Split... "Womanhood" - Pants

[Guest Butero]

You are going to have every good Scotsman outraged. I would have no problem with a Scotsman in a kilt teaching my kids in Sunday School.

When did harem pants first come into being? Perhaps that is when women first started wearing pants.

Men also wore togas and shorter skirts in the Romans day, as I recall.

Weren't the first clothes fig leaves, and then made from animal skins?

Modesty should be the first concern of a Christian. I don't think speedos, most bikinnis, skinny jeans, hot pants, or pants worn low so as to show off ones underware or lack thereof, or dresses worn while gardening or getting on the floor to teach pre school kids can be considered modest unless they are floor length. Then they are very inconvenient.

I see nothing wrong with men and women wearing knee length shorts in church or any other clothing that is modest at any time. Some parts of our country have differing customs. We in more rural parts of the west are very informal. Women are discouraged from wearing dressy dresses and 4" heals to our church, strong purfumes, and other things which might attract attention to themselves and detract our attention from God . But nothing is said to them. They are loved and accepted in hopes that they will be eventually see where we want our focus to lie. On God.

I won't have the Scottsman outraged at all. I specifically mentioned a man in a dress, not a man in a kilt. You would have the Scottsman outraged if you accused him of wearing a skirt, as most would say the kilt is not a skirt. It is like the coulots women wear. You could argue they are a type of pants, but they are also differen't and distinct. If you look carefully at my question, I asked about a man wearing a dress to church, and teaching Sunday School. I could also expand that to a pretty flowery skirt, but I never mentioned a kilt.

[Guest Butero]

There are countries / cultures where traditional men's clothing might be robe/dress-like garments.. or skirt-like garments etc. for men.... As long as the clothes are modest and do not have any non-Christian religious connotations etc - is it wrong for Christians in those cultures / countries to wear those traditional men's garments to church? Or even to teach Sunday School? And if so why?

A robe is not a dress. If you go to any Department store and ask for the robes, they won't mistake that for the dress department.

[Guest Butero]

I prefer my pants etc now I think men would look funny in my pants since theyre made for women lol now in old days didnt all folks wear robes etc to begin with? I mean men could of been stuck wearing dresses ya know if society would of decided it I dont think God cares about clothes considering He made adam and eve naked to begin with yet things has changed since then I dont think its wrong for women to wear pants etc i think its fine and dandy just saying

Where I am coming from is if we are really going to go down the road of saying that God doesn't care how we dress, that means in all instance, not just women in pants. It would also mean that if a man wanted to wear a prom dress rather than a tuxedo to the prom, he could. It would mean that if a guy wanted to walk on the beach in a sun dress, he could, but we know that would not be accepted, and he would be looked at as effeminate. Why is it differen't for women in pants? Even if you don't agree, why is it so far fetched to question it, when everyone would look down on a man in a dress? How many women would want to go out on the town, arm in arm, with a guy wearing a flowery skirt, or a little black dress? At the same time, nobody is to question women in jeans or a pant suit?

Even here at WB, there are disagreements over what is ok? One person said women in trousers is wrong, but it is ok for them to wear slacks and jeans. Another said women in a suit is wrong, but jeans are ok. One woman came against skirts with slits. We all have a differen't idea of what is right and what is wrong for individuals to wear, yet it is only when someone comes against women in pants that you hear the attacks they are "clothes line."

[Steve_S]

I prefer my pants etc now I think men would look funny in my pants since theyre made for women lol now in old days didnt all folks wear robes etc to begin with? I mean men could of been stuck wearing dresses ya know if society would of decided it I dont think God cares about clothes considering He made adam and eve naked to begin with yet things has changed since then I dont think its wrong for women to wear pants etc i think its fine and dandy just saying

Where I am coming from is if we are really going to go down the road of saying that God doesn't care how we dress, that means in all instance, not just women in pants. It would also mean that if a man wanted to wear a prom dress rather than a tuxedo to the prom, he could. It would mean that if a guy wanted to walk on the beach in a sun dress, he could, but we know that would not be accepted, and he would be looked at as effeminate. Why is it differen't for women in pants? Even if you don't agree, why is it so far fetched to question it, when everyone would look down on a man in a dress? How many women would want to go out on the town, arm in arm, with a guy wearing a flowery skirt, or a little black dress? At the same time, nobody is to question women in jeans or a pant suit?

