[Christina]

I was asked the other day if it was a sin for Women to wear pants. Heres what the bible says on this.Deu 22:5 ¶ The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so [are] abomination unto the LORD thy God. This has nothing to do with wearing pants. As today both men and women wear pants. In those days both men and women wore toga type skirts/dresses. A women was not to grit up her loins, witch means when a man was going into battle he would grab the hem of his toga and tuck it in his belt making a type of loose fitting type of shorts. It is about the dividing of the sexes and has a sexual connotation to it. We might think of today as crossdressing or transvestites Or trying to dress like the other sex To attract same sex partners.. Its not about wear any particular garment such as slacks/pants but rather that a Women dress in what is acceptable for a women and a man dress in what is acceptable for a man. As long as its obvious as to what sex you are by the other sex.

[E Nomine]

So I could wear a skirt as long as I'm not attempting to atract men towards myself?

[Lookin4wardtoHeaven]

Beautifully explained style_emoticons/default/smile.gifNow I am curious...I have one little question, if I may ask it here? What about a woman wearing pants in Church?

[hotprincesscm]

I honestly believe that the first explanation that Kriss gave does cover that. I believe(but this is just me) That as long as you make an effort to dress in your "sunday" best for church, that it's acceptable. I find it disrespectful almost, to show up in dirty, ripped up jeans, etc... I always put my boys in Khaki pants or black pants(never blue jeans) and a nice shirt and I myself always wear a nice pair of slacks (I'm not a skirt/dress girl) and a nice top. I think as the ages have progressed that things have changed so much, back at the turn of the century(1900's probably up till about the 60's or so, women just traditionally wore skirts/dresses on a daily basis, for everything, but now, more woman/girls, wear pants and only "dress up" for very special occasions, such as wedding, funeral, etc. I think that if you think something is not right to wear to church, then it probably isn't. Just use your better judgment. But this is just my opinion.

[Christina]

So I could wear a skirt as long as I'm not attempting to atract men towards myself?

Only if you have nice legs:)style_emoticons/default/smile.gifseriously as long as you are not trying to look like a women. such as the scottish men wear kilts its not to be a women but to honor thier heritage.

[Christina]

Beautifully explained style_emoticons/default/smile.gifNow I am curious...I have one little question, if I may ask it here? What about a woman wearing pants in Church?

It is as hotprincesscmhas said as long as thier is no doubt you are a women. pants and a nice blouse/shirit is perfectley acceptable today

[Lookin4wardtoHeaven]

Thanks for answering my question:) God :blessyou:

[Wakka]

Here is my view on this.Men wore pants to work. But today these pants became casual. Women have been wearing dresses for generations. And just recent have they transversed into wearing pants. I've got no problem with it just as long as women don't wear clothes to show off their body. And almost every clothing being sold is meant to show off the body. And our media is geared to show off the body.All in all, wear the clothes that do not show off your body. Because God dwells in your body. And if you corrupt your body, then God can no longer dwell in it style_emoticons/default/wink.gif.

[Faithful]

As long as your wearing clothes who is worried.:angel2::christianflag:I should imagine it would cause enormous problems not being able to tell a man from a woman. style_emoticons/default/smile.gif

[E Nomine]

I should imagine it would cause enormous problems not being able to tell a man from a woman. style_emoticons/default/smile.gif

It does; believe me . . ..

[Nova]

Kriss, great post. I only wear dresses/shirts for special occasions. And no one has ever mistaken me for a guy.

[tim_from_pa]

The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.

I always took this to mean cross-dressing, especially to cause confusion as to the gender. And to expand this out spiritually, perhaps role reversal of some clearly defined manners in the Law.As for this family, my wife definitely wears the pants. style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif

[Jordan]

I have to agree with Tim_from_pa. That's exactly what I took it to mean cross-dressing.Lovest ye in Christ Yahshua our Lord and Saviour.

[Christina]

Its nice to see we all can understand there is more important message here than God playing the fashion police:)

[Jon-Marc]

Should women wear pants? Probably if they're going out in public since there are laws against being nude in public.:naughty: Sorry, couldn't resist. There is a difference in mens' pants and women's pants. I found that out when I bought some used blue jeans at a thrift store. I wasn't able to try them on, but when I did at home I realized they were women's jeans and not men's. The cut and fit were entirely different.

[Hal]

LOL@Tim...I've heard that before.That's true, Jon-Marc, they are cut different. I really don't think women wearing pants is a violation of even OT law, since they're not technically "men's pants" - I do think a woman wearing a skirt or dress generally looks more "lady-like", but anything but those ugly pantsuits Hillary Rodham Clinton always wears has to be an improvement.

