Featured Does Your Church Have A Dress Code?

I was gonna give it to you with both barrels, but then I saw your avatar and thought better of it...:smilewinkgrin:

 

I catch metaphorical bullets in my teeth and spit them back at ya. :smilewinkgrin:

 

Not sure where you've come up with convicted1 as needing to cool off and blowing a gasket.

I could imagine that the hypothetical situation of how he would react at seeing an elder in a dress would be how you would react seeing a woman in slacks.

You may be out on a limb with your interpretation of Dt. 22:5.

Consider the following:

http://www.actseighteen.com/articles/women-pants.htm

Perhaps you're incorrect? Legalistic? Some are proud and self-righteous and feel secure in their obedience to man made rules (or what they FEEL is from God in their interpretation such as Dt. 22:5).

The only confidence we should have is in Christ and in Him alone, and in that He has fulfilled the Law for us. Most whom I know who practice this no pants on women feel they are righteous and despise others -- Luke 18:9 (who don't subscribe to their legalism).

So I ask, does not wearing pants by a woman make them justified, righteous, holy, good? I certainly hope not. All of that is from being in Christ, not of choosing not to wear a pair of slacks. To think that not wearing pants by a woman does this is nothing but asceticism and commands of men. There is our part of being sanctified which does not add to the final aspect given in Christ at redemption, but not one word in the NT talks of this or shows that women not wearing pants is the answer. To believe that is ridiculous.

I see the entire pants on women thing as commands of men and refuted in Colossians 2:18-23. To enforce such a teaching on others is legalism. To look down on other believers who do not is to disobey this -- Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves. Php. 2:3. It is the opposite of that passage and is glorying or vainglory.

Further, to do so is to also place others under the law. I hope you also don't wear blended clothing and that you stone adulterers and others who were commanded to be stoned. Either do all 613 commandments or live under grace. There's only freedom in the latter not the former. If ANYTHING we do makes us feel secure other than Christ and Him alone we are in serious error brother.

 

We don't have a dress code. To implement one would be foolish.

I recall a Pharisaical church that had a sign out front 'If you're a woman and are not wearing a dress, you are NOT welcome at this church'.

Or skirt. Whatever. Basically if you're wearing pants stay away. That doesn't even remotely bring the fragrance of Christ. It's shameful self-righteousness.

It's fundie ignorance. It's fundie nonsense. Grow up.

 

You haven't addressed anything at all. You are simply dancing around the issue. What the specific dress for man and women at the time the Scripture was written has nothing to do with the issue. Look at what the Scripture says Willis:

Deuteronomy 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.

The distinction is between what men wear and what women wear, not what form it takes. The Scripture clearly states that women shall not wear a man's clothes and men shall not wear women's clothes. As I stated earlier:

In fact for several hundred years men have worn pants and women have worn dresses. Therefore, women wearing pants are doing so contrary to what Scripture states. Similarly a man wearing a dress would be doing that which is contrary to Scripture. So now please answer the question I asked you earlier and I will respond to your question about my wife being excluded for wearing pants in public.

It is a fact that women are more and more assuming the roles in the Church that are reserved for men such as preachers/pastors/Elders/deacons, etc and sadly man is willing to abandon those roles to women! So I guess that women really are wearing the pants not only in the family but in the Church.

Some more recent translations of Deuteronomy 22:5:

ASV A woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment; for whosoever doeth these things is an abomination unto Jehovah thy God.

NASB “A woman shall not wear man’s clothing, nor shall a man put on a woman’s clothing; for whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD your God.

GLT There shall not be the thing of a man on a woman, nor shall a man put on a woman’s garment. For whoever does these things is an abomination to Jehovah your God.

YLT ‘The habiliments of a man are not on a woman, nor doth a man put on the garment of a woman, for the abomination of Jehovah thy God is any one doing these.

NIV A woman must not wear men’s clothing, nor a man wear women’s clothing, for the LORD your God detests anyone who does this.

 

Brother, God told Samuel that man looks upon man's appearance, but He looks upon the heart(1 Sam. 16:7). It says "that women adorn themselves in modest apparrel, with shamefacedness and sobriety, not with broided hair, and also w/o gold, pearls and costly array"(1 Timothy 2:9). So are you going to toss out the women who look like "Liberace" with all those rings on their fingers?

You are over applying Deut. 22:5. If you're gonna apply it, you need to keep sheep, oxen, doves, and goats. You need to build a temple and fashion it like Exodus 26-28.

The Union assoc has indoctrinated you whilst in your youth. One isn't more pious by coming to church in a dress. One isn't out of order by wearing pants. If you're gonna accept Deut. 22:5, then thre's 613 commands you need to follow, too.

Btw, you still haven't answered my question. I have answered you every time, and I expect the same favor from you.

If they turned your wife out of church for cutting her hair and/or wearing a pair of pants, would you stay at that church?

 

Brother Baker, I have answered you the best I know how, and using scriptures to support it. We live under the Grace Covenant now, and it states for women to adorn themselves in modest apparel(1Tim. 2:9). To state modest apparel for women is a dress is quite a stretch, imo. Even after Jesus ascended, men and women wore robes. Even Aaron wore the equivalence of shorts in the "holiest of holies"(Exo. 28:42). It covered him from the loins to the thighs. Sure sounds like shorts to me.

Men had added things to the church that should have never been allowed. Excluding women for wearing dresses and cutting hair isn't biblical.

 

"In fact for several hundred years men have worn pants and women have worn dresses. Therefore, women wearing pants are doing so contrary to what Scripture states. Similarly a man wearing a dress would be doing that which is contrary to Scripture. So now please answer the question I asked you earlier and I will respond to your question about my wife being excluded for wearing pants in public."