Even here at WB, there are disagreements over what is ok? One person said women in trousers is wrong, but it is ok for them to wear slacks and jeans. Another said women in a suit is wrong, but jeans are ok. One woman came against skirts with slits. We all have a differen't idea of what is right and what is wrong for individuals to wear, yet it is only when someone comes against women in pants that you hear the attacks they are "clothes line."

You're argument is moot because pants are simply no longer men's only, if they ever were. All that matters at this point is that it is culturally accepted for a woman to wear pants. It's clear from the scripture that the intent is for a woman to maintain her femininity and a man to maintain his and clothing choices can speak to that, however, in our society, currently, a woman wearing pants doesn't suggest an attempt at masculinity by any stretch of the imagination, it's simply a clothing choice that's societally accepted as one that can convey femininity. Are there manners in which a woman can wear pants that can be considered masculine? Absolutely. But there are also manners in which men can wear pants that convey femininity. This is a question of social acceptability and it seems that the intent is to prevent members of the church from going out into society exuding traits that are typically associated with the opposite sex. Since wearing pants is, generally, in our society not associated with any particular sex, then there is no danger of that, unless particular types are worn in particular ways.

[just_abc]

A robe is not a dress.

A robe is basically like a wrap dress? But that aside.. there are other types of non-bifurcated traditional men's clothing which are not robes [or coulots] . If the clothes were modest and did not have any non-Christian religious connotations.. would it be wrong for Christians from those cultures / countries to wear such clothing to church? And if so - why?

Thanks.

Edited May 14, 2013 by just_abc

[NGKnightfell]

It seems to me that the issue of wearing pants as the symbol of masculinity, and dresses as the symbol of femininity, is a matter of personal principle. In all honesty, when I read that verse in Deuteronomy concerning the abomination of a man wearing a woman's garment, I had gotten the impression God was speaking about a man dressing like a woman as if he thought of himself as a woman, the way that trans-sexuals often dress up in women's clothing in modern times. Such an attitude is the forerunner of homosexuality, and I believe God is simply trying to nip things in the bud with that particular commandment.

Apparently it was just as bad for a woman to go around dressing up in men's garments, and again, I always took it as God telling us it was an abomination to appear to be something that we had not been born to be. It is clear to me from my own perusal of Scripture that men and women have some very specific roles to play, and that it is only when we are standing up to our own duties as men and women that we will attain harmony in the kingdom of God. Anything that will help us keep our roles straight is a good thing! 8-)

It has already been established in this thread that culture plays a large part in what our society deems to be both feminine and masculine in regards to our clothing, and I know of many women who prefer men's clothing (jeans, shirts, jackets, etc.) simply because the garments intended for men are more durable, more roomy and tend to cost lest than comparable items manufactured for a woman's taste. Trousers are often a great deal more comfortable than dresses are, and are more suitable for environments which expose us to the elements, and there are many cultures who see nothing wrong with both genders being comfortable in this manner.

In all things, God is most concerned with where our hearts are when we develop the principles by which to live by. If, in our own hearts, we believe that women should never wear anything but dresses, then it would be a sin for that woman to wear anything but dresses. As concerns a man and his home, it is between the husband and his wife to determine the rules of their home, and dress according to their own convictions.

