being able to work outside the home (oh, to be able to stay at home!!), women not involved in politics, etc., etc. Now, there were things that needed to be changed, don't get me wrong. But so many of the changes came about because a minority (and it's always a minority) of women wanted to throw off the authority of the man...And so they did. And we have what we have now. What a wonderful change, eh? Not.

Again, I want to say that a decision as to whether a woman will wear pants or not is up to the husband. I don't think a husband should just arbitrarily say his woman isn't gonna wear pants if she is having issues with it. Then the problem goes a bit deeper and needs to be addressed in a loving way. But the ultimate decision lies on the man's shoulders. And a woman who loves her man and her God will abide by that decision happily (kudos to Kita and what she's said about her and her hubby's discussion!).

And, Standing, if you want Linda to go barefoot because the Bible doesn't say women are to wear shoes - go for it (FWIW - I go barefoot as often as I can! I hate shoes). :coverlaugh:

[Standing Firm In Christ]

I am not pushing for women to not wear shoes, HC. I was illustrating the fact that for those women or men that insist women wear dresses because of Deuteronomy 22:5, they need to be consistent and throw away women's shoes.

I agree on the robes thing... there had to be a distinction between male and female; whether that was difference of color, or something that adorned the robes, we are not told what that distinction is so we could spend an eternity speculating and guessing.

But my guess would be distinction in color of the material.

Edited May 24, 2012 by Standing Firm In Christ

[Anon]

Actually I think the differences were that the woman's robes were looser and fuller...the men's robes were not as full and could be girded up around their waists to run or fight.

I just think its a really tough subject because some of it HAS to do with culture...the question is, how MUCH is culture, and how much of our current culture is wrong? I guess that's where playing it safe and trying to live right to the best of our ability comes in, to please God...not to earn Heaven, but to separate ourselves from the world as the NT asks.

I've been asking a lot of the hard questions lately (in my mind) and the Lord keeps showing me passages in the NT about being separate from the world...carrying Christ's reproach....living a holy life, not because its law, but because God hates sin so much, we want to honor Him by trying to avoid it....using our liberty for good rather than to sin.

So even though soooooo many Christians today have made the peer pressure really bad (IMO) to use our liberty to do as we please as long as we aren't in gross sin...the NT really does still ask us to live a holy and separated life, which to me, kind of means we shouldn't always be trying to toe the line...living on the fence...being as close to the world as possible while still acting "Christian".

I have a hard time with it, since wearing skirts for a woman is VERY much a "reproach" these days....people really look down upon it. But as I've said before, I guess its better to be safe than to get too close to the fence. Esp under the umbrella of my hubby...which even if pants were "okay", they aren't okay for me. Anyway God says whatsoever is not of faith is sin, so that means if I (or my husband) knowingly do something we feel deep down inside isn't right, then its sin for us (and that covers lots of things. I think we've hardened ourselves to sin in these latter days. I know I have, in ways. Not really the pants issue so much, but just life in general.)

[LindaR]

BTW...I NEVER run around without something on my feet...and it's usually socks or some other type of hosiery. I cannot wear shoes without socks or hose on my feet. I always wear shoes outside. Too many "foreign" objects to step on. Had to have a fine shard of glass surgically removed from my right foot a few years ago. After that incident, my feet stay covered.

[HappyChristian]

Standing, I know you weren't advocating for women to go barefoot - I was going for a bit of levity. Your connection between the two doesn't hold up, though, because the absence of mention of shoes does not negate the fact that God set up the principle of gender distinction and that Deut. 22:5 is a verse that highlights it - even though under the law.

The robes were likely distinct in decoration (possibly size, too, as in women's being looser, and likely the women's robes came a bit lower on the leg), because women did a lot of needlework then, too. And, another difference was the fact that the men wore girdles (belts in our modern lingo) on the outside of their robes so that if need be they could fix their robes to be able to run.

Good post, Kita!

Linda, I don't go barefoot outside anymore, either. But I do inside. During the summer I love to wear sandals when I go places - no hose. Ahhhh.... :icon_smile:

[Standing Firm In Christ]

Actually, I do believe the "no shoes" thing does tie in (at least in the Old Testament days and up until the end of the first century AD).

