Pants on Women

[Bible Thumpin n Gun Totin]

Most women don't put themselves in that position, especially in the church.

Sure they do. Do you think sin stops at the Church door? Women show off their body just as men show off their wealth in Church.

Moreso, how would they actually know when some perverted man is going to lust after them?...
Women are not responsible for men being perverts and they cannot be expected to prophetically know what does and doesn't make a man aroused. Men are responsible.

We have a gift from God called the Holy Spirit. He gives us discernment. He tells men it's not a good idea to go to a woman's house alone and he tells women it's not a good idea to dress like a harlot. If someone drinks alcohol in front of a former alcoholic who then backslides then the original drinker is responsible for tempting his Brother. Again, argue with God all you want about the Weaker Brother principle.

some perverted man is going to lust after them?

Are you aware that YOU are a perverted man? Your sin nature is entirely corrupted and YOU are perverted. You are perverted, I am perverted, he, she, them, they, all of the people on God's earth are perverted. We are all corrupted by the fall in every way.

Do you think God gave multiple examples of harlots in Proverbs because they're rare or because they're common?
Do you think God through Paul had to tell women to dress modestly precisely because the women were already doing it?

Prov 6:23-26 and Prov 7:10-13 are just two of multiple examples. They even mention "the attire of a harlot" meaning that there IS a way of dressing where women are tempting men and at fault. Argue about it all you want with God.

Men are perverted by the fall in that they ALL (including YOU) are drawn to loose women. Likewise women are perverted by the fall in that they ALL will feel a draw to show off to men that they find attractive. Look at modern culture and babies out of wedlock for all the evidence you could possibly want.

 

[Bible Thumpin n Gun Totin]

If you are going to dictate your daughter, wife, mother, sister, or females in your church to wear a "dress" that comes up to the collarbone and down to the ankles just because some women out there do not dress appropriately, then you have a problem.

I've seen plenty of women in those types of dresses. Have you seen what happens when the wind blows? I have.

That type of dress clings, and I mean CLINGS to the side of the body where the wind is blowing - front, back, or side....
And we godly women know EXACTLY what we are doing. Don't dictate what we should wear.

No, people that do that, including I and millions of other Christians, don't have a problem. We are the solution. As husbands we are RESPONSIBLE for everything that our household does. If my wife tempts a Brother then she is at fault, but I am RESPONSBILE. Just as WE as sinners are at fault, but Christ is responsible and has thus paid our sin debt.

I can't pay my wife and children's sin debt as Christ did, but I am called to IMITATE it regardless of if I can and part of that is directing my household toward God.

That is what Male Headship means even though far too many egalitarian women nowadays don't want to hear it. The husband is the absolute head of house in all decisions and in all ramifications meaning that sin that occurs in his household, whether it be by the wife flaunting herself or refusing to submit, the children disobeying their mother, the husband himself sinning, the husband not properly setting boundaries with the world, etc. The buck stops with the husband in a family.

The flow of Authority in a family goes Christ -> MAN -> WOMAN -> Children and the reason our country is in the mire is because Men have not exercised their God-given authority and because Women have a massive Feminist sized hook in their cheek.

 

[Bible Thumpin n Gun Totin]

Can you guess why they are all gone?

Sure. Because they were likely infected with Feminism or Egalitarianism, which are both directly contradictory to both Complementarianism or Christian Patriarchy?

 

[Scarlett O.]

Sure. Because they were likely infected with Feminism or Egalitarianism, which are both directly contradictory to both Complementarianism or Christian Patriarchy?

Not even close. These were extremely conservative women. Some did wear skirts/dresses only.

 

[AustinC]

Sure they do. Do you think sin stops at the Church door? Women show off their body just as men show off their wealth in Church.

I hope you realize there are very wealthy women entrepreneurs.
Here you show us your own cultural stigma that is oozing into how you read the Bible.
Just take responsibility for yourself and I will take responsibility for myself. Women must also take responsibility for their actions. This is biblical. But I observe you continually attempting to cast stones at women while you try to avoid your own responsibility.

We have a gift from God called the Holy Spirit. He gives us discernment.

Yes we do. Discern your own judgmental thoughts here and deal with your own temptations instead of blaming others.

He tells men it's not a good idea to go to a woman's house alone and he tells women it's not a good idea to dress like a harlot.

Bible text please.
Here, I suggest you are adding your cultural moré to the Bible and thus force your legalism upon others in judgment.

If someone drinks alcohol in front of a former alcoholic who then backslides then the original drinker is responsible for tempting his Brother. Again, argue with God all you want about the Weaker Brother principle.