[verzanumi24]

I was asked the other day if it was a sin for Women to wear pants. Heres what the bible says on this.Deu 22:5 ¶ The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so [are] abomination unto the LORD thy God. This has nothing to do with wearing pants. As today both men and women wear pants. In those days both men and women wore toga type skirts/dresses. A women was not to grit up her loins, witch means when a man was going into battle he would grab the hem of his toga and tuck it in his belt making a type of loose fitting type of shorts. It is about the dividing of the sexes and has a sexual connotation to it. We might think of today as crossdressing or transvestites Or trying to dress like the other sex To attract same sex partners.. Its not about wear any particular garment such as slacks/pants but rather that a Women dress in what is acceptable for a women and a man dress in what is acceptable for a man. As long as its obvious as to what sex you are by the other sex.

Your explanation is quite correct; too often we look at the thing as being a sin and not realizing that its the attitude behind what one is doing that can be a sin.

[treeoflife]

So I could wear a skirt as long as I'm not attempting to atract men towards myself?

No. That isn't the only thing. Are you going to be a stumbling block to others, Christians and non-Christians? Also, would you really wear a skirt for the cause of comfort alone or because you like to, or would you do it simply to make a statement or be rebelling against the gender seperations set for in society?I would say, since God's Word says plainly not to wear the clothes of a woman, and visa-versa... then it doesn't matter what your heart is... you shouldn't do it. That doesn't mean girls can't wear pants either. Because pants *are* women's clothing. They are also men's. As are socks. If you don't have discrection making the difference... pray that God would give you discretion.

[treeoflife]

Well, I used to wear skirts to Church, but not any more. Never again! I once wore a skirt that came up to my mid thigh. I went to a strict Baptist church and my pastor was an older man who was very very old fashioned. While giving his sermon, he noticed my skirt and publically announced that my skirt was so short that he could see my underwear. He then called me to the pulpit and ordered me to lay over his knee. He lifted my skirt in front of the church and proceeded to spank me. I was humilated and learned my lesson for good. Now I just wear dresses, but no skirts or pants.

What your pastor *did* was inappropriate (the spanking part). He also should have also spoken to you or your parents about it privately. He sounds like he was a little senile. Though, I would agree with him that you shouldn't wear skirts that are mid-thigh, or where people can see your underwear... that is... a bit much. But, that could have simply been something you needed to learn, in a much less humiliating way.

[Aquila]

I was asked the other day if it was a sin for Women to wear pants. Heres what the bible says on this.Deu 22:5 The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so [are] abomination unto the LORD thy God. This has nothing to do with wearing pants. As today both men and women wear pants. In those days both men and women wore toga type skirts/dresses. A women was not to grit up her loins, witch means when a man was going into battle he would grab the hem of his toga and tuck it in his belt making a type of loose fitting type of shorts. It is about the dividing of the sexes and has a sexual connotation to it. We might think of today as crossdressing or transvestites Or trying to dress like the other sex To attract same sex partners.. Its not about wear any particular garment such as slacks/pants but rather that a Women dress in what is acceptable for a women and a man dress in what is acceptable for a man. As long as its obvious as to what sex you are by the other sex.