I have found that the following verses from Romans 14 (NASB) to be particularly helpful whenever I encounter disagreements concerning matters of principle:

1Now accept the one who is weak in faith, [but] not for [the purpose of] passing judgment on his opinions. 2One person has faith that he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats vegetables [only]. 3The one who eats is not to regard with contempt the one who does not eat, and the one who does not eat is not to judge the one who eats, for God has accepted him. 4Who are you to judge the servant of another? To his own master he stands or falls; and he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

5One person regards one day above another, another regards every day [alike]. Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind. (emphasis mine) 6He who observes the day, observes it for the Lord, and he who eats, does so for the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who eats not, for the Lord he does not eat, and gives thanks to God. 7For not one of us lives for himself, and not one dies for himself; 8for if we live, we live for the Lord, or if we die, we die for the Lord; therefore whether we live or die, we are the Lord's. 9For to this end Christ died and lived again, that He might be Lord both of the dead and of the living.

10But you, why do you judge your brother? Or you again, why do you regard your brother with contempt? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God.

My apologies to everyone if this had already been covered in later posts. I confess that I did not read all of the replies in this thread when I added my thoughts on this subject. I have been in churches where women were treated like pariah if they did not have at least one nice dress to wear to services each Sunday, and their budgets simply did not stretch far enough to have two warddrobes, and it was very disheartening to witness.

God bless ...

Edited May 14, 2013 by NGKnightfell

[Guest Butero]

I prefer my pants etc now I think men would look funny in my pants since theyre made for women lol now in old days didnt all folks wear robes etc to begin with? I mean men could of been stuck wearing dresses ya know if society would of decided it I dont think God cares about clothes considering He made adam and eve naked to begin with yet things has changed since then I dont think its wrong for women to wear pants etc i think its fine and dandy just saying

Where I am coming from is if we are really going to go down the road of saying that God doesn't care how we dress, that means in all instance, not just women in pants. It would also mean that if a man wanted to wear a prom dress rather than a tuxedo to the prom, he could. It would mean that if a guy wanted to walk on the beach in a sun dress, he could, but we know that would not be accepted, and he would be looked at as effeminate. Why is it differen't for women in pants? Even if you don't agree, why is it so far fetched to question it, when everyone would look down on a man in a dress? How many women would want to go out on the town, arm in arm, with a guy wearing a flowery skirt, or a little black dress? At the same time, nobody is to question women in jeans or a pant suit?

Even here at WB, there are disagreements over what is ok? One person said women in trousers is wrong, but it is ok for them to wear slacks and jeans. Another said women in a suit is wrong, but jeans are ok. One woman came against skirts with slits. We all have a differen't idea of what is right and what is wrong for individuals to wear, yet it is only when someone comes against women in pants that you hear the attacks they are "clothes line."

You're argument is moot because pants are simply no longer men's only, if they ever were. All that matters at this point is that it is culturally accepted for a woman to wear pants. It's clear from the scripture that the intent is for a woman to maintain her femininity and a man to maintain his and clothing choices can speak to that, however, in our society, currently, a woman wearing pants doesn't suggest an attempt at masculinity by any stretch of the imagination, it's simply a clothing choice that's societally accepted as one that can convey femininity. Are there manners in which a woman can wear pants that can be considered masculine? Absolutely. But there are also manners in which men can wear pants that convey femininity. This is a question of social acceptability and it seems that the intent is to prevent members of the church from going out into society exuding traits that are typically associated with the opposite sex. Since wearing pants is, generally, in our society not associated with any particular sex, then there is no danger of that, unless particular types are worn in particular ways.

Just because the majority start accepting women wearing men's clothes doesn't make it ok. At what instance did it go from being wrong to being ok? How many women had to sin before what pertained to men suddenly included women? The majority are often wrong, and many things we consider wrong today will be likely accepted by the majority down the road? Look at what is happening with homosexual marriage. I wouldn't be surprised if the day comes where the majority will accept it as normal, and even the church world as a whole will be much more accepting of it. You can't go by what is socially acceptable, at least I don't go by that.