I have no argument with God. My argument is with your judgmental spirit that blames women for your lusting heart.

Are you aware that YOU are a perverted man? Your sin nature is entirely corrupted and YOU are perverted. You are perverted, I am perverted, he, she, them, they, all of the people on God's earth are perverted. We are all corrupted by the fall in every way.

Perhaps the most honest thing you have said so far. I am keenly aware of the fight against sin. But, I don't blame women for my wretchedness.

Do you think God gave multiple examples of harlots in Proverbs because they're rare or because they're common?

Do you think you cannot be a harlot and those verses are meant for you?!

Do you think God through Paul had to tell women to dress modestly precisely because the women were already doing it?

Do you think you are the judge, jury, and executor of what modesty is? You seem to live in "Brigadoon" world and thus expect everyone to join you.

Provide 6:23-26 and Prov 7:10-13 are just two of multiple examples. They even mention "the attire of a harlot" meaning that there IS a way of dressing where women are tempting men and at fault. Argue about it all you want with God.

I won't argue with God. I will argue witj you and your legalism.

Men are perverted by the fall in that they ALL (including YOU) are drawn to loose women.

Well, you don't know me, so telling me I am drawn to "loose" women is purely your own temptation being projected upon me.
We are both, correctly, perverted by the fall.

Likewise women are perverted by the fall in that they ALL will feel a draw to show off to men that they find attractive.

Yes, the perversion is in all humanity, male and female. Not all women "show off to men" as not all women are attracted to men. (Just as not all men are attracted to women [see Paul in 1 Corinthians]).

Look at modern culture and babies out of wedlock for all the evidence you could possibly want.

I have no clue how babies would tempt me.
You realize that sinners have sex outside of marriage and they have since the time of Cain. Are you surprised that Godless rebels are sexually active? I am grateful if they at least don't abort their babies.

My point in this dialogue is to agree that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. And also, reprimand you for blaming women for your own problem. Own your problem.

 

[Bible Thumpin n Gun Totin]

Bible text please.
Here, I suggest you are adding your cultural moré to the Bible and thus force your legalism upon others in judgment.

Sure, that's easy:
"And, behold, there met him a woman with the attire of an harlot, and subtil of heart." - Prov 7:10

If you want a text on going to a woman's house alone read about Potiphar's wife.

A legalist is someone who follows the Bible more strictly than you do. To the Amish I am a Liberal and to you I am an evil legalist haha.

Perhaps the most honest thing you have said so far. I am keenly aware of the fight against sin. But, I don't blame women for my wretchedness.

Good thing I don't either. Golly that would be heretical.

Do you think you cannot be a harlot and those verses are meant for you?!

Correct, I am a "he" not a "she".
Proverbs 7:10 Hebrew Text Analysis

Do you think you are the judge, jury, and executor of what modesty is? You seem to live in "Brigadoon" world and thus expect everyone to join you.

No, God's crystal clear word is. I expect everyone proclaiming to be a Christian to listen to His Word.

I won't argue with God. I will argue witj you and your legalism.

"Legalism", are you aware you are a legalist compared to a Pagan?

Well, you don't know me, so telling me I am drawn to "loose" women is purely your own temptation being projected upon me.
We are both, correctly, perverted by the fall.

I don't need to know you. God knows you and God knows men and God tells men to not be drawn by harlots. Thus men are drawn by harlots or loose women. Again, argue with God in Proverbs all you want.

Yes, the perversion is in all humanity, male and female. Not all women "show off to men" as not all women are attracted to men. (Just as not all men are attracted to women [see Paul in 1 Corinthians]).

And clearly that .1% of the population, which is an exception and is acting in outright rebellion to God's design, means that the point doesn't stand anymore. The sky isn't blue either because in the winter there can be grey clouds!

That is my final word on this subject in regards you and I's discussion. I will, however, happily answer any other queries from others if asked.

 

[Salty]

Most women don't put themselves in that position, especially in the church. Moreso, how would they actually know when some perverted man is going to lust after them? Rev, us men have to stop shirking our responsibilities with our temptations. Women are not responsible for men being perverts and they cannot be expected to prophetically know what does and doesn't make a man aroused.
Men are responsible. Pluck out your eyes if you must, but don't blame women for your problem.ss)
Sadly, blaming women is a significant problem in fundamentalist churches in America, while men just keep being perverts in the church.

