Women, pants, KJVO and conservatism

My grandmother told me that she was very glad when they allowed women to wear pants because they had a dairy farm. In fact she told me that women could only wear a certain kind of shoe as well. She died in 2004 at the age of 97. I can remember when I was a little kid wondering why she wore a dress on the farm. So I asked her about that one day.

Until 1940 in one of the towns I lived in it was illegal for a black person to reside there.

For those who want to go back in time why don't they also advocate those kind of laws and dress codes. Why don't they also buy a gasoline powered Maytag washer or better yet a hand operated ringer. Maybe those ladies should also trap their own food and carry a gun to hunt with.

 

If you woukld like to read a great book about the number one bicycle racer in the U.S. from Indiana in the early 1900s then read Major Taylor. It shows how far we have come as a nation against racism. It is amazing to see how nations treated him by rolling out the red carpet but other nations sought to beat him up.

 

They forgot to walk to church as they did in the Bible. They drive their heated and air conditioned cars instead of a hitching their horse up and watching it poop in the street.

The fact is they are afraid and fearful of change. Every generation has those people. The jet engine came along without them. Fuel efficient cars came along without them. Cars that will last at least five times longer came along without them. Better farming methods came along without them.

 

Do you have any bible verses to suggest that we should do these things?

 

I am a 30something-year-old member of the Nintendo generation. Fear of change has little to do with the reasons that I desire to adhere to the literal, fundamental interpretation of scripture. I have already tried the new way. I was born into it. It doesn't work. Families are being ripped apart, lives destroyed, children lost.

Jeremiah 6:16
16 Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk therein.

Thats what I want. I want rest for my soul. Whether that be in this life or in the next, God says the way to find it is to walk in the old paths. Some changes are good. Some are not. Many times changes that appear good have hidden drawbacks that we don't discover until much later. The law of the harvest applies, and we reap what we sow. Sometimes we reap what our parents have sown. I don't want to reap any more sorrow than I have to, and I don't want my children to have to on my account.

 

This is your opinion, gb, not fact. It might indeed be factual in some cases, but you cannot just declare it to be so for all and thus dismiss them out of hand.

Simply because someone has what you call old standards does not mean they are afraid of change. There's nothing wrong with keeping to the "old paths", especially as James_Newman quoted, we are TOLD to keep to the old paths.

OTOH, I believe it is always a good thing to be reminded of our reasons for sticking to the old paths. Staying on the old path just because it's how it has always been is an attitude we need to get away from.....however, we don't do that by abandoning the Old Path. We do it by reminding ourselves why we are there......and if it isn't in the Bible (or cannot be supported through Biblical principle) THEN and only then do we abandon that particular Old Path.

Personally I believe that long flowing garments on women is a Biblically supportable standard.......so it's an Old Path I hold to. I also personally would prefer the horse and carriage days again.....but that's just because I prefer horses to cars , not because I claim it's Bible. That's why I drive a car (preference vs standard).

and Yes, I use electricity, too, and I have an indoor bathroom and running water and everything!

 

What an interesting thread we have going here. I have only read the last few but what a mish mash of thoughts. A lot of judgmental comments thats for sure. Now for the original topic, Deuteronomy 22:5 in the NLT says, "A woman must not wear men's clothing, and a man must not wear women's clothing. The Lord your God detests people who do this." I hope that this helps some of you to understand where people who believe a woman should not wear pants get their support. I am sure this isnt all of the support but it is some.
Now, you don't believe in the canopy theory? You believe that it rained on earth before "the Genesis flood"? hmmm interesting. But you are allowed to think what you want.
But the big one to me. Where in the world do you get calling other believers "legalists", that is a bad misuse of the word "legalism". When Paul used it, he was talking about people that added circumcision to believing to equate salvation. Now they may be pharisee's, and have pride in their pantless women. But I sure hope that they wouldnt say a woman that wears pants isnt saved because of her pants. Jesus saves and Jesus alone! Just like men didnt wear blue jeans in Jesus day. Should a man wear a robe or tunic today in order to be saved or spiritual? I think not!
Now, the Bible is clear on no women pastors! A pastor has got to be a man. "the husband of one wife..." "ruling his own house well..." you cannot lose your salvation "sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise" "until th eday of redemption..."
Have some fun debating those things, but be careful of the name calling. It sure isnt Christian. Have a great New Year!
:jesus:

 

Isaiah 55: 8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. 9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts. 10 For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater: 11 So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.

