Split: Your Views... Women Wearing Pants

[Guest AFlameOfFire]

 

 

Shamefully many of our congregations cant even handle jeans, let alone whats considered vile (and clean jeans aren't "that")

 I have to say that I have for the most part of my life, been blessed to attend a church that has no issue with jeans, shorts, football shirts, or whatever. Sometimes I wear a skirt or a dress sometimes I do not. No one has ever given issue about it to me. So when I hear stories about how some churches have dress cods and look down on jean wearers, I am like "what, this really goes on in church!"

 

 

 

Yep sis there are others that do not, as yours does not. I (personally) ran into that problem when I first come to Christ. it was quite eventful and humiliating, but in short I was fresh out of the military and unemployed residing at my parents home at the time. All I had was the box of clothes I had shipped back from Germany to the U.S. When I entered the military I had just turned 18 then so I had nothing to my name. 

 

But I had just come to Jesus Christ, through a witness outside of the realm of the church. We did have a bible at home, so I fetched it and began reading the scriptures by myself. The more I read the more drawn in I was, and become infatuated with the book of Acts. I decided it was time to go to church to find these kind of folks. So I went to visit the church nearest my home. Everyone was dressed to the hilt but me, and I honestly thought nothing of it at first because I felt completely content, but it became more apparent they were disproving of my attire. After a few visits, I become increasingly uncomfortable, and then finally a service (with eyes directed my way) about honoring God with your Sunday best.

 

But what I had on was MY best. The problem was my best wasn't their best. I was humiliated and soon after left the church (my heart crushed) and for a long time after that I continued to seek the Lord on my own (which to be quite truthful) was the most blessed experience in my life (and for which time) I am forever grateful.

 

And I was more tender then, so what affected me then (whereas I would fall to tears at a drop of a dime) I sure wouldn't do today.

 

Thus the burka idea if any do that again to me, hate my jeans? Oh you will love this! (lol)

 

 Its the household of God not theirs and God has accepted me and people like me who are content with what they have (who covet no mans finer apparel) and those who would rather pay more attention to the inward man (where God looks) then the outward man (where man looks).

 

This one is near to my heart. A big deal to me back then, I was a babe in Christ and rather hurt by the experience back then. I had felt their rejection of me equated to the Lords rejection of me. So I thought, how can I even afford to worship the Lord? If this is all I have?

 

In time, I did "get it" that they were wrong, and God made it quite clear to me that was not His doing (but theirs) and showed himself wonderful to me outside of it all.

 

I think, what had (at first) caught me off guard was that most of my dilemma's I encountered came from within the sphere of various churches. Whereas way back as the church was being established we had the apostles who would key into those kinds occurrences who would step up to the plate and raised their voices on these kinds of particular doings. And its those kind of voices which seem to be heard less and less (or so it seems).

 

Rend your heart not your garments

 

God bless you!

[Guest AFlameOfFire]

 

I wear jeans, I wont wear skirts or dresses, because I think, "what if there was a strong wind?"

 

Know what I mean?

 

The burka is actually appealing to me now to be truthful, just so I can attend church without folks eyeballing the basic jean. 

 

That will put them more at ease with me (lol)

 

But at least I am not coveting others apparel and  trying to rend my garments over my heart. At least in jeans I'm covered up and modest, because I'm so not interested in some kind of fashion show. Man looks at outward appearances God looks at the heart, and what's highly esteemed by men is not with Him.

 

Laying up treasures on earth is also inclusive of what "moth" destroys.

 

Besides, look what God had the forerunner of the Messiah in, it wasn't a Gucci suit.

 

Most pastors today would be like, hey John, you wearin' that?

 

Meanwhile Jesus was like, what did you go out for to see? Some man in gorgeous apparel?

 

Right there shows you he isn't impressed with it all.

 

Peter seemed to have issue with what was immodest more so in all the bling related stuff (even the attention given to it) or to all the adorning of the outward (verses the heart). James on the other hand, and speaking up for the cause of the poor man and to their being a respecter of persons toward all that same bling related stuff.

 

Then James too turns his attention to the heart  and says those who did that become partial in themselves, judges with evil thoughts.

