Women Wearing Pants

[John of Japan]

Fundamentalism...it imagines the strangest dogmas attached to scripture by limited reasoning of an isolated mind.

That silliness about the "isolated mind." There are over 13,000 ind. Baptist churches in the US, with almost 2.5 million members. There are also 1000s of IFB churches in other countries.

From 1990 to 2008 there were 2,744 IFB churches started. IFB mission boards have almost 5,000 missionaries overseas, at 1 missionary for every 2.8 churches, whereas the SBC has only 1 missionary per 11.4 churches, and have just decided to let 500 missionaries go. (American stats are from Church Still Works, by Paul Chappell and Clayton Reed, who commissioned an independent survey.)

Your problem is that you are so prejudiced you lump us all together in the paradigm you have produced from your own experience (or whatever). Then you excoriate us all.

 

[John of Japan]

Yes.

No goin' to movies, no card playin', no 'public bathin', no 'bobbed women's haircut', no pants on women, no drinkin' from a dark brown bottle even if it is a rootbeer, no wire framed glasses (60's), no Satanic bible versions. Neo pharisees. "...human precepts and teachings" Colossians 2:12

"Neo-Pharisees"? Really? There are no parallels whatsoever in the two groups: salvation (works vs. faith), opposition to Christ (nope), prayer as a spectator sport (nope), Jews (Christians), following the Torah but mostly Jewish customs (following the whole Bible), etc., etc.

It's easy for you to lump us all together (FBF, SBF, GARBC, BBFI, WBF), but certainly poor scholarship. "Internet Theologian" suggests a certain amount of scholarship. I suggest if you truly want that handle, read one of the major histories of the fundamentalist movement, then come back and discuss it like a scholar should: Ernest Sandeen, David Beale, George Dollar, George Marsden.

 

[Internet Theologian]

The fundamentalism that has propagated this legalism into the lives of those Christ set free has caused much damage to the church and has caused much ridicule from the world, and not for 'righteousness' sake.

 

[John of Japan]

The fundamentalism that has propagated this legalism into the lives of those Christ set free has caused much damage to the church and has caused much ridicule from the world, and not for 'righteousness' sake.

What is your definition of "legalism"? I gave you one by the leading SBC systematic theologian, Mr. Theologian. Do you agree with it, or disagree? If you agree, please give me evidence that a certain group of fundamentalists are legalists by that definition. If you disagree, please give me evidence that a certain group of fundamentalists are legalists by your definition. Giving quotes from fundamentalist authors is the standard way for a scholar to do this. (Giving anecdotes is not scholarly.)

If you cannot do this, perhaps you should change your screen name. True theologians (I've known a few) are able to get down to the particulars of a movement and their theology.

 

[wpe3bql]

I remember [a long time ago] asking a person in somewhat of an "authority position" (IMHO, name, location, "authority position," etc., isn't really pertinent to the discussion) about this issue.

My point was, and still is, that it seemed(-s) strange that of all of the 25 verses in Deuteronomy 22, only verse 5 was selected as one to be enforced with vigor and enthusiasm.

If one is on the topic of a person's clothing, why weren't, e.g., verses 11-12 of that very same chapter enforced?

And we wouldn't even want to touch verses 13-30, now would we?

Needless to say, that person never did give me a very logical answer.

This is why I contend that a person/church, etc., needs to be very careful about picking out a verse or two from the OT Mosaic Law and strenuously enforcing said verse(s) as applicable today.

IMHO, if a husband and wife want to apply Deuteronomy 23:5 in their home/family, then that's fine with me. But, OTOH, to demand that each and every family also abide by that "standard"---not to mention an entire church---is, to me anyway, a bit over the top.

This same church was located near a military installation, and a couple of its members were women who were in military duties whose job function(s) necessitated them to wear "pants." Some of these women did not have the time to change into clothing "More Biblical" before attending mid-week services; thus, they were in direct violation of what some members considered to be an "unquestioned standard."

What were these women to do: Not attend the mid-week service at all--thus directly violating what we read in Hebrews 10:23-26?

That's the quandary that we can sometimes make if we (or a church) begin to pick-and-choose certain OT Mosaic Law standards and/or practices and go about rigidly applying and/or enforcing them in these days.

Selah.

 

[Internet Theologian]

I remember [a long time ago] asking a person in somewhat of an "authority position" (IMHO, name, location, "authority position," etc., isn't really pertinent to the discussion) about this issue.

