Should Women Wear Pants?

[treeoflife]

(Aquila;53975)
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]

(treeoflife;53977)
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...

And 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]

(kriss;53989)
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]

(kriss;53989)
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]

(Aquila;54050)
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.

 

[Aquila]

(treeoflife;54049)
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]

(treeoflife;54058)
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.

 

[treeoflife]

(Aquila;54063)
You’re argument above is like one I heard from another some time back.
Different argument, because today we know it has serious and obvious health problems related to it. However, if you were to bring the same issue up a few hundred years ago, it would not have been an issue, as no health issues were associated w/ smoking. Also, nicitine could be certainly considered an addictive drug.
Well…here you are presenting the same argumentation of justification.
No I'm not. Totally different. But, if you want to link them to justify your choice in convincing others of an unscriptural possition, that is your choice.

 

[Aquila]

(treeoflife;54069)
Different argument, because today we know it has serious and obvious health problems related to it. However, if you were to bring the same issue up a few hundred years ago, it would not have been an issue, as no health issues were associated w/ smoking. Also, nicitine could be certainly considered an addictive drug. No I'm not. Totally different. But, if you want to link them to justify your choice in convincing others of an unscriptural possition, that is your choice.
My point is that you're not going to take this subject seriously unless I find a verse that specifically mentions "pants". Even though there are verses that clearly indicate that revealing the form or figure of the leg and thigh (including the inseam between a woman's legs) is immodest from a biblical perspective. A modest dress or skirt is typically far more modest than even the most modest of women's pants.

 

[treeoflife]

(Aquila;54071)
My point is that you're not going to take this subject seriously unless I find a verse that specifically mentions "pants". Even though there are verses that clearly indicate that revealing the form or figure of the leg and thigh (including the inseam between a woman's legs) is immodest from a biblical perspective. A modest dress or skirt is typically far more modest than even the most modest of women's pants.
So you believe that *typically* this is true. This means that though it is *typically* true that a dress is more modest than a pair of pants, in your experience, it is then *possible* for it to not be true in all cases. That being said, a skirt *can be* immodest... and even more immodest than woman's pants. Does that not mean that pants, in and of themselves, are not immodest, and a skirt, in and of itself, is not modest? But, since each person can wear a skirt as she chooses, modestly or immodestly, or wear a pair of pants as she chooses, modestly or immodestly, it is up to the individual whether or not she or he will dress modestly, and not the skirt/pants themselves making the wearer modest or immodest?This is why I can't cast a blanketing statement that says "pants are immodest." It is not true.

 

[Aquila]