 

It says nothing about wearing clean jeans. James even defends the poor man coming into the assembly in vile raiment. Shamefully many of our congregations cant even handle jeans, let alone whats considered vile (and clean jeans aren't "that")

 

Well said.

 

I learned the honorable art of finding a new church during  my 15 years in the Air Force. I'm a guy, so the first thing I always did was throw on some clean jeans and a t-shirt. It really saved me wasting time weeding out those churches that were too hung up on clothing and not on Jesus. I could care less about man's idea of what's "proper" considering that some of the best "church" services I have ever been to have been among believers in some pretty diverse places such as garages, equipment bays, fuel storage yards, aircraft hangers and shelters, ammo bunkers, barns, corals, and aboard ship at sea. I miss those sometimes - just believers and God with nothing else to get in the way. God isn't impressed with the outward, but the inward, and that's where Jesus starts: on the heart. The rest works its way outward into our everyday lives.

 

 

Amen, I was In the Army myself bro and back then in order to "get out of something" we could chose the chapel, but we'd all be there in our BTU's, at that time I wasn't even hearing the message (if there was one) I don't know, because when your not listening it just seems that way lol

 

I am just comfortable (and most myself) in the average everyday jean.

 

God ministers to me at home in my pajamas, and in even less than that, in the shower (butt naked).

 

Truthfully so.

 

He is not put off any more by demin then he ever was by John the Baptists camel hair

 

Its just plain ridiculous to think He would be.

 

 

God bless you!

Edited August 31, 2013 by AFlameOfFire

[Guest Butero]

 

 

if you are saying that all pants are for men, I simply would disagree.  Maybe a hundred years ago in some areas of the world, but not today.  I hope you are not saying we should go back to the 1800's for our standards.

In some ways, that wouldn't be a bad idea?  I wouldn't even have to go back to the 1800s.  If I could go back 100 years, I think I would be pretty comfortable, and in the main stream.  At some point, women had to decide they wanted to wear pants, and the only ones around were made for men.  It was only after a market was created that people started manufacturing pants to sell to women.  At what time did it go from men's clothing and sin to women's clothing and acceptable?  How many trend setters had to sin before it was no longer sin?

It started during world war 2 when women were required to do a man's job to support the war effort due to a shortage of men, and women needing to support families. There are a lot of activities for which dresses are not modest. Gardening is one. Working on the floor with pre school children is another. However, it is important to be modest in any sort of clothing. Skin tight pants aren't modest either, and are not flattering on some of us. At one time I was able to wear my husbands navy dungerees that he could no longer wear. I did so around the house, not in public, and when other clothes were in the laundry. But I was not cross dressing or pertending to be a man in any form. If I could get into them now I would be down right excited do to the fact that I am now a bit rotund.

 

That is all well and good, but you are admitting to wearing what pertains to a man, which clearly violates Deuteronomy 22:5.  I don't care what your reasons are.  You are still saying that you violated God's law with impunity, and would do it again.  It is between you and God how things ultimately turn out, but this is the type of thing that once again shows why women shouldn't be wearing pants at all.  It also shows that all these arguments that there is some kind of clear distinction in men's pants and women's pants isn't true.

[Guest Butero]

I wear jeans, I wont wear skirts or dresses, because I think, "what if there was a strong wind?"

 

Know what I mean?

 

The burka is actually appealing to me now to be truthful, just so I can attend church without folks eyeballing the basic jean. 

 

That will put them more at ease with me (lol)

 

But at least I am not coveting others apparel and  trying to rend my garments over my heart. At least in jeans I'm covered up and modest, because I'm so not interested in some kind of fashion show. Man looks at outward appearances God looks at the heart, and what's highly esteemed by men is not with Him.

 

Laying up treasures on earth is also inclusive of what "moth" destroys.

 

Besides, look what God had the forerunner of the Messiah in, it wasn't a Gucci suit.

 

Most pastors today would be like, hey John, you wearin' that?

 

Meanwhile Jesus was like, what did you go out for to see? Some man in gorgeous apparel?

 

Right there shows you he isn't impressed with it all.