[Guest Butero]

It seems to me that the issue of wearing pants as the symbol of masculinity, and dresses as the symbol of femininity, is a matter of personal principle. In all honesty, when I read that verse in Deuteronomy concerning the abomination of a man wearing a woman's garment, I had gotten the impression God was speaking about a man dressing like a woman as if he thought of himself as a woman, the way that trans-sexuals often dress up in women's clothing in modern times. Such an attitude is the forerunner of homosexuality, and I believe God is simply trying to nip things in the bud with that particular commandment.

Apparently it was just as bad for a woman to go around dressing up in men's garments, and again, I always took it as God telling us it was an abomination to appear to be something that we had not been born to be. It is clear to me from my own perusal of Scripture that men and women have some very specific roles to play, and that it is only when we are standing up to our own duties as men and women that we will attain harmony in the kingdom of God. Anything that will help us keep our roles straight is a good thing! 8-)

It has already been established in this thread that culture plays a large part in what our society deems to be both feminine and masculine in regards to our clothing, and I know of many women who prefer men's clothing (jeans, shirts, jackets, etc.) simply because the garments intended for men are more durable, more roomy and tend to cost lest than comparable items manufactured for a woman's taste. Trousers are often a great deal more comfortable than dresses are, and are more suitable for environments which expose us to the elements, and there are many cultures who see nothing wrong with both genders being comfortable in this manner.

In all things, God is most concerned with where our hearts are when we develop the principles by which to live by. If, in our own hearts, we believe that women should never wear anything but dresses, then it would be a sin for that woman to wear anything but dresses. As concerns a man and his home, it is between the husband and his wife to determine the rules of their home, and dress according to their own convictions.

I have found that the following verses from Romans 14 (NASB) to be particularly helpful whenever I encounter disagreements concerning matters of principle:

1Now accept the one who is weak in faith, [but] not for [the purpose of] passing judgment on his opinions. 2One person has faith that he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats vegetables [only]. 3The one who eats is not to regard with contempt the one who does not eat, and the one who does not eat is not to judge the one who eats, for God has accepted him. 4Who are you to judge the servant of another? To his own master he stands or falls; and he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

5One person regards one day above another, another regards every day [alike]. Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind. (emphasis mine) 6He who observes the day, observes it for the Lord, and he who eats, does so for the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who eats not, for the Lord he does not eat, and gives thanks to God. 7For not one of us lives for himself, and not one dies for himself; 8for if we live, we live for the Lord, or if we die, we die for the Lord; therefore whether we live or die, we are the Lord's. 9For to this end Christ died and lived again, that He might be Lord both of the dead and of the living.

10But you, why do you judge your brother? Or you again, why do you regard your brother with contempt? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God.

My apologies to everyone if this had already been covered in later posts. I confess that I did not read all of the replies in this thread when I added my thoughts on this subject. I have been in churches where women were treated like pariah if they did not have at least one nice dress to wear to services each Sunday, and their budgets simply did not stretch far enough to have two warddrobes, and it was very disheartening to witness.

God bless ...

You make a good point concerning the teachings in Romans. We are free to believe something is unclean, while another person may not agree? The person who considers something unclean is not to judge the person doing the thing they consider unclean, and the person who is doing the thing the other person considers wrong is not to offend the person that sees their actions as sinful. It is a two way street.

[NGKnightfell]

// "Just because the majority start accepting women wearing men's clothes doesn't make it ok. At what instance did it go from being wrong to being ok? How many women had to sin before what pertained to men suddenly included women? The majority are often wrong, and many things we consider wrong today will be likely accepted by the majority down the road? Look at what is happening with homosexual marriage. I wouldn't be surprised if the day comes where the majority will accept it as normal, and even the church world as a whole will be much more accepting of it. You can't go by what is socially acceptable, at least I don't go by that." // - Butero