(treeoflife;54073)
So you believe that *typically* this is true. This means that though it is *typically* true that a dress is more modest than a pair of pants, in your experience, it is then *possible* for it to not be true in all cases. That being said, a skirt *can be* immodest... and even more immodest than woman's pants. Does that not mean that pants, in and of themselves, are not immodest, and a skirt, in and of itself, is not modest? But, since each person can wear a skirt as she chooses, modestly or immodestly, or wear a pair of pants as she chooses, modestly or immodestly, it is up to the individual whether or not she or he will dress modestly, and not the skirt/pants themselves making the wearer modest or immodest?This is why I can't cast a blanketing statement that says "pants are immodest." It is not true.
Biblically speaking pants frame a woman’s “thigh” (namely the inseam between her legs with a crotch-knit profile). This was strictly for men’s inner garments in biblical times, women didn’t wear crotch-knit garments. Exposing, revealing, accentuating the leg and thigh of a woman (including the inseam between her legs) is biblically immodest. So pants are immodest. There are skirts and dresses that are immodest also...primarily because they reveal or accentuate the same features through length, tightness, or slits. So one can say that pants, mini-skirts, dresses (or skirts) with high slits on the side, back, or front are all in violation of biblical modesty. One can include cleavage and other things that immodest clothes may accentuate. So these are all lumped together in that they violate the same biblical principles. The only articles of clothing that fulfill the biblical principles that have been embraced for nearly 2000 years in Christian culture is a modest dress or skirt on a woman. That means it should not fit so tightly as to accentuate her form, it length shouldn’t be so high as to expose the thigh (anything above the knee) while standing OR sitting. Also no slits should be such as to reveal any portion of the tithe (including anything between the legs above the knee). These fit the biblical understanding of female modesty. We have over 2000 years of Christian commentary on modesty in dress for women. Only within the past couple generations do we see a departure from women adorning themselves with Christian modesty in the church. Immodest:Low cut or revealing blouses or dressesPantsMini-SkirtsSkirts and/or dresses with high cut slits in the sides, front, or backEssentially anything that accentuates the shame and or form of a woman from her knees up, including the inseam between her legs. Modest:High cut blouses or dresses that do not reveal anything blow the collar bone through outright exposure or tightnessBlouses and/or dresses with sleeve length and tightness sufficient enough not to reveal sides of breasts if hands are raisedDresses and/or skirts that cover all aspects of a woman’s thighs (both inner and outer thigh) without being so tight as to reveal or accentuate formWhile some pants are not as immodest as some dresses…pants are still immodest according to biblical and historical Christian standards of modesty. If you want to wear pants, that’s your choice. I know many humble and submissive women of God who love the Lord so much they also allow His Word to directly guide their adornment. The way we dress is also a form of worship and consecration. What makes an article of clothing immodest is what it accentuates or reveals. Women’s pants reveal the female form in a way that violates all traditional Christian norms of modesty in that they are crotch-knit and reveal and often accentuate a woman’s bottom and inner and outer thighs by virtue of their very cut. I often ask these questions…Is it crotch-knit? Yes. Does it reveal the inner thigh in any fashion that accentuates the curvature, form, or shape of the inner leg, hips, or buttocks? YesIf the answer is yes to these questions, then they are immodest. I will not endorse them as acceptable under my ministry. No hard feelings, I just sincerely believe that the Bible addresses this. There are these things called culottes. These culottes are crotch-knit yet they fall in a manner that when a woman is standing they may appear to be a skirt. One wouldn’t know they were crotch-knit unless the woman was to horse back ride or do jumping jacks. These meet the biblical standard. But women’s pants violate nearly all of the primary concerns regarding Christian modesty for women. That’s why the Christian community vehemently rejected women’s pants when they first came out. Sadly, popular culture has shaped our views on this more than the Bible and our hunger for Christian modesty. I do not want to offend you, but as a preacher I have to be straight with you. The standards embraced by the ancient Hebrews, Jews of Christ’s time, the Church Fathers, Catholics, Puritans, Quakers, Amish, Anabaptists, German Baptists, American Baptists, Wesleyans, Methodists, Nazarenes, Churches of God, and historic Pentecostals are all based on sound biblical principles that went relatively unchallenged until the 20th Century. If you wear pants I don’t think you’re going to Hell or that you’re unsaved. However, I do believe that you will be completely undone when you realize how immodest these things are in the eyes of the Lord when receiving your reward before Christ’s bema seat. When Christ reveals the thoughts and feelings the way you dressed provoked in men around you. Of course you can’t control a man’s every thought…but the way women dress does have some impact and there is some degree of responsibility to be borne. And my greatest fear is that you might loose a degree of reward before your Lord by buying into the world’s standards of modesty…which are actually very immodest. My wife used to wear pants all the time. She started wearing modest skirts and dresses as a sacrifice to the Lord when going to church. Then she began wearing them in her daily life and gave up wearing pants entirely. She has told me the way she is treated when wearing a skirt is far different from the way she’s treated when she was wearing pants. Also men tend to treat her more like a “lady” and not don’t gawk at her behind when she walks by or “buddy-buddy” her like she’s one of the guys; because she’s adorned with a modest dress. The most they can see is her lower calves and her ankles. And she has some outfits that are “power suits” (highly professional) with skirts when at work. She has even stated that people have changed the way the talk around her because one look at her says, “Christian woman”. Whereas when wearing pants and looking like everyone else they poo-pooed her presence at times. The seriously you take your Christian faith and practice the more seriously others will take it also. Give biblical modesty a try. Not legalistically but biblically, as a personal degree of consecration. Do it for a week or a month. I’m certain you’ll experience a spiritual dimension in being a Christian woman that you’re missing out on right now. God bless.

 

[treeoflife]

My wife used to wear pants all the time. She started wearing modest skirts and dresses as a sacrifice to the Lord when going to church. Then she began wearing them in her daily life and gave up wearing pants entirely. She has told me the way she is treated when wearing a skirt is far different from the way she’s treated when she was wearing pants. Also men tend to treat her more like a “lady” and not don’t gawk at her behind when she walks by or “buddy-buddy” her like she’s one of the guys; because she’s adorned with a modest dress. The most they can see is her lower calves and her ankles. And she has some outfits that are “power suits” (highly professional) with skirts when at work. She has even stated that people have changed the way the talk around her because one look at her says, “Christian woman”. Whereas when wearing pants and looking like everyone else they poo-pooed her presence at times. The seriously you take your Christian faith and practice the more seriously others will take it also.
I'm glad that is what the Lord has had you and your wife do, for you.Biblical modesty has nothing to do with pants. Isaiah 47:1-3, which you use to a thigh reference, is a stretch to say the least.

“Come down, and sit in the dust, O virgin daughter of Babylon, sit on the ground: there is no throne, O daughter of the Chaldeans: for thou shalt no more be called tender and delicate. Take the millstones, and grind meal: uncover thy locks, make bare the leg, uncover the thigh, pass over the rivers. Thy nakedness shall be uncovered, yea, thy shame shall be seen: I will take vengeance, and I will not meet thee as a man."​

The virgin also was to take the millstones and grind meal. Is grinding meal immodest? What about passing over rivers? Is this immodest as well?Fact is, whether a person is a virgin or not, having their nakedness uncovered, as God illustrates, is embaracing. It is a picture of what we normally cover up, being brought into light. Furthermore, the leg and thigh are both covered in every pair of pants I have ever seen. There is no connection between Isaiah, modesty, and pants. You cannot draw the connection out of the verse... but I do see you drawing your personal convinction into the verse, which that is wrong to do.We will give Biblical modesty a chance. Have been for awhile. And, we will do it in pants. You are free to do the same. Just don't be immodest about it.

