Featured Women Wearing Pants

Women can wear nice dress slacks that are very loose fitting and very modest.

 

I think that a bit of common sense needs to be used. Some could say that "That which pertaineth to a man" could also mean a baseball cap.

My own opinion.

 

One word: Legalism.

 

I guess if we are going to go down that route then women should not wear tights and high heals since they were originally worn by men.
http://www.ancient-origins.net/hist...igh-heels-once-essential-accessory-men-002329

I would love to see how that would go over in some fundamental churches.

This also ignores the fact that back in Biblical days everyone wore robes of some sort, but how they were worn differed between the genders. Just like today there are differences between women's slacks and men's.

 

Yes.

No goin' to movies, no card playin', no 'public bathin', no 'bobbed women's haircut', no pants on women, no drinkin' from a dark brown bottle even if it is a rootbeer, no wire framed glasses (60's), no Satanic bible versions. Neo pharisees. "...human precepts and teachings" Colossians 2:12

 

I don't even think men wore pants back in biblical times. I could be wrong, but it doesn't seem like that's what the bible says. But this all comes down to personal conviction. God will lead us into truth and I don't think wearing pants as a woman is a bad thing, as long as they don't look manly or are designed specifically for men. I think when Christians tell others that their church is wrong and their walk with God is wrong just because they wear pants is incredibly ridiculous and totally putting God in a box. Things like this are legalism.

 

And no open toed shoes!

 

especially in MN in winter.

 

We have a special needs child in SS. I wish I'd had on pants today because I really needed to sit on the floor next to him.

 

Perhaps the mistake that is made is one of not associating "modesty" with that which believers should be concerned. It isn't a matter of style, but both design and desire.

Too often (especially as a push back of the 60's and 70's) the typical male was and felt threatened by the times. That is one reason the show "All in the Family" was so popular. It "hooked" into the hidden and more often overt thinking of that time.

It is unfortunate, that in some ways the preaching / teaching also swung to what we all might consider a bit extreme, by placing the emphasis upon outward appearance being a sign of how right with God or some spiritual understanding and Godliness.

When what should have been preached is modesty, some took as the rule of law.

There is good reason for a woman to be modest, and to purposely forgo placing appearance as a priority.

 

Fundamentalism...it imagines the strangest dogmas attached to scripture by limited reasoning of an isolated mind.

 

This book was edited in 1962 by Granddad's executive secretary, Viola Walden, from his correspondence of decades. He would answer and correspond with anyone except those he thought were "nuts." Biggrin The letters go back decades, so this particular item could be from as early as 1940 or so.

This correspondence is now part of the "John R. Rice Papers," which were collated by Nathan Finn of Southeastern BTS and will be (if not already) kept at Southwestern BTS. The files are now being used by church historians such as Keith Bates in his dissertation on John R. Rice. Finn also used them in his 2007 dissertation.

So, did he change his view? At the least he moderated it as he did other views. (In his earlier years he vehemently opposed eating in a restaurant that sold liquor, but did so quite often in the 1970's.) I don't know of this view on pants on women being taught in later years either in person or his books. For Men and Women (1979) has nothing on it. His 1971 book, God in Your Family, opposes miniskirts, stretch pants and the like (p. 106), but not pants in general on women. The 1973 followup book to the one in the OP, Dr. Rice, Here are More Questions, does not mention pants on women in the section, "How Should a Christian Dress?" (pp. 94-96).

Interestingly enough, his six daughters all honored him while he was alive by their skirts and long hair, but after he died several of them cut their hair and started wearing pants. (I don't criticize them for this.) My mother did not, but wore skirts and had beautiful long hair until she went to Heaven.

 

That's a pretty nasty thing to say about fellow believers in Christ.

 

If you are going to call yourself a theologian, perhaps you should know exactly what legalism is theologically: “Legalism is a slavish following of the laws in the belief that one thereby earns merit; it also entails a refusal to go beyond the formal or literal requirements of the law” (Christian Theology, 2nd ed., by SBC theologian Millard Erickson, p. 990).

Very few fundamentalists believe that their standards of personal separation make them holy. Rather, by having such standards we wish to avoid temptation and live lives obviously different from the world.

 

Fact!

 

I think this is a bit ridiculous. Every company has their own dress code. People can find anything wrong with dress codes. I'm sure if they required her to wear a dress it might have been upsetting and come off as sexist. There's no winning in a situation like this. I would just respect the dress code and be happy that they welcomed me into their company.