I disagree. Rabbinical scholars have elaborated on gender distinction and Middle Eastern custom. Mostly these laws of distinction were required of the inner garment not the outer garment. From what I remember reading about it was primarily a distinction with the inner garment. The outer garment was more like a robe and few distinctions were required by Mosaic Law regarding the outer garments. Now the New Testament speaks directly to modesty, and it’s primarily directed toward female believers. Paul writes:I Timothy 2:8-10I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting. In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearIs, or costly array; but (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.Peter also wrote:I Peter 3:3-5Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel; but let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price. For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God adorned themselves.We should also call to mind what John wrote:I John 2:16The lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.Most women’s pants that are marketed today are designed to show off a woman’s “figure”. In biblical times the “thigh” was considered “nakedness” and to show the inner thigh was absolutely denounced, especially with women. Women’s pants normally run an inseam that accentuates a woman’s inner thigh, not to mention the design accentuates her form (thighs and bottom) for the sake of fashion and beauty. It has traditionally been believed that an appropriate fitting (length and tightness) dress or skirt is far more modest than most women’s pants. For this reason I believe women should not wear pants. My wife doesn’t own pants and doesn’t wear them. In fact the vast majority of women in my church only wear dresses and skirts. However, I wouldn’t go as far as to say that wearing pants is a “sin” per se. It’s an issue of modesty. I believe that the greater a woman’s consecration and modesty the greater her anointing and the more she will please her Lord. I don’t condemn any woman wearing pants…but I strongly admonish a woman to dress modestly and that includes not wearing pants. We as Christians should live and love modesty, even men. Men, there are some things that we often wear that are immodest. Our jeans don’t need to be skin tight, nor do we need to wear muscle shirts, low cut collars, shorts, “see through” jersey type shirts, etc. We too have to shoulder this responsibility toward Christian modesty. Paul’s emphasis regarding males is normally one of emphasizing prayerfulness, faith, peace over anger, and love toward the brethren and our wives. We as men typically don’t need to focus so much on outward modesty because women aren’t as “visually oriented” as men are. But it seems the Apostles focus most outward modesty upon women. Standards of modesty for women are necessary because of us…men; and our weakness toward visual stimuli. Sadly few Christian women understand this. Too many Christian women assume that we are exact equals in our make up…but we’re not. A visual stimulus does for a man what “touch” does for a woman. If women understood this better I believe they would feel a greater responsibility toward modest adornment as Christian women. When a woman wears something revealing, provocative, too tight, accentuating the feminine qualities her body or figure…she essentially “touches” ever man who sees her, however for a man, since this is visual it’s on the mental plane. If a man walked around “touching” every woman in the office most women would feel violated and complain. Sadly worldly men enjoy being “touched” like this when they look at a woman so women rarely face complaints about their adornment. But as a Christian male I find it very upsetting. No woman has a right to do to a Christian male what she does to him when she wears something inappropriate. If women could just live one full day feeling, seeing, tasting, sensing, what a male experiences I’m convinced she’d dress very conservatively, and that would most likely include no pants. Please sisters…be ever so mindful of this when choosing your attire…and put on modesty as you follow after being a woman consecrated to Christ. We shouldn’t live our Christian lives looking for what we “can do” and get by with…but rather we should live our lives asking, “How can I be MORE consecrated to Jesus?” “How can I please him more?” “How can I be more holy?”We need to return to principles of Christian modesty, especially as the world continues to degenerate into a cesspool of immodesty. It’s getting to where as a male you can’t go for a walk on a summer day or go shopping at the male without seeing 1,900 of some women’s 2,000 Lever parts. C’mon church…it’s time to adorn ourselves like Christians and be the part. It’s time to allow our dress to be part of our worship.

[treeoflife]

I disagree. Rabbinical scholars have elaborated on gender distinction and Middle Eastern custom. Mostly these laws of distinction were required of the inner garment not the outer garment. From what I remember reading about it was primarily a distinction with the inner garment. The outer garment was more like a robe and few distinctions were required by Mosaic Law regarding the outer garments. Now the New Testament speaks directly to modesty, and it’s primarily directed toward female believers. Paul writes:I Timothy 2:8-10I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting. In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearIs, or costly array; but (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.Peter also wrote:I Peter 3:3-5Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel; but let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price. For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God adorned themselves.We should also call to mind what John wrote:I John 2:16The lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.Most women’s pants that are marketed today are designed to show off a woman’s “figure”. In biblical times the “thigh” was considered “nakedness” and to show the inner thigh was absolutely denounced, especially with women. Women’s pants normally run an inseam that accentuates a woman’s inner thigh, not to mention the design accentuates her form (thighs and bottom) for the sake of fashion and beauty. It has traditionally been believed that an appropriate fitting (length and tightness) dress or skirt is far more modest than most women’s pants. For this reason I believe women should not wear pants. My wife doesn’t own pants and doesn’t wear them. In fact the vast majority of women in my church only wear dresses and skirts. However, I wouldn’t go as far as to say that wearing pants is a “sin” per se. It’s an issue of modesty. I believe that the greater a woman’s consecration and modesty the greater her anointing and the more she will please her Lord. I don’t condemn any woman wearing pants…but I strongly admonish a woman to dress modestly and that includes not wearing pants. We as Christians should live and love modesty, even men. Men, there are some things that we often wear that are immodest. Our jeans don’t need to be skin tight, nor do we need to wear muscle shirts, low cut collars, shorts, “see through” jersey type shirts, etc. We too have to shoulder this responsibility toward Christian modesty. Paul’s emphasis regarding males is normally one of emphasizing prayerfulness, faith, peace over anger, and love toward the brethren and our wives. We as men typically don’t need to focus so much on outward modesty because women aren’t as “visually oriented” as men are. But it seems the Apostles focus most outward modesty upon women. Standards of modesty for women are necessary because of us…men; and our weakness toward visual stimuli. Sadly few Christian women understand this. Too many Christian women assume that we are exact equals in our make up…but we’re not. A visual stimulus does for a man what “touch” does for a woman. If women understood this better I believe they would feel a greater responsibility toward modest adornment as Christian women. When a woman wears something revealing, provocative, too tight, accentuating the feminine qualities her body or figure…she essentially “touches” ever man who sees her, however for a man, since this is visual it’s on the mental plane. If a man walked around “touching” every woman in the office most women would feel violated and complain. Sadly worldly men enjoy being “touched” like this when they look at a woman so women rarely face complaints about their adornment. But as a Christian male I find it very upsetting. No woman has a right to do to a Christian male what she does to him when she wears something inappropriate. If women could just live one full day feeling, seeing, tasting, sensing, what a male experiences I’m convinced she’d dress very conservatively, and that would most likely include no pants. Please sisters…be ever so mindful of this when choosing your attire…and put on modesty as you follow after being a woman consecrated to Christ. We shouldn’t live our Christian lives looking for what we “can do” and get by with…but rather we should live our lives asking, “How can I be MORE consecrated to Jesus?” “How can I please him more?” “How can I be more holy?”We need to return to principles of Christian modesty, especially as the world continues to degenerate into a cesspool of immodesty. It’s getting to where as a male you can’t go for a walk on a summer day or go shopping at the male without seeing 1,900 of some women’s 2,000 Lever parts. C’mon church…it’s time to adorn ourselves like Christians and be the part. It’s time to allow our dress to be part of our worship.