My point was, and still is, that it seemed(-s) strange that of all of the 25 verses in Deuteronomy 22, only verse 5 was selected as one to be enforced with vigor and enthusiasm.

If one is on the topic of a person's clothing, why weren't, e.g., verses 11-12 of that very same chapter enforced?

This is what happens when a person comes up with an idea then looks for A verse to prove it. Proof-texting 101!

 

[Revmitchell]

What Does it Mean to be a “Legalistic” Christian?
By Dr. Erwin W. Lutzer |

“Legalism” is the wrong use of laws or rules. For example there is a form of legalism that uses rules or commandments as a way of salvation. Such laws in and of themselves might be good and proper, but they cannot save a soul. Thus, Paul warns against the view that salvation can come about by keeping the law, as the Judaizers erroneously taught.

Among Christians there is also a kind of legalism that teaches that, although we are saved through faith in Christ, sanctification is a matter of submitting to certain rules or standards. Thus, one’s Christian progress is judged by whether or not one keeps the prescribed rules: such as no movies, no dancing, no gambling, etc. Make no mistake, these rules might have value to keep Christians from certain select sins, but they are not a substitute for the fruit of the Spirit. Thus, once again rules are misused.

Another form of legalism elevates mere human preferences to the level of biblical absolutes. For example, there are churches that teach that no Christian man should have a beard or that no woman should wear lipstick, etc., and these cultural differences are held with the same convictions as important doctrines.

When various man-made standards are elevated to be an essential doctrine of Christ, or held as a pivotal element of salvation, even what is believed with good motives ends up being serious false teaching about holiness and the doctrine of the Gospel. Many of the New Testament epistles (especially the book of Galatians) contain sections intended to correct legalism, which was warping the pure teaching of the Gospel. We encourage believers to study the Scriptures and discern whether or not their personal standards and communal teachings align with the spirit and content of the Word of God (Acts 17:11).

http://www.moodymedia.org/articles/what-does-it-mean-be-legalistic-christian/

 

[John of Japan]

I remember [a long time ago] asking a person in somewhat of an "authority position" (IMHO, name, location, "authority position," etc., isn't really pertinent to the discussion) about this issue.

My point was, and still is, that it seemed(-s) strange that of all of the 25 verses in Deuteronomy 22, only verse 5 was selected as one to be enforced with vigor and enthusiasm.

If one is on the topic of a person's clothing, why weren't, e.g., verses 11-12 of that very same chapter enforced?

And we wouldn't even want to touch verses 13-30, now would we?

It's actually very simple. V. 6 is the only prohibition in the chapter where the word "abomination" is used. When this word is used in the OT law it points to a moral issue. The only moral issue in the chapter is cross-dressing, which to God is an abomination. Now, if it was an abomination in OT days, and God does not change, then it is still an abomination.

Note that the Hebrew for "abomination" here is towebah ( תוֹעֲבַ֛ת ), a moral abomination, not pigguwl ( פִּגּ֣וּל ), the word used in dietary restrictions, which merely means repugnant.

 

[Revmitchell]

We attended an IFB church in the 70's when I was a teen down in Naples Fla. My parents decided to find a place of service in the church. My mom volunteered to teach SS and my dad volunteered to drive the bus. They had to go through an application process which included a visit from the deacons at our home. They brought with them a statement they were asked to sign in order to serve in these or any areas of the church. Among the rules in this agreement was that my mother would promise not to wear pants. On this issue my father objected and refused for them to sign anything. His thought to them was "My wife has 5 pants suits and I would not wear any of them."

The very definition of legalism

 

[Salty]

My niece just lost a job opportunity because they required her to wear a uniform. Because she would have to wear pants she turned it down.. .....

So did your niece find a job?
Did she relent and go against her beleifs

Would appreciate an update


This thread has been very interesting - many have been trying to prove that the Bible teachers that is acceptable for a woman to wear pants.

However, this is not the subject in this thread. It is about a young lady who has set a moral standard for herself. Personally, I applaud her for that.

 

[wpe3bql]

It's actually very simple. V. 6 is the only prohibition in the chapter where the word "abomination" is used. When this word is used in the OT law it points to a moral issue. The only moral issue in the chapter is cross-dressing, which to God is an abomination. Now, if it was an abomination in OT days, and God does not change, then it is still an abomination.