I attended a very fundamental SBC church in Germany - except for one thing.
Many of the ladies in the choir (early-mid 70') wore very short skirts - and as my wife would say - "You could take their picture" I mentioned this to the pastor - but he did nothing about it.

and I suspect this was true in many churches.
(PS - didnt have to worry about long hair - this was a "military church")
Sure we can blame the women - but two things - 1) we can point the finger at them - but in doing so we have 3 fingers point back at us. So I was always careful at looking at the choir 2) Their husbands should have said something. My wife went shopping for a dress - she found one she liked- I mentioned that it was a bit too low in the front - so she did not buy it.

Thats right both men and women can get caught with immodest dresses

 

[just-want-peace]

Personal point of experience; daughter came home one day with a new pair of jeans - tight jeans! She asked me about how she looked, & I told her exactly what I thought.
Very unhappily she replied, “Oh daddy, you are so old fashioned”!!!
She was in Jr Hi at the time, & her younger brother was 2 years behind her, so she asked him his thoughts.
All I ever heard of that conversation was that he told her “what a boy thinks when he sees a girl dressed like that”.
Apparently she trusted him more than me (surprise, surprise) ‘cause next day she returned the jeans & she never considered such attire again. I can only assume he was far more blunt with her than I was or she did not, at her age, fully understand modesty & lust.
She is mid 50s now and a very modest lady, happily married with 2 adult children.

 

[AustinC]

Personal point of experience; daughter came home one day with a new pair of jeans - tight jeans! She asked me about how she looked, & I told her exactly what I thought.
Very unhappily she replied, “Oh daddy, you are so old fashioned”!!!
She was in Jr Hi at the time, & her younger brother was 2 years behind her, so she asked him his thoughts.
All I ever heard of that conversation was that he told her “what a boy thinks when he sees a girl dressed like that”.
Apparently she trusted him more than me (surprise, surprise) ‘cause next day she returned the jeans & she never considered such attire again. I can only assume he was far more blunt with her than I was or she did not, at her age, fully understand modesty & lust.
She is mid 50s now and a very modest lady, happily married with 2 adult children.

...only 2...?

 

[xlsdraw]

I've tried really hard - I really have - to stay off of this thread. But if you've known me long enough....well.

Yes, I know that women on beaches wear improper clothing. Yes, I know that there are dozens of TV shows and movies where the producers purposefully put women in very improper clothing. Yes, I know that some men struggle with weaknesses. Yes, I know that godly women should understand that and dress appropriately.

But here is my issue.

Take me for example. Last Sunday, I wore pants to church. I don't boast in that even though I have the liberty to choose my own appropriate clothes. They were fairly loose black dress pants. I wore a gray velveteen top with long sleeves and a turtleneck as it was really cold last Sunday morning.

This summer, I'll probably wear one of my pairs of white dress pants maybe with one of my several tops with short sleeves.

Women who choose to dress inappropriately have NOTHING TO DO WITH ME and my appropriate choices in my clothes. I don't need a lecture, sermon, or command on what I should wear. I KNOW what to wear and what NOT to wear.

If you are going to dictate that your daughter, wife, mother, sister, or females in your church are to wear a flowing "dress" that comes up to the collarbone and down to the ankles just because some women out there do not dress appropriately, then you have a problem.

I've seen plenty of women in those types of flowing dresses. Have you seen what happens when the wind blows? I have.

That type of dress clings, and I mean CLINGS to the side of the body where the wind is blowing - front, back, or side.

You see, extremely loose garments aren't always the best. Moderately loose is better.

Here's what I am trying to say. Yes, there are women who dress in an ungodly manner. The godly women in this world should not bear the punishment of being told to cover their bodies like their bodies are "wicked things" and look like they are wearing burkas. My own father never told me what to wear. I always knew what godliness was and did not want to disrespect my father. And yes, I wore pants, skirts, dresses, one-piece bathing suits with shorts, and whatever I wanted to wear that fit inside the realm of decent clothing.

I did not need a pastor, father, or husband dictating my clothing choices. The Bible says to let the older women teach the younger women.

I tell ladies when I speak to them the "test" in appropriateness. Stand in front of your full-length mirror. Raise your arms as high and you can. squat, bend over, and pull a chair up and sit in the chair in front of the mirror. If the clothing moves to the point of being indecent, either change clothes or alter the clothing somehow.

I've said this a million times. Women are not stupid. Those women and male movie/tv show producers know exactly what they are doing.

And we godly women know EXACTLY what we are doing. Don't dictate what we should wear.

I realize that I am the only female currently on the BB. We used to have many here who loved discussing the word and other things of God.

Can you guess why they are all gone?

JonC?