 

Peter seemed to have issue with what was immodest more so in all the bling related stuff (even the attention given to it) or to all the adorning of the outward (verses the heart). James on the other hand, and speaking up for the cause of the poor man and to their being a respecter of persons toward all that same bling related stuff.

 

Then James too turns his attention to the heart  and says those who did that become partial in themselves, judges with evil thoughts.

 

It says nothing about wearing clean jeans. James even defends the poor man coming into the assembly in vile raiment. Shamefully many of our congregations cant even handle jeans, let alone whats considered vile (and clean jeans aren't "that")

Most of what you said is out of context.  The scripture about God looking on the heart was in reference to the height of a man, not his clothes.  The scripture about the poor man was not talking about a person wearing clothes pertaining to the opposite sex, but whether or not the person appeared to be wealthy.  The point is that some people would treat the person who looked rich better because they knew they would be able to help the church financially.  The issue over pants is whether or not women in pants violates Deuteronomy 22:5?  I believe it clearly does. 

[LadyKay]

 

You are still saying that you violated God's law with impunity, and would do it again.

 

Do you follow all the Old Testament laws? All of them? There are a lot of them. Do you faithfully follow everyone?

[Guest Butero]

 

 

Shamefully many of our congregations cant even handle jeans, let alone whats considered vile (and clean jeans aren't "that")

 I have to say that I have for the most part of my life, been blessed to attend a church that has no issue with jeans, shorts, football shirts, or whatever. Sometimes I wear a skirt or a dress sometimes I do not. No one has ever given issue about it to me. So when I hear stories about how some churches have dress cods and look down on jean wearers, I am like "what, this really goes on in church!"

 

I am just the opposite.  When I know a church allows people to dress like you described, I won't go there.  If we are talking about visitors, that is one thing, but not members in good standing.  When I hear of churches like you described, I am like, "what has become of the church?"  It makes me sick to my stomach people have so little respect for the house of the Lord. 

[Guest Butero]

 

 

You are still saying that you violated God's law with impunity, and would do it again.

 

Do you follow all the Old Testament laws? All of them? There are a lot of them. Do you faithfully follow everyone?

 

Go back and read what I have already said about this topic Lady Kay.  If you had read what I posted, there would be no need for me to repeat myself.

[Guest AFlameOfFire]

Where does it say denim or pants pertain to a man?

 

Although girdles and bonnets were worn by Aarons sons (winks)

 

It does say,

 

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

 

Although we are all pretty much doomed there unless your into 100% polyester

 

Divers could be seen even of things old and new

 

Mark 2:21 No man also seweth a piece of new cloth on an old garment: else the new piece that filled it up taketh away from the old, and the rent is made worse.

 

 

[Guest Butero]

 

 

I wear jeans, I wont wear skirts or dresses, because I think, "what if there was a strong wind?"

 

Know what I mean?

 

The burka is actually appealing to me now to be truthful, just so I can attend church without folks eyeballing the basic jean. 

 

That will put them more at ease with me (lol)

 

But at least I am not coveting others apparel and  trying to rend my garments over my heart. At least in jeans I'm covered up and modest, because I'm so not interested in some kind of fashion show. Man looks at outward appearances God looks at the heart, and what's highly esteemed by men is not with Him.

 

Laying up treasures on earth is also inclusive of what "moth" destroys.

 

Besides, look what God had the forerunner of the Messiah in, it wasn't a Gucci suit.

 

Most pastors today would be like, hey John, you wearin' that?

 

Meanwhile Jesus was like, what did you go out for to see? Some man in gorgeous apparel?

 

Right there shows you he isn't impressed with it all.

 

Peter seemed to have issue with what was immodest more so in all the bling related stuff (even the attention given to it) or to all the adorning of the outward (verses the heart). James on the other hand, and speaking up for the cause of the poor man and to their being a respecter of persons toward all that same bling related stuff.

 

Then James too turns his attention to the heart  and says those who did that become partial in themselves, judges with evil thoughts.

