pants

I think we need to maintain a distinction in our minds between "modesty" and "lust." Although these topics associate with one another, they are distinct issues.

If a seventy-six year old woman with a severe weight problem were to develop a mental incapacity and wander out of the care home with no clothes on, she would be dressed immodestly, even though she would probably arouse lust in no one at all.

When arguing for pants on women, the fact that many men never ever cast a glance at a woman's lower parts is totally irrelevant. In principle, the garment could still be immodest.

 

Very well could be Pipedude;
But just the opposite is true also, if a woman has on a pair of jeans so tight they leave very little for the imagination it could be said that is immodest unless she was as you said seventy-six years old then it would be vulgar but also immodest.

 

Really, this is related to another thread discussing "dress codes", or at least the discussion drifted to dress codes.

A poster commented that dress codes were not in the Bible so why enforce dress codes on anyone, and to me he sounded like the world saying, "to each his own thing. this feels good to me, who are you to tell me this ain't good for me".

I think the issue, as you all have pointed out, is modesty. And may I add, appropriateness. Dress codes are for what is appropriate for believers who profess Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.

Personally, and as one who have pastored churches, I don't really care if women wear pants. Tight, loose, baggy, figure hugging, whatever. I do care if they wear their pants with the knees cut, or the thighs with holes in them, or the seat with a hole, and their belly buttons jingling in their tummy's folded fat.:BangHead:

If they profess Christ then they ought to have the Holy Spirit in them telling them what to wear and what not to wear. I am not the Holy Spirit.

If they don't feel any "conviction", despite the teachings they hear from the pulpit about modesty, then ........I'll leave that hanging.

 

If you don't care if they so tight they reveal all then why pick on a little hole in them?

 

I've gotten a few chuckles from this thread. And I sure am glad this is only about what a female should wear, not a man. 'Cause I assure you, even though "Mr. Television" 'Uncle Miltie'("I know a good joke when I steal one!") ('Milton girl') Berle, 'Flip' (Geraldine) Wilson, Larry (LJ, 'GrandmaMA') Johnson or Jamie (Cpl. Klinger) Farr could get away with it, I know that I would look pretty stupid in a dress. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Ed

 

So, since the issue is cultural, and in my cultural heritage the men wore skirts, does that mean that I'm sinning by wearing pants? For that matter, my ancestors always went into battle stark naked. (They never lost until they got dressed for battle; must have been disconcerting to the enemy, eh?)

There's a family in our church in which all the women wear jeans under their dresses. They feel the need to wear dresses because of the "women aren't to wear men's clothing thing", but they put jeans on underneath so they can be modest when they play football, etc.

 

Feel free HoG; Ride with the wind ! Who is that naked man??

 

Paidagogos,

The basic issue is a matter of personal conviction. People who believe that women ought not wear pants have a right to teach and practice their conviction.

And what about people who think that those of African ancestry should serve those of lighter skin color (using Ham as justification)?

It is your argument that is flawed!

If a believer has convictions that she should not wear pants then that is fine.

If someone believes that it is sin for any woman to wear any pants then he/she is wrong and in need of reproof - simple as that. Most slacks worn by women today are very "womanly" (I sure would not wear them) and often more modest than many skirts.

The issue is dressing appropriately for worship of God. Women (and men) should dress modestly and appropriately. That is the scriptural mandate. A nice pants suit from Macy's in the wintertime is just as feminine as a long skirt - this is in no wise an example of a woman dressing like a man. One is entitled to his/her own preferences. But the key here is "own preferences". Those who think that "pants on women" is a significant issue are wrongly dividing the word and are espousing Pharisaism.

 

Amen Brother Charles!

 

Why did you say "wintertime", does the weather determine whether it is ok to wear pants or not for a woman? I think, even in those who find no fault with women wearing pants that there is some hidden sense about it that they attempt to hide. We were all taught it by the past and it dwells in us.

 

Because those who wear these in church are those who have either deadened themselves to the proddings of the Spirit, or don't have the Holy Spirit in them at all to prod them. If they do, they won't wear those things in church, and it's not up to me to walk up to them and tell them to dress up or else......

Now, when they start showing off skin as well as figure, that is something else.

When I was a new convert we had this visiting preacher from somewhere in Maine, or was it Vermont, who stayed in the preacher's room until his introduction, and then walked up to the pulpit and said, "I will not begin preaching until all you women wearing your miniskirts find something to cover your knees and thighs with", and then walked out again back to the preacher's room.

That sent those without hankies or coats to cover their skin with home.

Good riddance, and I didn't care if they were members.

Of course, that put the pastor of that church on the spot as well.