Note that the Hebrew for "abomination" here is towebah ( תוֹעֲבַ֛ת ), a moral abomination, not pigguwl ( פִּגּ֣וּל ), the word used in dietary restrictions, which merely means repugnant.

 

[wpe3bql]

Not being a Hebrew scholar, I appreciate your clarifying for me why in some quarters this verse is emphasized the way that it appears to me.

Just curious, but how is Deuteronomy 22:5 applied and/or understood in both "traditional" and "contemporary" Japanese culture? IOW, is it as much an issue as it seems to be in certain circles here in the "good, old U. S. of A."?

BTW, here in mid-TN, the over night forecasted Saturday and Sunday temperatures will probably come close to 27 or 27 degrees on the F scale, and probably somewhat colder in the more elevated Cumberland Plateau area. I am not positive if the wind-chill factor is taken into consideration on these forecasted temperatures.

Just being curious but, under such weather conditions, would it ever be permissible for those of the female gender to wear pants as long as said pants are 110+% concealed underneath their thick, black maxi-skirts, especially when she is waiting for the school bus on Monday morning to take either her own daughter(s) to school or just doing "the motherly thing" and waiting with her precious daughter(s) given the proclivity of some perverted males these days?

No, I am not desiring to "take up a fight" on this "test of fellowship" that some individuals and/or churches consider this "pants" issue to be. You can read my above post (#25 I believe) for my own personal views on this obvious controversy.

God bless y'all!

 

[John of Japan]

Not being a Hebrew scholar, I appreciate your clarifying for me why in some quarters this verse is emphasized the way that it appears to me.

You're welcome.

Just curious, but how is Deuteronomy 22:5 applied and/or understood in both "traditional" and "contemporary" Japanese culture? IOW, is it as much an issue as it seems to be in certain circles here in the "good, old U. S. of A."?

Since Japan is only 1% Christian, it seldom comes up. As a pastor there I had too much else to counter (drunkenness, immorality, idolatry, etc.) to worry about pants on women.

BTW, here in mid-TN, the over night forecasted Saturday and Sunday temperatures will probably come close to 27 or 27 degrees on the F scale, and probably somewhat colder in the more elevated Cumberland Plateau area. I am not positive if the wind-chill factor is taken into consideration on these forecasted temperatures.

We were in Hokkaido, Japan, in a city which had 15-20 feet of snow per winter. Barefoot

Just being curious but, under such weather conditions, would it ever be permissible for those of the female gender to wear pants as long as said pants are 110+% concealed underneath their thick, black maxi-skirts, especially when she is waiting for the school bus on Monday morning to take either her own daughter(s) to school or just doing "the motherly thing" and waiting with her precious daughter(s) given the proclivity of some perverted males these days?

No, I am not desiring to "take up a fight" on this "test of fellowship" that some individuals and/or churches consider this "pants" issue to be. You can read my above post (#25 I believe) for my own personal views on this obvious controversy.

God bless y'all!

Your scenario works fine for me. I think health considerations are very important in such hostile environments.

 

[OldRegular]

This book was edited in 1962 by Granddad's executive secretary, Viola Walden, from his correspondence of decades. He would answer and correspond with anyone except those he thought were "nuts." Biggrin The letters go back decades, so this particular item could be from as early as 1940 or so.

This correspondence is now part of the "John R. Rice Papers," which were collated by Nathan Finn of Southeastern BTS and will be (if not already) kept at Southwestern BTS. The files are now being used by church historians such as Keith Bates in his dissertation on John R. Rice. Finn also used them in his 2007 dissertation.

So, did he change his view? At the least he moderated it as he did other views. (In his earlier years he vehemently opposed eating in a restaurant that sold liquor, but did so quite often in the 1970's.) I don't know of this view on pants on women being taught in later years either in person or his books. For Men and Women (1979) has nothing on it. His 1971 book, God in Your Family, opposes miniskirts, stretch pants and the like (p. 106), but not pants in general on women. The 1973 followup book to the one in the OP, Dr. Rice, Here are More Questions, does not mention pants on women in the section, "How Should a Christian Dress?" (pp. 94-96).

Interestingly enough, his six daughters all honored him while he was alive by their skirts and long hair, but after he died several of them cut their hair and started wearing pants. (I don't criticize them for this.) My mother did not, but wore skirts and had beautiful long hair until she went to Heaven.