 

[Aquila]

(treeoflife;54086)
I'm glad that is what the Lord has had you and your wife do, for you.Biblical modesty has nothing to do with pants. Isaiah 47:1-3, which you use to a thigh reference, is a stretch to say the least.

“Come down, and sit in the dust, O virgin daughter of Babylon, sit on the ground: there is no throne, O daughter of the Chaldeans: for thou shalt no more be called tender and delicate. Take the millstones, and grind meal: uncover thy locks, make bare the leg, uncover the thigh, pass over the rivers. Thy nakedness shall be uncovered, yea, thy shame shall be seen: I will take vengeance, and I will not meet thee as a man."​

The virgin also was to take the millstones and grind meal. Is grinding meal immodest? What about passing over rivers? Is this immodest as well?Fact is, whether a person is a virgin or not, having their nakedness uncovered, as God illustrates, is embaracing. It is a picture of what we normally cover up, being brought into light. Furthermore, the leg and thigh are both covered in every pair of pants I have ever seen. There is no connection between Isaiah, modesty, and pants. You cannot draw the connection out of the verse... but I do see you drawing your personal convinction into the verse, which that is wrong to do.We will give Biblical modesty a chance. Have been for awhile. And, we will do it in pants. You are free to do the same. Just don't be immodest about it.
I'm just old fashioned I guess. I believe pants accentuate the very things God expects a woman to cover. Of course most men don't complain...and that feeds this radically independent spirit. Women, believing they are free...come into bondage and exploitation. I'm so thankful my wife hasn't bought into all this modern fashion stuff. She refuses to be exploited by our society.

 

[Christina]

I repeat 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.

 

[Guestman]

In the year 1473 B.C.E., just before the nation of Israel entered the land of Canaan after having wandered for forty years in the wilderness, Moses gave "reminders" to them. Due to the gross sexual perversions that existed in the land of Canaan, such as incest, sodomy, and bestiality, Moses told the Israelites that "no garb of an able-bodied man should be put upon a woman, neither should an able-bodied man wear the mantle of a woman; for anybody doing these things is something detestable to Jehovah your God."(Deut 22:5)

The Canaanites also practiced “sacred” prostitution by male and female temple prostitutes, but God prohibited the bringing of “the hire of a harlot or the price of a dog” into his house, “because they are something detestable.”(Deut 23:17, 18) The sim·lah´ (Heb.), “mantle,” was the outermost garment worn by the majority. The mantle, comparable in some respects to our shawl, could be used as a covering (Ge 9:23), as bed clothing (Ex 22:27; De 22:17), and to bind or wrap up articles.(Ex 12:34; Jg 8:25; 1Sam 21:9)

The sim·lah´ was worn by both men and women, the woman’s being distinguishable from the man’s, perhaps in size, color, and decoration such as embroidery. God commanded that a woman should not wear a man’s garment, nor a man a woman’s mantle; this command doubtless being given in order to prevent sex abuses. Hence, wearing dress of the opposite sex (to deceive for immoral purposes) was prohibited. Women were not to wear the clothing of a man or a man the clothing of a woman, a practice that might open the way for immorality, including homosexuality or lesbianism, which is becoming more and more common in many lands.

Thus, the evident purpose of this law was to prevent sex abuses and confusion of sexual identity. In appearance and attire, normally a man wants to look like a male and a woman like a female. For an Israelite to act contrary to this internal sense of propriety could have led to homosexuality. Although both men and women then wore robelike garments, there was a difference between the garb of males and that of females.

Similarly, in some parts of the earth today, both men and women wear slacks, though the styles differ for each sex. The principle in this text would not rule out a Christian woman’s wearing slacks sometimes, as when working around the house or on a farm. And according to local custom and necessity, slacks may be the desired attire in very cold climates. The Bible counsels women to “adorn themselves in well-arranged dress, with modesty and soundness of mind.”(1 Timothy 2:9, 10)

 

[revdw76]

(E Nomine;18228)So I could wear a skirt as long as I'm not attempting to atract men towards myself?Only if you have nice legs:)

seriously 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; even in the kilts it is hard to mistake a Scottish man for a woman.

 

[revdw76]

(Veronica Moser;53792)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.

Unfortunately this morning there was a woman at my church that was wearing a skirt shorter than yours. as in barely covering backside. Being in a farm community many people come to our church wearing blue jeans. I myself try to dress in slacks and a knit pullover shirt most of the time but sometimes I have to wear sweatpants because of extreme swelling in my legs from the CHF and PAD I suffer from.