Now, I don't know about where OldRegular goes to church but where I go to church we know the difference between male clothing and female clothing. Men don't dress like women and women don't dress like men and it has nothing to do with pants. Based on historical tradition, cultural practice, and his own opinion you he has build an unbiblical argument? A proper interpretation of the scripture is very simple. A man should not dress as if he were a woman nor should a woman dress as if she were a man. Now I don't know about Old Regular but in my home my wife's pants are much different than mine. The are cut differently. They are more frilly. Obviously they are pants made for a woman and they pertain to a woman. I don't wear her pants because I am not a woman. The pants that I wear are cut for a man. They are plain old Levi's and plain khakis. They pertain to a man because they are made for a man to wear. That's why my wife doesn't wear them.

 

Thank you...:thumbs:

 

You are not telling me anything I don't know!

That is absolute nonsense and you should know that if you don't.

You should be ashamed of yourself Elder Willis for that snide remake about the Old Regular Baptists. Who indoctrinated you!

You are evading the issue by throwing out nonsensical claims.

You have not yet answered the following question!

When you do so we can continue the discussion!

 

Only in your religious world is this true. In most of the western world, to include most conservative churches, this is not so. In most any conservative churches men dress like men and women dress like women and it has nothing to do with whether a woman wears a dress or not. According to you logic a Scottish man would be wrong to wear a kilt because, in essence, it is a skirt (dress) and only women (exclusively) should wear such items. :tonofbricks:

 

yep, pants/shirt/shoes!

 

If you had read my posts you would have noted I specifically excluded the Scots, when speaking of western culture, because of the kilts. Now tell all of us, just when did you start wearing dresses or skirts to Church meeting. I hope you wore a blouse with that skirt!

 

I have much respect for Gill. He apparently was a great Hebrew scholar and could write more words with a quill than most with a word processor. However, I do not agree with him on his exegesis, particularly given the construct of the sentence. Please note that I also presented several modern translations, included the beloved of many Baptists the NIV, and none talk about the weapons, etc. of men.

So preacher, I assume your moniker means something, have you stood before the congregation in a dress or skirt and blouse? I hope not a skirt only! Let me know when you do and perhaps I can make the trip.

Of course saying that Deuteronomy 22:5 was part of the ceremonial law is nonsense and I don't see it in the Ten Commandments either!

 

Mrs. Mohler is correct. There must be a sense of decorum in the meeting of the Church for worship. I illustrated in an earlier post how relaxing of a dress code at a workplace resulted in chaotic dress by the women. No one can deny that the same thing is taking place in the meeting of the Church for worship, among both men and women.

Someone posted that the soccer team came to a service wearing their uniforms. Fine, that is no problem since the soccer uniforms my Grandson and Granddaughter wore were discrete, modest if you prefer. But now suppose that a group of young teenagers came from swim practice wearing their swimsuits. Will anyone assert that such dress in a worship service is acceptable, particularly since most teen age girls wear mini bikinis and boys wear shin tight shorts. I don't go to the beach but thongs seem to be popular from what is shown on TV!

For years young teenage girls and young women have worn skirts or dresses so short that the preacher standing in the pulpit must avert his eyes when these young ladies are sitting in pews and that is a fact. Same goes for the males in the congregation. This is simply not right and pious words from those who want to ignore certain Scripture does not make it right. And the problem will only get worse. It would be beneficial if all would read the words of the Apostle Paul to Timothy in 1 Timothy 2:9. I believe he recommends "modest apparel". Of course that was in "Biblical times" and some seem to think that is irrelevant now in the "modern arena"!

 

Modesty and decorum are 2 separate issues.

James 2:2 speaks to the exact opposite of this "decorum" you speak of.

Modesty issues by all means need to be taken care of inside the church.

And t-shirts with offensive language would fall under another category also.

I've been in churches where they say a man should wear a shirt and tie. They would scoff at whether or not everyone could afford a suit and tie, when I brought it up.

Let me tell you something, there is a REASON people who can't afford a suit and tie don't show up. These legalistic churches do a great job making sure sinners don't show up for services.

 

Unless one considers wearing formal clothes to church to be a sign of respect, I fail to see what is important about it. On that area, it's rather up to individual conscience.
While the Bible certainly says to dress modestly, it says nothing about looking formal. Actually modesty isn't just about covering up certain body areas, it's also not trying to overly draw attention to yourself. Dressing in a way to purposefully draw much attention to yourself, even if it's respectable clothing, is also immodest. (Not that you have to look exactly like everyone else--that's not what I mean. Not at all.)
In a church where members were expected to dress formally, I would, even if I wouldn't get in trouble for showing up in jeans and a t-shirt.

 

Listen old sport. You can't tell me anything about people who can't afford a suit! I grew up during the depression where some people rode a horse, a horse and wagon, or the bed of a pickup truck to get to a meeting of the Church. They wore the best they had and the women dressed modestly as both men and women should.

 

Actually James 2:2ff is condemning the preferential treatment of the rich in the worship service.

James 2:2-7
2. For if there come unto your assembly a man with a gold ring, in goodly apparel, and there come in also a poor man in vile raiment;
3. And ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing, and say unto him, Sit thou here in a good place; and say to the poor, Stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool:
4. Are ye not then partial in yourselves, and are become judges of evil thoughts?
5. Hearken, my beloved brethren, Hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he hath promised to them that love him?
6. But ye have despised the poor. Do not rich men oppress you, and draw you before the judgment seats?
7. Do not they blaspheme that worthy name by the which ye are called?

The Apostle Paul also has some choice words about this issue.

1 Corinthians 1:25-29
25. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
26. For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:
27. But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
28. And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:
29. That no flesh should glory in his presence.

 

But this decorum you speak of... decorum changes with culture. You can't preach decorum, and mix it up with modesty.