Why? Can you show me the scripture that says in order to be reverent, I need to wear a long skirt?
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Should women wear pants?
- Thread starter Jordan Kurecki
- Start date
- Status
Why? Can you show me the scripture that says in order to be reverent, I need to wear a long skirt?
Even if it could be shown, that would just create a new debate "...Is it sinful for a woman to gird up her loins?"
Since I have been saved I have taken a pretty simple approach: God does not judge the outer man/woman, and going to worship services is not a fashion show.
I grew up dressing very casual, and it may just be stubborn pride, but I still do. I am sure there are people who frown on the fact that I wear Jeans to services, but, that is simply the manner of dress I have always been accustomed to. Sometimes, when I visit another fellowship, I go unshaven, and a little scruffy looking. I am quite sure many may think "Oh that poor woman, it is clear she is dragging her unsaved husband to Church," lol (my wife always dresses nice for services). In the fellowship I attend right now, I know I could probably become a deacon fairly quickly simply by donning a suit (and perhaps growing a goatee, lol), but...
...I feel like a clown in a suit. Wore one when I got married, and perhaps may wear one when I am buried, but, apart from those two experiences, I always feel like I'm trying to be someone I am not when I don one. It's just not me. It has nothing to do with my reverence for God, it's just my views on how we dress differ from others.
God bless.
Modesty is primarily an issue that is internal, and the level of modesty we have impacts those we are around. We cannot excuse immodesty when it causes our brother or sister to stumble. The fault lies on us, and we are the ones guilty. That does not excuse the sin that arises, because we all have a responsibility not to sin, but, we cannot ignore the level of maturity in believers either. The weak brother or sister new to the faith is not going to be held as accountable as the more mature believer (though we seem to create a paradox, lol). The Writer of Hebrews does not excuse his Hebrew brethren in Hebrews 5:10-6:6, but instead makes the point "For the time you have been exposed to God's Word you should be teaching others," rather than his charge of being infantile in understanding which prevents them from teaching, instead being in need that one teach them...again.
Of course we could impose a generational element into this which complicates it even greater. For example, mature Christian Parents deal with culture influence outside of their control at times. Children will be exposed to cultural influence through those they associate with that the Parents are not aware of.
And the woman is held guiltless in this case, which is the point. But wait, before I go any further...is the burlap ankle length?
Agreed. that is the point of the OP, in my view. For him, wearing pants is appealing, or, can impact his thoughts. I think we have all seen women in pants which are designed for that very purpose. While generalizing it into "All pants should be viewed as alluring," or, "Women wearing pants is a sign of rebellion against God's Word and an attempt to be masculine" takes it outside of the realities of the issue.
Agreed.
Agreed.
As you say, lust has to be taken back to the individual, rather than simply laying fault on others without good reason. However, we do not excuse those who dress alluring, because this is, no matter how you slice it, in opposition to what Scripture teaches.
I would agree, but not for the same reason. I can fully sympathize with Jordan on this issue. While I view it as something that is unique to him (not that other men do not find pants on a woman alluring or object to it, I think we could probably find those who do), and that he generalizes the issue overmuch, I can still see the validity of this issue as it impacts him as a brother in Christ.
The bottom line is that for many men, myself included, when a woman overtly presents her femininity in public...its hard not to notice. It's difficult not to be tempted when that situation occurs.
And if there is one place where it should not happen, it is in a Worship Service. I think it is the responsibility of the leadership of the fellowship, when it is occurring, to speak to the individuals about it. But Church discipline is not as it may have been in the past. That is a reflection of our culture, and its infiltration of the Assembly of the brethren.
God bless.
Even if it could be shown, that would just create a new debate "...Is it sinful for a woman to gird up her loins?"
Since I have been saved I have taken a pretty simple approach: God does not judge the outer man/woman, and going to worship services is not a fashion show.
I grew up dressing very casual, and it may just be stubborn pride, but I still do. I am sure there are people who frown on the fact that I wear Jeans to services, but, that is simply the manner of dress I have always been accustomed to. Sometimes, when I visit another fellowship, I go unshaven, and a little scruffy looking. I am quite sure many may think "Oh that poor woman, it is clear she is dragging her unsaved husband to Church," lol (my wife always dresses nice for services). In the fellowship I attend right now, I know I could probably become a deacon fairly quickly simply by donning a suit (and perhaps growing a goatee, lol), but...
...I feel like a clown in a suit. Wore one when I got married, and perhaps may wear one when I am buried, but, apart from those two experiences, I always feel like I'm trying to be someone I am not when I don one. It's just not me. It has nothing to do with my reverence for God, it's just my views on how we dress differ from others.
God bless.
You'd fit right into our fellowship!!
We are also casual because of our location and community. Our deacon who prayed last week came up to the front in shorts and dock shoes with a button down shirt. He looked neat and summery. Hubby preaches in khakis and a polo shirt. He can't wear a suit for long because of his severe eczema and it's better for him if he can wear just cotton and not something that will make him sweat. It takes weeks to recover from wearing a suit so those are held for weddings and funerals.
Good point....yes, the burlap is ankle lengthBut wait, before I go any further...is the burlap ankle length?
.My point (which looking back I failed to make) is that the instruction of not being the cause of a "brother to stumble" was never given to us in the context of ridding another of temptation. The circumstance was Paul's willingness not to eat meat if eating meat sacrificed to idols would damage the conscience of those of "weaker faith". The context was setting aside our Christian liberty for the benefit of the weaker brother.
Christian liberty is something you set aside for another person. It is not something that you defend. It also is not something that you dictate to another (either in holding or setting aside). And "not causing another to stumble" does not truly apply to the attire that we wear. What applies is modesty, holiness, and conducting ourselves in such a manner as to reflect Christ rather than illuminate ourselves.