We do have a verse that seems to imply women went barefoot when they were wandering in the wilderness, and we have verses that speak of men wearing shoes. But we have no verses of women wearing shoes.

I am convinced that women did not wear shoes in those days (maybe that is where we get the term "barefoot and pregnant" from?) and if a woman put shoes on, she was doing so to complete a 'dress like a man' attire.

Edited May 24, 2012 by Standing Firm In Christ

[Anon]

Actually, I do believe the "no shoes" thing does tie in (at least in the Old Testament days and up until the end of the first century AD).

We do have a verse that seems to imply women went barefoot when they were wandering in the wilderness, and we have verses that speak of men wearing shoes. But we have no verses of women wearing shoes.

I am convinced that women did not wear shoes in those days (maybe that is where we get the term "barefoot and pregnant" from?) and if a woman put shoes on, she was doing so to complete a 'dress like a man' attire.

I would venture to think if the women stayed around the house, she did not NEED shoes. I wouldn't think God told women not to wear them. Then by the time the wilderness time came, they didn't have any shoes made.

Men needed shoes for all the walking and working and fighting they did.

[Guest]

Let's see, we find no verses in the Bible that say a woman wore shoes, but we do find them showing that men wore shoes.

The logical conclusion is that shoes are that which pertains to a man and women should not wear them.

After all, Deuteronomy 22:5 of the Old Testament dovetails into Romans 1 of the New Testament according to HC.

So women must get rid of their shoes since there is no indication they were a woman's attire in the Bible.

We do have evidence that women went barefoot.

Deuteronomy 28:56 (KJV) The tender and delicate woman among you, which would not adventure to set the sole of her foot upon the ground for delicateness and tenderness, her eye shall be evil toward the husband of her bosom, and toward her son, and toward her daughter,

I mean, if one is going to use Deuteronomy 22:5 to say a woman can't wear slacks, then they must be consistent and say a woman can't wear shoes. There is no indication in the Word of God that women wore shoes, but there is indication that they went barefoot (see verse above)

Is Imelda Marcos still alive? If so, this will make her sick. (sorry youger folks...google it).

[HappyChristian]

Well, again, Standing, nope. Not a parallel comparison. Especially in light of a couple of passages...(going on to verse 57 in that chapter, we could then say women should eat their children - that's real good Bible twisting. Especially since eating your children isn't a principle carried over into the NT. Again, not a legit comparison)

Ex. 12 is instruction for the passover...to each household in Goshen. Men were not singled out. And in verse 12, they were commanded to have their shoes on. The whole household. Sorry, but that included women.

Deut. 29 tells us that Moses called ALL of Israel together and spoke to ALL of them (and that would include women). Verse 5 reminds them that their clothes - and SHOES - did not wear out. So, again, women wore shoes.

I realize you are trying to say that using Deut 22:5 twists scripture in the same way you have tried to twist the shoe bit. But shame on you because they are not at all the same. Again, and I guess you really don't care about this, since you're continuing the shoe line, principles written in the OT that are carried through to the NT are to be followed. Gender distinction is made very clear in Deut 22:5 (just as separation is clear in other verses in that chapter) and is followed through in the NT. If someone wants to teach that means women should wear dresses (because, HORRORS, even the world knows - at least for a little while yet - that only women and weird men wear dresses), they have basis for it. More than your silliness about the shoes.

[irishman]

So according to the Bible, shoes were something that pertain to man. That is, unless you can find an instance of women wearing shoes in the Old Testament?

Your response borders on ridicules. "Abomination" is NOT said about wearing shoes.

[Standing Firm In Christ]

Your response borders on ridicules. "Abomination" is NOT said about wearing shoes.

So show me this Scripture that says women had shoes. I have already provided Scripture that implies women went barefoot.

[Standing Firm In Christ]

And no, HC, the verses you provided do not prove women wore shoes. The passage in Exodus said they were to have their staff in their hand.

Women did not carry the staff, the man did. So Exodus 12 does not prove the women wore shoes. Verse 3 specifically states that the command was to the men.

Edited May 24, 2012 by Standing Firm In Christ

[Anon]

KJV'>Song of Solomon 7:1
How beautiful are thy feet with shoes, O prince's daughter! the joints of thy thighs are like jewels, the work of the hands of a cunning workman.