We're still talking about women wearing pants right? There are many cases where a dress, even to the floor, is way more immodest than a pair of pants.

[Aquila]

We're still talking about women wearing pants right? There are many cases where a dress, even to the floor, is way more immodest than a pair of pants.

I agree, a dress can be immodest also. However, women's pants are primarily designed by the industry to accentuate the female figure in an immodest way. Not to mention the bluring of the gender roles in society. Women's pants and suits were launched out of the unisex movement. Some dresses are more immodest than bikini swimsuits...We can find an excuse to allow for anything if we try. On a lighter note...When a woman tries on a pair of jeans, what does she typically do? She turns around and looks back at her self in the mirror. What is she checking to see? Any married man knows the question she's going to ask... style_emoticons/default/wink.gifAnd a wise husband knows what answer to tell his wife. :angel9:lol

[Christina]

It never was about women wearing pants it was written when both men and women wore skirits lets use some common sense here Pants were not worn by either sex so how could it be talking about women wearing pants when no one wore pants. The style could change tomarrow and both men and women go back to wearing skirits what would it mean then ?????Deu 22:5 ¶ The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so [are] abomination unto the LORD thy God. This has nothing to do with wearing pants. As today both men and women wear pants. In those days both men and women wore toga type skirts/dresses. A women was not to grit up her loins, witch means when a man was going into battle he would grab the hem of his toga and tuck it in his belt making a type of loose fitting type of shorts. It is about the dividing of the sexes and has a sexual connotation to it. We might think of today as crossdressing or transvestites Or trying to dress like the other sex To attract same sex partners.. Its not about wear any particular garment such as slacks/pants but rather that a Women dress in what is acceptable for a women and a man dress in what is acceptable for a man.As long as its obvious as to what sex you are by the other sex.

[Aquila]

It never was about women wearing pants it was written when both men and women wore skirits lets use some common sense here Pants were not worn by either sex so how could it be talking about women wearing pants when no one wore pants. The style could change tomarrow and both men and women go back to wearing skirits what would it mean then ?????Deu 22:5 The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so [are] abomination unto the LORD thy God.

Kriss…both men and women did not wear skirts. In ancient Hebrew culture they typically wore three layers of clothing. First you had the undergarments, second you had the inner garments, and thirdly you had the outer garments. Undergarments were worn as necessary and were simply plain wraps of cloth worn around the private parts. The inner garments were often tunics, and yes, they did have pant like articles of clothing. Rabbinical scholars have written commentary on clothing what was “crotch knit” and how these articles of clothing were specifically for males while inner garments for females weren’t crotch knit. So while the clothing they wore may not have been “pants” as we design them, men wore articles of clothing with a knit crotch while women didn’t. Clothing with the crotch knit was common among the priestly class and protected them from exposing themselves while serving on the raised platforms of the altar. In addition men in the military wore crotch knit clothing. Women on the other hand were domestic in their functions and wore inner garments that were not crotch knit. Some believe that this was for sanitary reasons or for functionality that was appropriate for anatomy. For the vast majority of Hebrew history a woman was cross dressing if she wore a crotch knit inner garment. The outer garment was merely a coat or robe like article of clothing worn when traveling to protect the traveler from the elements. So the question is…are pants crotch knit? Yes. Are dresses and skirts crotch knit? No.

