Pants On Ladies..Conviction or Preference???

Hi,

this viewpoint is not because of a specific verse or passage, but rather because of a principle we find in the Bible. The principle encompasses not wearing what pertains to a man, but it also encompasses modesty and keeping the line between male and female clear.

Now, I am willing to go into more depth, but I also have a question for you, Gregorry Perry, Sr.

When will we be seeing you in a skirt?

 

I do agree with this

 

In the bible, in the OT, priests when dressed in priestly garments to minister in the tabernacle and temple, wore an undergarment that everyone else did not wear. this under garment went , of course, under their clothes to cover their private area. Today we wear a similar garment. A garment that started out as a man's garment. we call them under ware. now if we aren't to wear that which pertaineth to a man, and men did not even wear pants then, then what are underwear. In the OT underwear are that which pertaineth to a man.

 

donnA,

I am one who sees this as being more cultural than some who hold to my same conviction. Not solely, mind you. In fact, my conviction is based on a mix of several different points.

But Im not living in Bible times, nor am I living in that sort of a culture, so what Aaron wore when he went into the Tabernacle really has no bearing on me today specifically.

However, in my culture today, pants are seen as men's clothing. The dress/skirt is seen as uniquely female. Men are seen as "cross-dressers" if they were to wear a skirt. Now this seems like inconsistency when someone says that women in our culture can wear pants but the men cannot wear skirts. I don't hear many advocating that Gregory Perry Sr show up to work tomorrow wearing a skirt made especially for men....which they do have, btw.


All through the ages cultures each had clothing that pertained to a man, and other clothing that pertained to the ladies. This is what we strive to uphold. If I were in Japan (which I plan on someday) I would uphold there what pertains to a woman for that culture.

Now that hinges upon it also being modest. If a culture says "topless" pertains to a woman, than that violates the modesty issue. Now to me, pants also have a bearing on the modesty issue. They show form far more than a skirt or proper dress does.

I know that this topic has been hashed to death here, and lately it's all coming up again. But I think, donnA, you are one who can have a discussion without being nasty. And I thank you for that!

 

I don't know what culture anyone else here is in, but pants are not precieved to be men's clothing only. Every store that sells women's clothing sells pants, every woman I know wears pants, I have seen very few who wear dresses only. I live in scottish country, we have highland games every year, believe me, during the highland games skirts are not uniquely for women.
Once on here there was someone who argued, women wear pants becasue of culture, and everyone agreed we as christians are not to follow culture. Then I keep seeing peope who say well it's cultural, so I am going to do this or that.
So which is it, do we follow culture or not.
Are we to decide what to wear based on culture?
I feel completely comfortable wearing pants, that I am not violating God's commands in anyway. Becasue I am not wearing men's pants, I am wearing women's pants.
People are so worried about the outward appearence of the law, they negelect whats in the heart. Some women wear pants (men's actual pants) and other clothing itmes becasue they want to look like a man. That is where their heart is(even if it is wrong). So what is in my heart when I wear pants? Certainly not that I want to look like a man, or be mistaken for a man.

 

donnA,

I was asked which it was for me and why..... I am simply answering the question. I am not questioning you, nor your conviction or lack of conviction on the matter. It is my conviction which is being questioned here, and this is usually the case. Now I would be cut down to size rather quickly if I dared to start a thread asking why on earth so many women think pants are ok.......Ive seen it happen here. Yet my conviction seems open to all sorts of ridicule and questioning. Ok, my convictions are just that, mine. I can take it. But when Im asked Im going to answer.

Now, as I said, I see it as more cultural than many others who hold my same conviction....remember how I said that? No, culture alone does not dictate my convictions or standards....but culture does have some influence. After all, I live in my culture, right? It is a part of my life that makes up my worldview. My belief is that those who say culture has no part honestly do not realize the influence that their own culture is having on them.

and you are right also, in that some people are so caught up in whats on the outside that they forget to pay attention to the inside. But that can be said just as equally for those on either side of this particular issue.

A question was asked, I tried to answer it at least in part.

Modesty really is about more than just what clothes you wear, it is how you act. Now, a person who is modest will wind up being modest on the outside as well......but modesty is a whole package of things.

 

Well said! I applaud you for holding to your convictions bapmom. While I do not agree that pants are only for men, I also do not feel the need to try and convince others they are also for women. I think we have a duty to ourselves and to God to live by our convictions. Who's right? As long as we both are living according to our convictions we both are. Before anyone jumps down my throat, I am not talking about skin tight low riders or the like, but comfortable loose fitting pants cut for a woman. Modesty is not only about the clothes we wear, and I think that is a point that often gets lost in these discussions.