This is not the context of the OP. The OP is legalistically declaring that women should not wear pants because the author erroneously reads into Scripture the development of contemporary US culture, the feminist movement, and perhaps even the movement away from a general Christian ethic. The video is simply legalistic and wrong. It is severe misunderstanding and misapplication of God's Word.
Great statement.
I agree with you in your statement, and would just suggest that a proper course in this discussion would be to discuss the issue with Jordan and point out that which you disagree with, yet maintain an understanding that underlying is a very real issue that cannot be dismissed. I agree it is wrong to justify a legalistic position with a summary of culture that does not reflect the many various cultures where we would see the justification dismissed, such as in the case of men, many of whom are the picture of what masculinity is, wearing "skirts," lol.
I mean, come on, guys that get together once a year to prove who is the toughest...nothing feminine about that, lol.
Celtic (not cultic, Squire, lol) festivals are a good place to start in order to find out if men wearing skirts could be interpreted as in violation of principles set forth in Scripture. We might find some other issues to discuss in them, lol. Last time I was at one I had meself an Irish Coffee, minus the element that makes it...Irish.
God bless.
That's what overcoats are for. In particular, a WW1, heavy wool, just below the knee, double breasted, winter overcoat.
Absolutely. I don’t mean to be overly critical of Jordan (I did not realize he was the gentleman in the video until he told me). What I disagree with regarding Jordan’s statements in the video is that he has superimposed issues onto Scripture and has taken passages that mean one thing out of context in order to address a sin by shifting responsibility to the object of one’s lusts rather than to the root of the problem (our own sinfulness).
Think, for example, of the damage that the internet has done to the family structure. Some are drawn to the internet to indulge their lusts. Others perhaps for gossip. Some simply become poor stewards of their time. This does not mean that no one should use the internet. But perhaps some should look at themselves and restrict their own use as an act of self-discipline and holiness.
I think that Jordan is taking liberties with Scripture to address what is a legitimate problem in our churches. The problem is not women wearing pants. The problem is people living undisciplined lives (either by the way they dress or by the way their eyes wander).
I offer as support the fact that long before our culture accepted women wearing pants this sin issue existed. Becoming legalistic only masks the problem, and until we come to grips that sin must be addressed in our own lives we will never make strides towards holiness (we need to recognize our own sin and get rid of it...on a daily basis).
Some churchladies are still holding the line:
Mrs. Albert Mohler in seminary newsletter The Tie:
"a well-intentioned move to counter ostentatious attire has resulted in opening the floodgates such that anything goes. It is very difficult for us to recover and to take steps to go back toward traditional Sunday dress. The fourth commandment is still there. “Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy.” Many have forgotten that Sunday is set apart, and that it is not like every other day."
"her Sunday clothes are going to be different from her other clothes? Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. Unlike the discount store whose tags say, “there are no rules,” her father and I believe there are rules. There are absolutes. There is a line that you just don’t cross. I hasten to add that it wouldn’t matter if her father was a seminary president or a ditch digger, the rules would be the same."
Mrs. Albert Mohler in seminary newsletter The Tie:
"a well-intentioned move to counter ostentatious attire has resulted in opening the floodgates such that anything goes. It is very difficult for us to recover and to take steps to go back toward traditional Sunday dress. The fourth commandment is still there. “Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy.” Many have forgotten that Sunday is set apart, and that it is not like every other day."
"her Sunday clothes are going to be different from her other clothes? Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. Unlike the discount store whose tags say, “there are no rules,” her father and I believe there are rules. There are absolutes. There is a line that you just don’t cross. I hasten to add that it wouldn’t matter if her father was a seminary president or a ditch digger, the rules would be the same."
annsni said:
Not that to be reverent a woman needs to wear a long skirt, but out of reverence, a woman would prefer a long skirt in church. Long skirts represent modest tradition. Pants represent the unisex feminist movement.
[Edited to correct attribution.]
Last edited by a moderator:
Somebody needs to teach Mrs. Mohler some bible. The sabbath is on Saturday, not Sunday. Sunday is NOT the "Christian Sabbath." It is the Lord's Day.
If we are going to follow Sabbath law on Sunday we would not be able to go to church if the church was more than 3/5 of a mile from our home!
Please, Jerome, don't post such legalistic nonsense!
I didn't say that. Annsni did. I am not sure how you went about attributing that quote to me.
Do you have anyone in your church over 50? People tend to retain the views of their youth.
It's actually worse now. We're living in a society now that is making it illegal for business owners and schools to control who uses their bathrooms. This is to blur the lines of sexes, to promote cross-dressing. The only reason you say "50 years ago" is because we've moved so far beyond 50 years ago that the feminist corruption of 50 years ago seems like nothing compared to what's going on today.
A reverent woman would prefer a long skirt to pants in church, and a politically aware woman would also might prefer long skirts to pants to make a political statement about the distinction between the sexes. Silly Bruce Jenner, dresses are for real women.
But, we live in a post-Christian society where many Christians have become casual in their faith and they show that casualness in their dress.
So she is not the Holy Spirit and gets to write inspired scripture? Why didn't somebody tell me?!
I can't watch the video in the OP, because youtube says the video is private. But, the issue of women wearing pants has nothing to do with men lusting. Nothing. It's about dressing according to one's sex.
Internet Theologian
Well-Known Member
video is now private, have to be invited to watch. Probably means those invited already believe in the false doctrines and prescribed precepts of men, i.e. Colossians 2:8ff
Internet Theologian
Well-Known Member
Hey brother jordan, if women wear pants and then cut them off right below the knee and rename them culottes, is it then OK?
The video in the OP is now private. So, there is now no opportunity for BB members to view it and come to their own conclusions. On that basis, this thread is closed.
- Status