This has nothing to do with wearing pants. As today both men and women wear pants.

Today’s culture isn’t the standard of modesty by which we should measure biblical modesty.

In those days both men and women wore toga type skirts/dresses. A women was not to grit up her loins, witch means when a man was going into battle he would grab the hem of his toga and tuck it in his belt making a type of loose fitting type of shorts.

I think you’re mistaken. As I already explained they wore under garments, inner garments, and outer garments. I think you’re talking primarily about servants working the fields. Servants were typically not in full dress while working the fields. So if the need to engage in battle arose, they would tuck their tunics up into their belts to prepare for war. Please note, sometimes it was customary for men to be completely undressed while working, for example we see Peter fishing completely undressed in the New Testament. So the “girding up of the loins” among working peasants isn’t a formidable example of how an entire culture dressed.

It is about the dividing of the sexes and has a sexual connotation to it. We might think of today as crossdressing or transvestites Or trying to dress like the other sex To attract same sex partners..

Not necessarily. Ancient Hebrew and Middle Eastern culture was very patriarchal. Anything that blurred cultural distinctions between men and women was strongly condemned. These laws were observed partly to address perversion but also to preserve a social structure where women were expected to be submissive and modest. We see this in Rabbinical writings, early church customs, and all of Western culture leading up to the 20th Century when women began to challenge gender roles (partly due to WWII and women having to work in factories, breaking the mold of a domestic house wife).

Its not about wear any particular garment such as slacks/pants but rather that a Women dress in what is acceptable for a women and a man dress in what is acceptable for a man. As long as its obvious as to what sex you are by the other sex.

The “thigh” of a woman was considered nakedness. Biblically the term “thigh” includes anything from the inner knee, up past the crotch, down to the opposite inner knee (essentially anything between a woman’s legs). To see a woman’s “thigh”, be it directly or through crotch knit garments revealing her figure, is immodesty from a biblical perspective.Will wearing pants send a woman to Hell? I don’t think so. But I have to stand with the Bible and the thousands of years of commentary about it. The issue is modesty, not style, not function. And pants, being crotch knit, are considered immodest for women. Even Orthodox Jews and many Conservative Jewish congregations admonish women not to wear pants for this very same reason. So I think you’re over simplifying the issue. Let’s aspire as Christians to a standard of biblical modesty. Let the Bible define modesty…not modern pop culture.

[treeoflife]

It never was about women wearing pants it was written when both men and women wore skirits lets use some common sense here Pants were not worn by either sex so how could it be talking about women wearing pants when no one wore pants. The style could change tomarrow and both men and women go back to wearing skirits what would it mean then ?????Deu 22:5 ¶ The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so [are] abomination unto the LORD thy God. This has nothing to do with wearing pants. As today both men and women wear pants. In those days both men and women wore toga type skirts/dresses. A women was not to grit up her loins, witch means when a man was going into battle he would grab the hem of his toga and tuck it in his belt making a type of loose fitting type of shorts. It is about the dividing of the sexes and has a sexual connotation to it. We might think of today as crossdressing or transvestites Or trying to dress like the other sex To attract same sex partners.. Its not about wear any particular garment such as slacks/pants but rather that a Women dress in what is acceptable for a women and a man dress in what is acceptable for a man.As long as its obvious as to what sex you are by the other sex.

I'll just say I agree. There is nothing gender specific about pants, which is the key to the verse that was used about not dressing as a man dresses, or man like a woman. Pants are not gender specific.However, if a man started to wear WOMEN'S PANTS (with cute little bejeweled flowers on them and what not), or a woman started wearing a man's pants (like the men's cargo pants you would find at any department store), then I suppose a case could be made. But, when God said not to dress like a man or a man like a woman... I believe He was referring to whatever clothes were consequential in the region, at the time. There is nothing masculine or femenine about a skirt... unless your culture has programmed it into you that it is so.Is God ever *specific* about what is man's clothing, and what is women's clothing, from head to foot? If so... then should we all be dressing like that? If not... then it is our responsibility to show reason, and respond to how culture dresses according to gender I think.

[Aquila]

I can't believe so many Christians would cave in to modern culture so easily. I don't believe a woman is in "sin" for wearing pants. However, biblically speaking, they are immodest. "Women's pants", are a modified spin off of men's pants. Technically there's no such thing as bonafide "women's pants".

[treeoflife]

I can't believe so many Christians would cave in to modern culture so easily. I don't believe a woman is in "sin" for wearing pants. However, biblically speaking, they are immodest. "Women's pants", are a modified spin off of men's pants. Technically there's no such thing as bonafide "women's pants".