 

Pants Conv. or Pref?

Is it necessary to be able to go into a public establishment and be able to tell the difference between the Christians and the rest of the world?

Is is possible just by what a person looks like, should or should not distinguish them as being different?

I'm not talking about being odd.
I'm not talking about men in button down clothing and women who look like they just came out of a thrift store window.

Should there be a difference in the clothing of Christian young people in thier school, say ........from the unsaved? Could you pick out a Christian in every class? Is it necessary to have a line drawn between the two?

I hope I'm not hijacking this thread, I hope it can run the course inside the original post.

Thanks Bartimaeus

 

Bartimaeus,

in some respects Id say yes. I think we ought to be able to walk into a room and tell, from outward appearances, that there is something different about our Christian young people. 'Course, that doesn't change just because we get old. :tongue3:

Interpret that as you will.


Thank you Filmproducer, I appreciate what you said.

:sleeping_2: I really ought to go sleep now......I'll sleep right through alarms again tomorrow!

 

I know exactly what you mean bapmom! I have tried to go to bed three times already but cannot get to sleep. William almost missed the bus yesterday morning, I don't want that to happen again. Anyway...goodnight and sleep well! :wavey: :sleep:

Bartimaeus,

I think that clothing does not necessarily seperate Christians from non-christians, nor should it to some extent. Not all non-christians necessarily dress in an immodest, i.e. sexy, vulgar manner. IMO, it's more about attitude. I think attitude is more important than clothing ever will be, unfortunately some Christians "look" the part but have such mean and superior attitudes that they are distinguished as different but not necessarily in a good way. On the flip side some Christians dress so immodestly that their testimony is ruined. There is a balance.

 

What do you mean by your terms, conviction and preference?

I heard a Christian lawyer (David Gibbs?) many years ago explain the legal difference as a conviction being something you believe for which you are willing to die, but a preference is something that when it comes down to it, is not that important, something you would not take a life and death stand for.

The problem with many of us Fundamentalists is that we don't know how to prioritize our beliefs. There are Fundamentalists who believe that they should be willing to die for their position against pants on women. That position, however, is strictly minor and even external. (I don't mean by this that it is a wrong position.)

Why is the position external? Because you can force a woman to wear pants--in prison, in the hospital, etc. Anything one can be forced to do against his or her will is not a sin because sin is what comes from the lusts of the heart. Example: a woman is sinning who wears tight pants for the express purpose, decided in her heart, to tempt men. And that is my two yen worth.

 

As an Englishman I believe every one should wear pants.

 

:applause: :thumbs: :tongue3:

cracking up here!!!!

I wonder how many here will cop on ?

 

:laugh:

:wavey:

As an Americanwoman, I think I get it..........

 

JoJ,

you are right.

I used "conviction" too loosely in this case, I believe. This is a standard, it is only a "conviction" in the sense that God has pressed it upon my heart and mind that this is how I ought to dress. Wearing a dress is not something I would die for.

Then again, the OPers other option was "preference", which is going too far the other way, imo.

This is a standard which I believe in. God has convicted me about it, as we say, that this is the direction He wants me to go, so Im going there.

No one can force a "conviction" on anyone else, either. This is a matter of the heart. The church/school/college can "enforce" a standard for it's leadership or students, and it ought to. Telling ladies they ought to leave church if they are wearing pants is stepping way over the line, imo.

But let me tell ya, too often I see/hear people assuming that the church is somehow forcing these ladies to wear dresses. It most usually is that the ladies share a belief and all congregate together because they are similar in that way. Many IFB women share this belief. This does not mean that IFB churches are dictatorial and require it of their women.

 

There are 2 Biblical guidelines for dress. Modesty and distinction. The Bible never says "wear this or that style" or "Don't wear..." Each of us must intentionally before God arrive at a standard for ourselves/family that bears out these 2 guidelines.

The problem comes when we ridicule those we consider prudish or legalistic or we set up our standard as the measure of right and wrong. I think Romans 14 has something to say about both of these positions.

 

I think the two main objectives is not to look like manly nor immodest.

 

Greg I agree that the low rider jeans are immodest. I see them in sizes as small as 2T, and maybe smaller. It seems like the clothing companies want to make girls look like they are easy from an early age. But that is just my 2 cents,
Faithgirl