Sure, God might use almost anyone's preaching, but he also might not. Isaiah 55 is not just a blanket declarartion that any preaching of God's truth is bound to be used by him. If it didn't go forth out of God's mouth, and he did not send it, he might not use it, even if it is true. It has to be sent by God, and go forth out of his mouth, for the promise that it will not "return void" to be true.

Acts 16:16 And it came to pass, as we went to prayer, a certain damsel possessed with a spirit of divination met us, which brought her masters much gain by soothsaying: 17 The same followed Paul and us, and cried, saying, These men are the servants of the most high God, which shew unto us the way of salvation.
18 And this did she many days. But Paul, being grieved, turned and said to the spirit, I command thee in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her. And he came out the same hour.

This devil-possessed damsel was speaking truth; yet evidently God was not sending her to preach his word. If I saw a woman in a bikini preaching the gospel, I would assume she is devil possessed as well. I would pray that the Lord would remove the spirit of immodesty and nakedness from her, and that as a result the spirit would depart and she would be found "clothed and in her right mind."

Luke 8:27 And when he went forth to land, there met him out of the city a certain man, which had devils long time, and ware no clothes, neither abode in any house, but in the tombs...35 Then they went out to see what was done; and came to Jesus, and found the man, out of whom the devils were departed, sitting at the feet of Jesus, clothed, and in his right mind: and they were afraid.

 

Not a bad arguement, Mike, but you still have to explain the verses from Phillipians.

If Paul can rejoice that Christ was being preached even though those doing the preaching were only trying to cause trouble, than who are we to fuss and complain about someone we don't especially approve of, BECAUSE OF THEIR DRESS, who is doing the same thing? A woman preaching Christ in a bikini might simply be a new Christian who hasn't the maturity to know better. Or she may be someone from a place where that bikini is more clothes than she has ever worn before in her life! You can't take a person's manner of dress out of the context of their circumstances.

Some worry way to much about what other people think about our dress, about our manner of speaking, about whether someone is Calvinist or Arminian(sp? I always get it wrong), about whether we use the NIV or the KJV and about a host of other issues that matter not in the end. In the end only what we have done for Christ will stand.

So, if Bapmom chooses to wear dresses only because she believes she can best serve Christ that way, so be it! And if I choose to dress in pants and use the venacular of my daughter's friends in order to bring them to an understanding of that same Christ, so be it! Neither of us should be condemning the other because our methods of serving Christ are different. God's word will not come back void. Bapmom is not serving in the same environment that I am. I'm not serving in the same circumstance that she is. And you know what: she and I don't have an arguement with each other.

But there are some, who condemn her as being unreasonably legalistic (or a Pharisee as some prefer) and me as being immodest! All of these, no matter which side of the fence they land on are adding something to the scriptures which govern our lives. Some forget that we are to each "work out our salvation with fear and trembling". And I think that brings us back to the point of the OP that we need to have a deeper understanding of WHY we believe how we believe instead of simply doing things because that is the way they have always been done.

Old paths? Should I follow the path Cain followed? Or what about the path everyone but Noah followed? What about the path Ninevah was on? These were all "old paths". They were also the wrong path. We should follow the tried and true path but if some decide to skirt a boulder on the left and others on the right are either wrong for not climbing over it?

 

:applause: :applause:

 

Great post, James Bell! :thumbs:

I'm a Grandmother, Conservative, KJV preferred, and I wear pants (sometimes even jeans to church). Gasp!

 

A careful reading of 1 Timothy will show that indeed a women preaching Christ in a bikini IS a problem, the verses in Phillipians notwithstanding.

I Timothy 2:1 I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; 2 For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. 3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;
4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; 6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.
7 Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity. 8 I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting.
9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.

Women are to adorn themselves in modest apparel, "in like manner" which ties the verse back to verse 8 and Paul's instructions to the men. In verse 8, Paul says "I will therefore..." The "therefore" ties both verse 8 and 9 back to the idea that God "will have all men to be saved." God desires all men to be saved, and therefore men and women are to follow the instructions given by the Apostle. Paul would not rejoice in the fact that a woman was preaching Christ in a bikini anymore than he would rejoice in the devil possessed woman that followed him around, even if she was speaking the truth. It's not merely the correctness of the words that are spoken; the manner of our dress and living also has bearing on the preaching of the gospel, according to these verses in Timothy.

In regards to the importance of various doctrinal beliefs, it is true that whether one is a Calvinist or a Arminian does not matter much, because they are merely two sides of the same coin of false doctrine. The Calvinist ultimately has to look to his own works to prove to himself that he has been chosen by God to be saved before the creation, whereas the Arminian has to look to his own works to make sure he is not losing his salvation. Both systems have a Christian looking to his own works to determine his eternal salvation. An individual Calvinist or Arminian may not have enough discernment to see this, but the implications of a doctrine are not dependent on the understanding of the adherent. And the implications of these doctrines will have evil effects on some.