 

It says nothing about wearing clean jeans. James even defends the poor man coming into the assembly in vile raiment. Shamefully many of our congregations cant even handle jeans, let alone whats considered vile (and clean jeans aren't "that")

 

Well said.

 

I learned the honorable art of finding a new church during  my 15 years in the Air Force. I'm a guy, so the first thing I always did was throw on some clean jeans and a t-shirt. It really saved me wasting time weeding out those churches that were too hung up on clothing and not on Jesus. I could care less about man's idea of what's "proper" considering that some of the best "church" services I have ever been to have been among believers in some pretty diverse places such as garages, equipment bays, fuel storage yards, aircraft hangers and shelters, ammo bunkers, barns, corals, and aboard ship at sea. I miss those sometimes - just believers and God with nothing else to get in the way. God isn't impressed with the outward, but the inward, and that's where Jesus starts: on the heart. The rest works its way outward into our everyday lives.

 

 

Amen, I was In the Army myself bro and back then in order to "get out of something" we could chose the chapel, but we'd all be there in our BTU's, at that time I wasn't even hearing the message (if there was one) I don't know, because when your not listening it just seems that way lol

 

I am just comfortable (and most myself) in the average everyday jean.

 

God ministers to me at home in my pajamas, and in even less than that, in the shower (butt naked).

 

Truthfully so.

 

He is not put off any more by demin then he ever was by John the Baptists camel hair

 

Its just plain ridiculous to think He would be.

 

 

God bless you!

 

What is ridiculous to me is that people think they can ignore God's laws and be ok.  When I look at the church today, I feel like Josiah must have when the book of the law was found in the temple.  He heard the words of God, realized nobody was giving any credence to them, and he cried out to God in sackcloth and ashes because he knew judgment was coming.  It is not so much that people disagree I find troubling, but that they simply ignore scripture, or make light of it.  "I am sure there are worse sins?"  Then they compare themselves to others by questioning if the other person is perfect?  Even if the other person is the worst sinner going, that doesn't mean what they are doing is ok?  Even in this thread, someone posted saying God cares about modesty, not pants.  Based on what?  And isn't that being clothes line? 

[Willa]

if you are saying that all pants are for men, I simply would disagree.  Maybe a hundred years ago in some areas of the world, but not today.  I hope you are not saying we should go back to the 1800's for our standards.

In some ways, that wouldn't be a bad idea?  I wouldn't even have to go back to the 1800s.  If I could go back 100 years, I think I would be pretty comfortable, and in the main stream.  At some point, women had to decide they wanted to wear pants, and the only ones around were made for men.  It was only after a market was created that people started manufacturing pants to sell to women.  At what time did it go from men's clothing and sin to women's clothing and acceptable?  How many trend setters had to sin before it was no longer sin?

It started during world war 2 when women were required to do a man's job to support the war effort due to a shortage of men, and women needing to support families. There are a lot of activities for which dresses are not modest. Gardening is one. Working on the floor with pre school children is another. However, it is important to be modest in any sort of clothing. Skin tight pants aren't modest either, and are not flattering on some of us. At one time I was able to wear my husbands navy dungerees that he could no longer wear. I did so around the house, not in public, and when other clothes were in the laundry. But I was not cross dressing or pertending to be a man in any form. If I could get into them now I would be down right excited do to the fact that I am now a bit rotund.

That is all well and good, but you are admitting to wearing what pertains to a man, which clearly violates Deuteronomy 22:5.  I don't care what your reasons are.  You are still saying that you violated God's law with impunity, and would do it again.  It is between you and God how things ultimately turn out, but this is the type of thing that once again shows why women shouldn't be wearing pants at all.  It also shows that all these arguments that there is some kind of clear distinction in men's pants and women's pants isn't true.

First, I am not under the law. Second, I think Jesus would rather have me warm in a house that couldn't be heated over 55 degrees when I had nothing else to wear. I don't think he would want me to go naked. He is the one who allowed even the Jews to have mercy on their animals on the Sabbath. He healed the blind on the Sabbath. Moreover, I had no knowledge of the old testament Jewish law at that time. Butero. You are out of bounds by standing in judgement of me and you owe me an apology. And yes, I do wish I were that size again.