John,

My Dad did not like to see women in pants. First family picnic I thought I had convinced my future wife to wear shorts. Showed up in a dress!! She never wore pants in front of Dad. Strangely enough, as far as I knew, no one had ever told her what my Dad thought about women and pants. As long as my Dad lived my wife never wore pants, or shorts or short skirts, in his presence. The other five {5} daughters-in-law had no problem with pants. I know that my Dad appreciated my wife's respect for his religious views. When Dad died my wife grieved as much as I did!

 

[John of Japan]

John,

My Dad did not like to see women in pants. First family picnic I thought I had convinced my future wife to wear shorts. Showed up in a dress!! She never wore pants in front of Dad. Strangely enough, as far as I knew, no one had ever told her what my Dad thought about women and pants. As long as my Dad lived my wife never wore pants, or shorts or short skirts, in his presence. The other five {5} daughters-in-law had no problem with pants. I know that my Dad appreciated my wife's respect for his religious views. When Dad died my wife grieved as much as I did!

Thanks for sharing that. What a blessing!

 

[wpe3bql]

You're welcome.


Since Japan is only 1% Christian, it seldom comes up. As a pastor there I had too much else to counter (drunkenness, immorality, idolatry, etc.) to worry about pants on women.

 

[wpe3bql]

Sounds as if Japan is pretty much like it is here, even in Evangelical Christian circles.

I'm not a pastor, but I can sense that challenges such as you mention are pretty much world-wide---even within the ranks of those who profess to be saved people (Hebrews 11 comes to mind.).

 

[John of Japan]

Sounds as if Japan is pretty much like it is here, even in Evangelical Christian circles.

I'm not a pastor, but I can sense that challenges such as you mention are pretty much world-wide---even within the ranks of those who profess to be saved people (Hebrews 11 comes to mind.).

While there are similarities, there are major differences. Japan has: Buddhist temples in every neighborhood, Shinto shrines all over, twice the abortion per capita with no opposition, pornography in every convenience store and bookstore, only one church per 32,000 people, etc.

But yes, believers in both countries face similar challenges.

 

[HankD]

Having been a former Catholic some of the rules of what I called "Protestantism" (at the time) were just as "bad" as the Catholic restrictions. I was literally shocked (yes shocked) by the claim that wine was evil, tobacco, dancing, card playing, movie going, on and on, etc...

However I had chosen strict fundamentalism to associate with and simply came to the conclusion that it was what is called (rightly or wrongly) "legalism".

Legalism to me meant going back to an observance of "Torah" as a system of pleasing God. I knew it was wrong because they/we picked and chose of the 613 legal requirements of the Law to keep but simply ignored other "abominations" such as dietary restrictions, mixed fabric wearing, mikvahs for women, etc... Our first church did not even approve of Christmas celebration and if you owned a TV you were suspect. My present day beard would have disqualified me for membership. This one really surprised me as Jesus, Paul, etc are always considered bearded.

But my wife and I "bit the bullet" because of the love of the brethren. We were loud and aggressive fundamentalists of the caliber of JoJ's Grandad, Perry Rockwood, Rolland Starr and many others. I preached in the Boston Common and went door to door in the Boston neighborhoods. Above all we loved the Conventions where one could have one's hearing damaged by the preaching!

We remained that way until long after my graduation from Bible School (which required me to sign a very strict covenant with them).

I know this will displease some but (to shorten a long story) my gravitating away (some would call it an apostasy) from this caliber of "fundamentalism" occurred after an emotional experience in which 1 Corinthians 13 played a large roll in my life and especially

1 Corinthians 13:2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.

1 Corinthians 13:11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

In terms of doctrine, I am no less a fundamentalist as when I was at our first church (well actually our second) and I still dearly love these brethren. Whenever we visit these brethren we make sure not to offend (suit, shirt, tie for me, dress for my wife) except for my beard - one lady of long acquaintance will not even look at me.

HankD

 

[JonC]

Where I'm from you get arrested if you go about in public not wearing any pants.

I've seen women wear pants, and wear pants in church, and I wondered why they bothered wearing anything at all. We live in an obscene society. That said, I also think the "women don't wear pants" is legalistic. It is exactly like the Pharisees making up laws to keep from breaking the Law. If we truly lived lives of discipleship then our holiness would show. Not like the "Bad Idea T-shirt" ad that is on the right of my screen as I type. Eek