 

[Alcott]

This is one of the 'old' issues here that doesn't get discussed as often as it used to. Most of the pro-dress/pro-suit faction seems to have conceded that the conflict is hardly there any more. I think all scripture says about it is a passage already referred to which tells women not to be known for expensive clothes and jewelry and hair style, and in James about not showing favoritism to a well-dressed man. The tradition of "Sunday clothes" is likely related to having Sunday off for farm folks or others who got dirty in their work. If you don't do your regular work, then wear your "good" clothes that day, maybe all day.

Yet it's hard to deny that clothes do have a relation to the importance placed on the event or proceeding. Members of a wedding party still generally dress up; many exuberantly. Does scripture say anything about this? Yes-- the ending of the parable of the marriage feast, in Matthew 22:11-14. But we can get into many weird theologies if we take the parables for more than their simple message. But what, then, are the wedding clothes the guest wasn't wearing? and why did this deserve outer darkness and weeping and gnashing of teeth?... Clothes? I don't think so. I think it's accepting the invitation to the Kingdom, then not showing the world that he cares about the Kingdom and the Lamb's Wedding Feast. He "accepted" in vain.

 

[Scarlett O.]

This is one of the 'old' issues here that doesn't get discussed as often as it used to. Most of the pro-dress/pro-suit faction seems to have conceded that the conflict is hardly there any more. I think all scripture says about it is a passage already referred to which tells women not to be known for expensive clothes and jewelry and hair style, and in James about not showing favoritism to a well-dressed man. The tradition of "Sunday clothes" is likely related to having Sunday off for farm folks or others who got dirty in their work. If you don't do your regular work, then wear your "good" clothes that day, maybe all day.

Yet it's hard to deny that clothes do have a relation to the importance placed on the event or proceeding. Members of a wedding party still generally dress up; many exuberantly. Does scripture say anything about this? Yes-- the ending of the parable of the marriage feast, in Matthew 22:11-14. But we can get into many weird theologies if we take the parables for more than their simple message. But what, then, are the wedding clothes the guest wasn't wearing? and why did this deserve outer darkness and weeping and gnashing of teeth?... Clothes? I don't think so. I think it's accepting the invitation to the Kingdom, then not showing the world that he cares about the Kingdom and the Lamb's Wedding Feast. He "accepted" in vain.

Refreshing. Thank you.

 

[Dr. Bob]

My take on the issue focuses on the reason no-pants is still an "issue" in some churches. Some churches demand obedience to xyz man-made rules to demonstrate so-called "spirituality". We could list many rules or covenants that churches demand as outward indications of inward godliness.
(church attendance, visitation, bus calling, clothing standards, music, movies, card-playing, alcohol, hair length, make-up, tobacco, ad nauseum).

Point is ANY group may have a list of conduct/clothing for members. That is not "sinful". It is the right of that organization and its members. Challenge is for a church that they are not just a private group or social club like the Kiwanis or the military or school. The church IS that group but at the same time is NOT that type of group - its outward testimony and its desire to bring IN the public means it must be careful in what it demands of a MEMBER beyond basic modesty.

I pastored in Amish country seven years. 3 of the 4 private schools in the county were Amish. When I visited their schools, I dressed conservatively (but not Amish) in deference to their practice. I KNOW what a list of man-made rules looks like. I have no respect, but only pity for such blind adherents feeling they are "spiritual" by what is on the outside. Think Jesus talked about that with all the outward appearance and action of the pharisees of His day.

 

[Bible Thumpin n Gun Totin]

I pastored in Amish country seven years. 3 of the 4 private schools in the county were Amish. When I visited their schools, I dressed conservatively (but not Amish) in deference to their practice. I KNOW what a list of man-made rules looks like. I have no respect, but only pity for such blind adherents feeling they are "spiritual" by what is on the outside. Think Jesus talked about that with all the outward appearance and action of the pharisees of His day.

I can't speak to that particular Amish community as I've never personally interacted with any Amish. I have interacted with Mennonites. My community has approximately 20 to 25 houses in a high-elevation valley here. Those neighbors are split 70/30 Baptist (Independent, Southern, and Missionary)/Mennonite respectively.

My initial impression of my Mennonite Brothers was as you mentioned in bold here. After years of discussion with them I've realized that it's not feeling "spiritual" by outside dress. Rather they view it as an act of submission in letting God's word determine their dress rather than letting themselves choose it. They view it as one fruit of Salvation.

I don't think Christ has an issue with outward appearance at all. Christ has issues when the outward appearance does not match the inward with the Pharisees, I.E whitewashed tombs. So if people wear Conservative dress to look spiritual, but are not born again, then Christ's comment would apply.