<AND>

// "You make a good point concerning the teachings in Romans. We are free to believe something is unclean, while another person may not agree? The person who considers something unclean is not to judge the person doing the thing they consider unclean, and the person who is doing the thing the other person considers wrong is not to offend the person that sees their actions as sinful. It is a two way street." // - Butero

(BTW - I am not totally familiar on how to use the quote and the multi-quote functions, so please forgive me if my methods are out of sync with the house rules on quoting other people's posts. It is kind of cumbersome for me to keep repeating the entire reply over and over when I respond, when I just want to respond to a portion. I am sure I will figure it out eventually Thanks - ngk)

I believe I understand where this line of thought is going. I totally agree that it is definitely not okay for any of us to "offend" each other with our convictions by flaunting them in the face of other Christians that happen to believe otherwise. In those matters of personal principles, we are all expected to honor one another's thoughts and feelings, and when we are in the presence of these other people, we are to behave as they do, as far as we are able. In this way, we are helping the younger believer in the faith to be able to grow at his own pace.

For example, if I had been invited to attend a brother's church services, and I knew that it was the norm for men to wear suits, and women to wear nice dresses, then I would make sure that my family and I dressed in a similar fashion so as not to call undue attention to myself, and the same would apply every time I associated with this brother and his family. This brother is responding to God's call in his own way, and I praise God for his zeal and enthusiasm. I would not want something as insignificant as arguing over what kind of clothes we are wearing to quench the fire of God's Spirit in their house of worship or in our continued fellowship.

On the other hand, not everyone expresses their zeal for God's house in the same fashion, and as it says in Romans, God blesses our enthusiasm however we choose to express it. It would not be a good thing for the suit wearing brother to come to MY church in his three piece suit, and look down his nose at the jeans, tee-shirts and sandals that all the men and women had chosen to wear.

I believe the intent of the passage in Romans was for folks that had strong convictions about cultural norms to go ahead and express their convictions ... but to not judge anyone that held different customs. Butero is correct ... not everything that "society" dictates as acceptable should simply be accepted, especially concerning those things that go directly against the laws of God (homosexuality and all other immorality, for example). As Spirit filled believers, I believe that we all have a modicum of discernment in this regard, and God's kingdom does have a great deal of room for variety in how we all happen to look on the outside.

However, no man has God's permission to call another man's cultural convictions about the clothes he wears, the food he eats, or what day of the week he goes to church, a SIN just because they happen to look or do things differently than we do. I have found that such an attitude is dangerous because it causes unnecessary divisions amongst the believers, and sends the wrong message to the unsaved, because it smacks of legalism and the enforcement of ritualism as a condition for salvation.

Besides, if I may coin the sentiment expressed by another poster earlier, all of us are born into this world naked, and when we finally reach heaven, we will all be dressed in ROBES of righteousness. It gives me the impression that God is not nearly as concerned with how we clothe our bodies here on earth as He is with how we clothe our hearts in matters of spirit and truth. After all, it is not the clothes that make the man, but the words which come from his mouth out of the treasure of his heart.

[GoldenEagle]

(BTW - I am not totally familiar on how to use the quote and the multi-quote functions, so please forgive me if my methods are out of sync with the house rules on quoting other people's posts. It is kind of cumbersome for me to keep repeating the entire reply over and over when I respond, when I just want to respond to a portion. I am sure I will figure it out eventually Thanks - ngk)

No worries brother/sister.

When you see something you want to quote there's a button at the end of every post on the bottom right "quote" which allows you to quote the person you're wanting to engage in discussion.

If you only want to quote a section of the person's post simply delete whatever sections you don't feel are necessary.

The multiquote you simply click on the posts you plan on replying to with the "Multiquote" button on the bottom right of posts. Once you're done selecting which ones you'd like to reply to you can click on "Reply to # quoted post(s) on the bottom of the page.

You can also use the quote feature above where you type. It's to the right of the < > button and looks like a bubble you'd see in a comic book.

Best thing to do is play around with it you won't hurt anything.