For the edifying of the body...I'm sorry, and no offense, but if you evaluate what you said I think you'll see that it is hypocritical.First you said:

"I can't believe so many Christians would cave in to modern culture so easily."

Then you said:

"Women's pants", are a modified spin off of men's pants. Technically there's no such thing as bonafide "women's pants".

So, you can't believe that so many Christians would "cave" in to modern culture so easily, but yet, the reason for your stance (at least in part), is that you claim there is no such thing as a bonafide "women's pants." You do realize, that bonafide definition would come from within culture, right? Because it certainly is not found in God's Word.The point is, is that as you agreed to earlier... a skirt *can be* immodest. Pant can be immodest too. Depending on how you wear them.Quite honestly, when I look in the mirror it isn't always just to see how good I look... it is to make sure I don't have buggers hanging out of my nose, or unsightly hairdue that would create a stumbling block for others. When I put on my pants, I'm not just going to look at how good my butt looks, but I want to make sure it isn't EMPHESIZING what should not be emphesized. You are making generalized statements about pants and it's not true. Pants can be modest or they can be immodest, but they are not gender specific. We (men included) are encouraged to dress modestly, and not wear the clothing that is fitting for the opposite sex.Unless you can show me where God's Word tells us what, specifically, we should wear, and that pants are wrong for women to wear, you either need to change your possission or be quiet about it... because you don't have a leg to stand on. Pun intended. style_emoticons/default/smile.gif

[Aquila]

I'll just say I agree. There is nothing gender specific about pants, which is the key to the verse that was used about not dressing as a man dresses, or man like a woman. Pants are not gender specific.However, if a man started to wear WOMEN'S PANTS (with cute little bejeweled flowers on them and what not), or a woman started wearing a man's pants (like the men's cargo pants you would find at any department store), then I suppose a case could be made. But, when God said not to dress like a man or a man like a woman... I believe He was referring to whatever clothes were consequential in the region, at the time. There is nothing masculine or femenine about a skirt... unless your culture has programmed it into you that it is so.

I believe it’s the other way around. Christian cultural modesty has always held to women wearing skirts or dresses. Same with Orthodox Jewish and Conservative Jewish communities, the Amish, Mennonite, German Baptist, early American Baptist and the list goes on. It’s modern pop culture, driven by Hollywood and godless fashion designers that have pushed women’s pants to acceptability in our modern culture…and Christians have allowed them to define our norms and standards of modesty. The other communities mentioned above have stayed true to their roots and religious convictions while modern Evangelicalism has caved in under pressure from the world to conform in the name of pragmatism. Should we condemn women who wear pants? No. Should we teach that pants are immodest on women? Yes.

Is God ever *specific* about what is man's clothing, and what is women's clothing, from head to foot? If so... then should we all be dressing like that? If not... then it is our responsibility to show reason, and respond to how culture dresses according to gender I think.

God’s Word does say something that may be relevant:“Come down, and sit in the dust, O virgin daughterof Babylon . . . make bare the leg, uncover thethigh, pass over the rivers. Thy nakedness shall beuncovered, yea, thy shame shall be seen” (Isaiah47:1-3)Here God condemns Babylon. God’s condemnation demands of her (this nation) that she be publicly humiliated. To illustrate this point God uses figurative language in the mouth of the prophet, she is to “make bare the leg”, “uncover the thigh”, etc. To make bare the leg is to make the leg visible. If something is tight enough to accentuate the leg it also makes bare the leg though clothing is present. To “uncover the thigh” is to make bare the region from the knees to the waist…including between the legs. If something is tight enough to accentuate the form and figure of a woman’s inseam it “uncovers the thigh” though clothing is present. To reveal the leg or thigh (through uncovering or the design of clothing) is considered nakedness and is clearly immodest. A woman’s clothing should not accentuate or make bare her legs or her thighs and/or the inseam of the region between the legs (i.e. crotch knit like pants). Again, I don’t relegate a woman who wears pants to Hell. But I have to side with Scripture, pants are immodest on women. In the New Testament we are commanded:“I will therefore that men pray every where, liftingup holy hands, without wrath and doubting. In likemanner also, that women adorn themselves in modestapparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not withbroided hair, or gold, or pearIs, or costly array; but (which becometh women professing godliness) withgood works” (I Timothy 2:8-10).“Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorningof plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or ofputting on of apparel; but let it be the hidden man ofthe heart, in that which is not corruptible, even theornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in thesight of God of great price. For after this manner inthe old time the holy women also, who trusted in Godadorned themselves” (I Peter 3:3-5).In the Apostle’s day the only standard of modesty they had was found in the Old Testament, the New Testament cannon wasn’t compiled yet. So obviously Paul and Peter are referring to concepts of modesty that would have come from the Old Testament Scriptures, especially in their Judaic environment. Women are to adorn themselves modestly and God’s Word is to be our guiding standard…not pop culture or convenience. Women should love modesty and aspire to modesty. Husbands should not be afraid to guide their wives in this area too.