However, in the case of my Mennonite neighbors it's a case of the outward being affected by the inward renewal, they're not whitewashed tombs. Just like how good works are produced outwardly from the inward renewal. I think their modest clothing style is itself a good work. In a way it's a reminder to them that they are bought by Christ and their modest clothing publicly identifies them with Christ, and thus keeps them accountable in public as others will be watching.

 

[Dr. Bob]

With the Old Order Mennonite (Amish) there were so many who believed that NOT to wear xyz or to act xyz in accord to the man-made rules/traditions IS sin (rebellion against God and His Church).

Agree with you about the more modern Mennonite thinking. For 25 years my wife was alternative-health practitioner and many in the Mennonite community (southeastern Wyoming has hundreds) consider HER their doctor. We had great fellowship and even meals, with some of these dear saints.

 

[robycop3]

Now, what would be a garment that's exclusively male? In our culture, a jockstrap. Exclusively female? In our culture, a bra. Different cultures have their own gender-specific garmants or bling. I believe God had perverted crossdressing in mind when He gave Israel the command against it.

 

[AustinC]

This is one of the 'old' issues here that doesn't get discussed as often as it used to. Most of the pro-dress/pro-suit faction seems to have conceded that the conflict is hardly there any more. I think all scripture says about it is a passage already referred to which tells women not to be known for expensive clothes and jewelry and hair style, and in James about not showing favoritism to a well-dressed man. The tradition of "Sunday clothes" is likely related to having Sunday off for farm folks or others who got dirty in their work. If you don't do your regular work, then wear your "good" clothes that day, maybe all day.

Yet it's hard to deny that clothes do have a relation to the importance placed on the event or proceeding. Members of a wedding party still generally dress up; many exuberantly. Does scripture say anything about this? Yes-- the ending of the parable of the marriage feast, in Matthew 22:11-14. But we can get into many weird theologies if we take the parables for more than their simple message. But what, then, are the wedding clothes the guest wasn't wearing? and why did this deserve outer darkness and weeping and gnashing of teeth?... Clothes? I don't think so. I think it's accepting the invitation to the Kingdom, then not showing the world that he cares about the Kingdom and the Lamb's Wedding Feast. He "accepted" in vain.

This parable is interesting because the garments were to be provided by the King to guests. The man who is cast out does not wear the mark of the King. It is similar in nature to the sheep and the goats. To the persons there, the difference may not be noticeable, but to the Sovereign one, it is the mark of the redeemed vs the damned. We see this similar theme in Revelation where the believers are marked by God before his destroyers go out to bring judgment upon the beast and those he has marked in a cheap imitation of our King.

 

[calledbyHisgrace]

@Scarlett O. I'm actually female as well

For context: I married an IFB man, and willingly gave up my pants for him. I've become increasingly conflicted about it though. Last summer, at the beach, I saw a Muslim woman wearing a swim tunic and leggings, complete with head covering. It struck me that a lot of the people on the beach were watching her. My own understanding of biblical modesty is to not draw attention to yourself. It struck me, that this fully covered woman was drawing more attention to herself than the one-piece clad women around me. I became conscientious then of my own knee length swim skirt. I stuck out on the beach only slightly less than the Muslim woman did. Admittedly, wearing pants to my church would draw lots of attention, and would therefore be immodest even by my own standards. But there are some settings where I feel immodest in my "modest" clothes. My struggle now, is meeting my husband's preferences while not sticking out in a crowd. I've been excited to see some possible movement amongst the IFBs towards women wearing pants now, and wondered if it was a growing thing?

 

[robycop3]

@Scarlett O. I'm actually female as well

For context: I married an IFB man, and willingly gave up my pants for him. I've become increasingly conflicted about it though. Last summer, at the beach, I saw a Muslim woman wearing a swim tunic and leggings, complete with head covering. It struck me that a lot of the people on the beach were watching her. My own understanding of biblical modesty is to not draw attention to yourself. It struck me, that this fully covered woman was drawing more attention to herself than the one-piece clad women around me. I became conscientious then of my own knee length swim skirt. I stuck out on the beach only slightly less than the Muslim woman did. Admittedly, wearing pants to my church would draw lots of attention, and would therefore be immodest even by my own standards. But there are some settings where I feel immodest in my "modest" clothes. My struggle now, is meeting my husband's preferences while not sticking out in a crowd. I've been excited to see some possible movement amongst the IFBs towards women wearing pants now, and wondered if it was a growing thing?

Why not? Womens' pants are not male attire.

 

[Salty]

Why not? Womens' pants are not male attire.

I suppose for some folks - that is a matter of opinion