It is true that no one should be "condemening" another because their methods of serving Christ are merely "different". The real question is, are the methods biblical? If preaching Chirst in a bikini is immodest (and thus wrong), it should be called out as such. Likewise with any immodesty.

And sure, no one should blindly follow an old path. But we are commanded to seek the old paths. So if there is an old path in regards to dress, it would be wise to be very sure from the scriptures that the manner of dress is no longer required or was a mistake to begin with, before we abandon it to try to keep up with the fashion of this present evil world.

To sum this matter up: Doctrinal differences that might seem trivial to some are oftentimes much more important that is commonly realized. And modesty, like other standards presented in the bible, DOES have some absolute boundaries that can be substantiated .

 

Have you read the scripture you are quoting? Verse 8 talks about how the men are to behave. Evidently Paul was also speaking of how they dressed (meaning how the men were dressed) cause then he goes on to say the women should act in the same manner, but he goes further and tells the women to dress modestly. Then Paul goes even further and describes what he means by modest. Does he say cover up from head to toe? Nope!

He says specifically for women to not have lavish hairstyles (wonder what he would have thought about the beehive hair of the 60's :laugh: ), not wearing gold or pearls (my understanding is that such finery could be woven into the hair, made into jewelry or sewn onto the clothing) or costly array (this means expensive clothing!). What he does not say is how long a person's skirt should be, what the design of the clothes should be (only that it not cost an extravagent amount) or how much skin could show without being considered immodest: not even one word. The result he is looking for is an humble Christian. Ever see an humble rich person, especially if they happen to be a woman?

It is adding to scripture to say that a woman in a bikini in darkest South American Amazon rainforest is immodest when most of them don't even wear tops! Even in America, what we consider to be modest or immodest is a matter of culture not scripture.

This I fully agree with, but I will warn you the Calvinists on this board won't let you get by with saying you are somewhere in between. They think if you aren't Calvinist then you are Arminian by default. Watch out for 'em! (btw, the Arminians won't like you either. ) Just a little warning cause you ain't been here long.

 

I was not trying to prove that a bikini was not modest simply based on I Timothy. That can be shown from other scriptures. I (wrongly) assumed that a bikini would be obviosuly recognized by the readers as immodest. I was showing the importance of modest dress to the preaching of the gospel. The inner humility or modesty is shown forth by one's actions, including one's choice of clothing. This choice of modesty or immodesty has an impact on one's service to the Lord.

I suppose it would not be immodest to be in a bikini in the rain forest, if it was such a dark forest that only your husband could see you. But if others could see you, it would not be modest clothing, regardless of how far the culture has sunk and for how long the culture in question has been living in spiritual darkness. Should we follow a multitude to do evil? Do you really believe that God has not defined modesty (meaning amount of skin showing for purposes of this discussion) in the scriptures and that modesty is defined relative to the culture? Especially when relativity is defined in such a way that a bikini can be considered modest attire? Having no attire at all is not immodest clothing. It is no clothing at all. Therefore the next step up from having no clothes, (i.e. a bikini) must be immodest in any culture. Or else you are in a situation where some cultures do not have such a thing as immodest clothing (in regards to displaying the flesh). Is that not ridiculous?

Thanks for the warning, but I am not between a Calvinist and an Arminian, so there won't be any question about that. I believe any middle position between the two is just as wrong as the two extremes.

 

Yes, I believe modesty is defined relative to culture. If I believed otherwise, I'd be hunting for the pattern God used to make Adam and Eve's clothing. Amount of skin showing is a bit different. Even is savage societies the private parts of both male and female are covered. When Christ comes into the society then more skin is covered, usually this being the breasts of a woman and the property in between. This is why I say a woman in a bikini in South America may be the most modest one around. Our culture traces it concept of modesty back to the days when we all wore robes. Has our concept changed? Well, are you wearing a robe? How about a a skirt and hose like the guys in these pics? :




Clothing syles change and with it changes the concept of modesty. What do you suppose made these guys think that it was okay for them to show the shape of their legs but the women in the pic obviously couldn't? We're having this same arguement up in the "gospel liberty" thread.

Obviously, Adam and Eve thought that no clothing at all was indeed immodest or they wouldn't have gotten together those fig leaves. You still haven't shown how or better yet why "the next step up from no clothes must also be immodest in any culture". Are we sure we are not just imposing our cultures concept of modesty onto another?

I think each culture defines immodest clothing differently, just as it defines modest clothing.