 

Bob,

This boils down to a "cultural thing". Many Christians, particularly IFBs, have held that women should not wear pants. The fact that they are accustomed to this in no wise validates it. The Bible says women should dress modestly and should not dress like men. It nowhere mentions "pants" or "skirts".

The reason that this is not simply a matter of preference is that one side (anti-pants) is attempting to enforce its nonbiblical, presupposition-driven agenda on others - and using the Bible to justify it.

1. To assert that pants on women is wrong - and that those who wear pants are not right spiritually is legalism.

2. To assert that the Bible says something when it does not is interpreting scripture dishonestly.

Both are unacceptable.

 

What an arrogant, self-righteous preacher! What if he sent home someone who needed to hear a message from God's word?

 

This immodesty raised by Bro PB bothers me. It shows a lack of training at home.

Hallelujah for modest dressers!

 

Good question, precious few Scripture has been addressed concerning this “problem”.

The root of the matter:

Deuteronomy 22:5 The 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.

Given in a culture when both men and women wore what could be called “skirts” as the Bedouin practice to this very day.

Given to a people “under the law”, probably as a commandment against the eroticism of “cross-dressing”.

Even under the Law, this is how I personally would interpret this commandment (a negative mitzvah), as a prohibition against eroticized transvestitism.

A few verses latter:

Deuteronomy 22:11 Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, as of woollen and linen together.

Deuteronomy 22:12 Thou shalt make thee fringes upon the four quarters of thy vesture, wherewith thou coverest thyself.

Do we keep these?

Some have said, “well the commandment against cross-dressing says that those who do so are an abomination”, which IMO, begs the questions about the other mitzvoth.

So it’s OK to keep the “big” commandments but not the “little” ones?

James 2:10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.

In reality, we are not under the law but led of the Spirit. Do whatever and go wherever He leads is my advice FWIW.

There are indeed Scriptural principles for the protection of the tender consciences of the babes in Christ and for the “carnal”.

In short, wherever we go we ought not (if at all possible) to offend.

1 Corinthians 10:32 Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God:

2 Corinthians 6:3 Giving no offence in any thing, that the ministry be not blamed:

Romans 14:20 For meat destroy not the work of God. All things indeed are pure; but it is evil for that man who eateth with offence.

Obviously, these principles do not mean that we shouldn't preach/teach the whole counsel of God, but that we should rightly divide the Word of Truth and minister it at the appropriate time.

John 16

12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.​

13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth:



HankD

 

I don't think so.

First, if there were somebody there whom God had a message for, that pastor had no power to override God's intent for that person.

Second, and also surprisingly, those who were not members of the church, and just guests, were dressed up more modestly. It just goes to show that the world expects us to practice what we preach.

Most of those who went home were members of the church.
Mostly young people who thought of themselves as Christians but "modern", if you know what I mean.

The forerunners of the type of today's Christians whose philosophy is that God "looks at the heart, not the dress", and so would come and "worship" the Creator of the Universe and One they called their "Lord" and "Savior" wearing anything from tight fitting, figure hugging dresses and pants to sandals and shorts and tops, and scoff and sneer at Christians of any age who still think that there ought to be an unwritten dress code at least, while at the same time accusing these of being legalistic or overbearing.

Third, these attitudes, especially among our young people, have gotten stronger through time precisely because preachers were afraid to speak out in the past. Many in that congregation appreciated the strictness of that preacher.

We don't find too many of him around anymore.

 

Boy---alot has been added since I last checked the board. It seems that rather than typing forever in responses I will just say this again. If it is a persons conviction not to wear pants, then fine. The Scripture mandates modesty, not style. I will stick with that. To require others to adhere to more than the Scripture in order to prove spirituality is legalism. If there is a group of believers who chose not to wear pants, but only skirts or dresses that is fine, but if they start teaching that those wearing pants are wrong or looking down their noses at them, then we again have legalism. No where in any of my responses have I encouraged immodest dress, or having no standards, I just would prefer the standards be biblical and not man-made.

Blessings to all,
Bro Tony

 

First, if there were somebody there whom God had a message for, that pastor had no power to override God's intent for that person.


I know nothing of this particular pastor - but if he spent lots of time inveighing against pants on women then I doubt he listened much to God at all in terms of what to preach.

The entire issue and the only issue is modesty. If a woman is dressed in provocative fashion then she should be admonished - in private by another woman and in a loving corrective way. Pants are a non issue completely.

We cannot condone heresies such as a non-divine Christ, universal salvation, or grace by rituals such as in the RCC. But we must not have the same response to small nonbiblical issues such as pants, Bible versions, etc. That is legalism. It is our nature to want to persecute those who are different than we are. To do so and claim that we are doing so with Jesus's approval is blasphemous.