[treeoflife]

Look, you're saying that pants are immodest, while quoting scripture that does not actually address the wearing of pants. This not siding with scripture. However, if you are going to take that stance that you are siding with scipture... be forwarned... it causes more damage than it does good. I have yet to see scripture that TELLS US pants are immodest. All I have heard is that you feel they are, or should be.If God's Word doesn't say pants are immodest, bottom line... you can't truthfully say that you side with sctipture when you take that stance. However, in doing so you will inevitibly be placing unnecessary religious weights the backs of God's children who you are able to convince of this, and actually detract them from a reltionship with God (in part) by introducting them to man's religion, and this is nothing to take lightly.Still waiting to see where God's Word says pants are immodest. They cover the entire leg. I would agree, certain styles of pants (and pants that are too small) can be immodest, but to cast a blanketing statement that says pants are immodest is nothing short of religious convinction, and to teach it to others as truth is nothing short of the beginnings of pharisitical baggage. If that is not your intent, than consider what you say now, and if it *really is* in God's Word. That's all I'm going to say.

[Aquila]

Look, you're saying that pants are immodest, while quoting scripture that does not actually address the wearing of pants. This not siding with scripture. However, if you are going to take that stance that you are siding with scipture... be forwarned... it causes more damage than it does good. I have yet to see scripture that TELLS US pants are immodest. All I have heard is that you feel they are, or should be.If God's Word doesn't say pants are immodest, bottom line... you can't truthfully say that you side with sctipture when you take that stance. However, in doing so you will inevitibly be placing unnecessary religious weights the backs of God's children who you are able to convince of this, and actually detract them from a reltionship with God (in part) by introducting them to man's religion, and this is nothing to take lightly.Still waiting to see where God's Word says pants are immodest. They cover the entire leg. I would agree, certain styles of pants (and pants that are too small) can be immodest, but to cast a blanketing statement that says pants are immodest is nothing short of religious convinction, and to teach it to others as truth is nothing short of the beginnings of pharisitical baggage. If that is not your intent, than consider what you say now, and if it *really is* in God's Word. That's all I'm going to say.

You’re argument above is like one I heard from another some time back. He argued that smoking wasn’t in violation of biblical stewardship of the body. He demanded to see a Scripture that specifically told him that “smoking” was unacceptable for a Christian. I explained to him that while “smoking” isn’t specifically addressed in Scripture, the principle of stewardship of the body is. Therefore smoking, over eating (gluttony which is mentioned in the Bible), excessive use of caffeine, prescription drugs, …anything that can cause considerable damage to the body, if done to excess or if done to risk addiction is a violation of biblical “principles” regarding stewardship of the body. Of course he went on his marry way claiming that since I couldn’t find a Scripture for my position and that I was out of the Bible. Well…here you are presenting the same argumentation of justification. While there isn’t any specific Scripture that TELLS US that pants are immodest, we have Scriptures admonishing us to modesty and Scriptures telling us that exposure of the leg, the thigh (namely the inseam between a woman’s legs) is nakedness. And this accentuation can be by outright uncovering or clothing that reveals these curves or form of the body. The way this was observed by the very people who received the oracles of God precluded women from wearing crotch-knit inner garments…this standard alone would preclude women as early as the first century from wearing pants. Down through the centuries valiant Christian ministers, men of God, men given to prayer and consecration are agreed, pants are immodest on women. For years this was an issue as riding pants became popular among the French and the English. Christian ministers condemned women wearing riding pants and so it was common to see Christian women on horse back in dresses. Women who rode wearing riding pants were often regarded as provocative and immodest. This cultural standard based on Christian principles found in Scriptures continued on until the 20th Century. During WWI and WWII women were often forced to work in factories supporting the war effort while their husbands were off fighting the war. Women had to wear men’s uniforms in most circumstances. And soon it became a sign of liberation and independence, industriousness, and strength for women to wear work pants. Soon this “stylized” independence caught the eyes of gender bending fashion designers who sought to establish a line of “women’s pants”, and suits to “equalize” women in the work place and abroad. This was just one of many attacks on gender roles and models in our society. Today we’ve had women’s pants available for several generations and many Christian women don’t remember the scandal women’s pants originally provoked among Christian circles. They were never taught the standards of Christian modesty for women as previous generations were. So to most contemporary Christian women it’s not even an issue on their radar. They have embraced this world’s definition of Christian modesty instead of turning to Scripture and how it has been practiced for centuries. The revealing of the leg or thigh (including the inseam between a woman’s legs) is regarded as nakedness in Scripture. This revealing can be outright uncovering or it can be a revealing of shape and female form under crotch-knit clothing. This is why Orthodox Jews, Conservative Jews, Amish, Mennonite, Shakers, Quakers, Anabaptists, Baptists, Pentecostals, Church of God, early Nazarenes, Methodists, Wesleyans, and countless others have always embraced the biblical standard against women wearing crotch-knit garments…i.e….pants. If it’s crotch-knit bringing the woman’s form into visibility…it’s nakedness....immodesty.Like it or not, that’s the Biblical standard based on Biblical principles. “Come down, and sit in the dust, O virgin daughterof Babylon . . . make bare the leg, uncover thethigh…. Thy nakedness shall beuncovered, yea, thy shame shall be seen” (Isaiah47:1-3).Revealing the leg or “thigh” (including inseam) is nakedness and biblically speaking it is a shame (through outright exposure or even through clothing). “In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel…” (I Timothy 2:9).The principle is there. The vast majority of Christian women down through the ages have acknowledged this. Are you proposing that biblical principles and 2000 years of Christian teaching and practice based on these principles are wrong and that our modern “liberated” women’s fashion of pop culture which you embrace is right? If you wish to wear pants…that’s entirely up to you. You alone will stand before your Lord and be judged according to possessing your vessel in honor as a woman. You alone will have to stand before your Lord having either held or rejected biblical principles of modesty. As for me and my house…we will serve the Lord. It’s not a burden to serve him. If a woman cannot give up worldliness for modesty it’s debatable if she’s truly giving Christ “all”. “All” would include how she dresses. I’ve been a Pentecostal preacher for 12 years and in my time as a preacher I’ve seen few women reject the truth after tasting the Holy Ghost just because we teach that women’s pants are immodest. Most women who have embraced these biblical principles are humble women of God who will testify to you that they have much peace having surrendered all to Jesus, including the way they dress. You have no fear of Jesus being displeased if you follow biblical principles embraced by Christianity going all the way back to the first century. Would Mary, Christ’s mother, wear Levi’s, Wranglers, or a pant suit to synagogue? I put before you a resounding “NO”, because they wouldn’t wear that which was crotch-knit in accordance with Deuteronomy 22:5. I believe there is a special blessing for women who embrace principles of biblical modesty. And I know from preaching in various churches that the degree of personal consecration has an impact on the level of anointing a corporate body has. Worldliness in regards to dress, appearance, attitudes, and values will always feed the flesh and quench the Spirit. A woman may not go to Hell over pants…but at the end of the day it will be just you and Jesus. Will you want to stand before him having been a model of Christian modesty….or a justification of worldly fashion?Just try it. Fold up your pants for one month and wear skits and dresses. You’ll notice a difference in your prayer life, in your anointing, and even in how your presence impacts others. My wife (when we first began living according to biblical modesty) was amazed with how differently people treated her. She said that she was treated and respected her more like…a godly woman. Here’s another story telling another reason why Christians (namely Christian women) do well to keep themselves separate from this world and its fashions and customs….My wife was shopping at Wal-Mart and as she was leaving the store a young woman approached her in the parking lot. The young girl was crying and asked if my wife would talk to her. My wife invited her to Applebee’s (across the parking lot) for coffee so they could talk. This young lady sat with my wife and poured out her heart. She had run away from home with her boy friend, got caught up in some things and just broke up with him. She wanted to return home but was afraid because her daddy was a pastor. She wanted prayer and someone on her side. My wife told her how I was a preacher and how we’d be glad to help her as best as we could and how she should forgive herself and return home. My wife asked, “If you don’t mind me asking, why did you stop and ask me to pray with you?” The young lady said, “I could tell you were a Christian.” My wife said, “How did you know?” The young lady said, “My mom is a devout Christian…and she dressed like you. The moment I looked at you in the store I knew you were a Christian and would pray for me.” You see this wandering soul was drifting through life’s dark night and I’m sure many Christian women walked right past her that day…but she knew my wife was a Christian. How? By the way she dressed. This lost young lady was wondering in the night and it was the light of Christian principles of modesty in practice that guided her in. Isn’t God awesome! “Wherefore come out from among them, and be yeseparate, saith the Lord, and touch not the uncleanthing; and I will receive you. . . . Having therefore thesepromises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves fromall filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holinessin the fear of God” (II Corinthians 6:17; 7:1). We are the light of the world. Sometimes blending in and looking like the world dims that light.