women wear skirts at all times?

That very well may be true, but it is equally true that some people don't want to be under the control of anyone else.

Kate, this is obviously a point of contention with you. I'm not trying to change your mind; I'm simply answering a question that was asked by the one who began this thread. If you want to wear pants, by all means, that is between you and the Lord.

I have a hunch that you might feel ostracized by those women who wear only pants. If they show a bias toward you for what you wear then they are wrong.

I also have a hunch that you stereotype those of us who do subscribe to that standard as "control freaks" and "holier-than-thou" Christians. That attitude is equally as wrong.

 

Well, to be honest... I bought some stuff to refinish my piano and some pieces of furniture around the house that really need it. And I was thinking of buying some really baggy men's overalls to wear so I don't mess up my cloths. And I couldn't help remembering your coulotte type coveralls Helen that you said you wear for yard work and the like.

I think that if a woman wants to wear dresses all the time...more power to her. If a woman doesn't... to each their own. I like the freedom to decide what I will wear for whatever the occassion calls for.

Why are there so many "clothing" threads cropping up lately? Are we bored?

Laurenda

 

Pastor Bob, how can you use the Deutoronomy passage to support no pants. I hear this from people alot. Does your wife wear a button up shirt? If so, she is trying to look like a man and it is an abomination.

Those items of clothing that are known to belong to the opposite sex is what is forbidden. A man wearing a bra is forbidden (if anyone wants to argue that point, I won't return the debate).

 

Good point.

 

I think Pastor Bob gave most of the answers to your questions. What I would like to add is that women used to do all kinds of things in a dress. If what needed to be done was to show anything under the dress, then that was something that the man should do.

I just saw the movie on tv, "Journey to the Center of the Earth," you remember, the movie that used to be on Family Classics. I don't know the names of the actors, but the woman that went to the center of the earth had a dress on. It was a full dress, down to the ground. She went spelunking with the group, and not one commented on her attire.

I would also add that the Lord had an idea for proper attire in Genesis, when He dressed Adam and Eve. He was concerned for the priests attire, and also their undergarments. Nudity was covered, and modesty has need for concern. He also points out the need to have women modest. If it weren't important, He wouldn't mention it.

I wear skirts and dresses all the time, as do my daughters. We don't have the question of what is proper, nor do we worry about modesty. We do not dress to offend, nor cause men to stumble. Chivalry often becomes the norm for me, even among strangers, because I am treated as a lady by men. They don't expect me to carry heavy items, or even open a door for me, though I am strong and not handicapped.

Some things I don't do are: climb ladders in the presence of men, ride a horse, do flips (especially in church ), or hang upside down on monkey bars.

 

The Deuteronomy passage is a spring board for this principle. The verse tells us that women should not wear that which pertains to a man and neither should a man put on a women's garment.

These mandates could eaisly be reversed to say men should not wear that which pertains to a women, neither should a woman put on a man's garment. The command goes both ways.

The Hebrew word for "garment" is simlah. It has the idea of a covering which assumes the shape of the object beneath. I believe that God's intent was that our clothing be gender distinct.

What is the obvious gender disctinction that is most easily recognized even from a distance? Go to any airport in the world; go to any restaurant in the world; go to any amusement park in the world and see how they portray the gender distinction on the restroom doors. Without exception the ladie's room is identified by a figure wearing a dress; the men's room is always identified by a figure wearing pants.

This verse tells us that God is most certainly interested in what we wear. We must then search the Scriptures for clarification on what God deems appropriate for men and women.

I agree. And I think that pants fall into that category. It has been said already in this thread:

The point is that every time breeches are mentioned, it is a man that is wearing them. Absolutely no where in the Word of God do you find a woman wearing breeches.

I Timothy 2:9 tells us that women are to adorn themselves in modest apparel. The word "apparel" is the Greek word καταστολε (katastole). It is actually two Greek words kata which means, "to put down," and stole which means, "a long fitting gown or robe."

The Word of God is clear that God allows breeches for men and and long fitting gowns and robes for women.

Again, this is my conclusion based upon my study. If you disagree, that's fine. What you wear has no bearing whatsoever on your salvation. I have to lead my family in the way I feel God would have me lead them.

BTW, my wife was wearing dresses and skirts long before I first met her.

 

Bob, you failed to answer what I said about shirts. In my opinion, it is no wonder so many people see right through this argument.

I don't remember who mentioned it, but whatever you think of what Hyles-Anderson produced in terms of pastors and missionaries, it has no relevance whatsoever on their stand on pants. To say that a woman could not wear pants in her own home is not only ridiculous, it demonstrates a lack of intelligence on the part of the leadership. We wouldn't want to have the husband look at his wife in a sexual manner now. I bet Jack came up with that one.

 

I agree. Though many here who believe that pants are men's attire have presented their beliefs in a kind manner, they are often attacked and accused of many untrue things. I find this disturbing.

I also find it unfortunate that some here find what others believe about women's clothing as being "silly". You expect us to accept others as they are, and yet you can't seem to do the same without calling names.

It's not that I really are whether you agree with me or not, but I would appreciate the same consideration that you admonish others with.

As for the clothing topics, many who have asked these questions of late are newcomers, and who knows? Maybe they are being led of the Holy Ghost in this very direction. God forbid that any should belittle them in their search.

Julia

 

Shortly I will be updating my webpage with a new tract writteny by a Jewish missionary by the name of Les Potter. Here is a portion of that tract:

Let’s look at another example of dress in the Old Testament Law. Yes, the law, which we are not under in this age of grace. The law of Moses is our schoolmaster and was written for our admonition (1Cor 10:11.) The Law has three parts which teach us about the mind of God. The Ceremonial laws teach us the mind of God in the shadow of those things fulfilled in Christ. The Civil laws teach us the mind of God in the example of societal rule. Much of our modern civil laws today come straight from the Old Testament law of Moses. The Moral laws teach us the mind of God in morality. Every mandate concerning morality is reinforced in the New Testament. What was immoral in the Old Testament is just as immoral today.

So when we read the context of Deuteronomy 22, we see verses dealing with Civil practices (putting battlements on your roof to avoid injury, rules dealing with divorce, punishment of adulterers, rapists, presumption of innocence for rape victims, etc.) Also Ceremonial statutes which teach us object lessons about separation, simplicity, equality and avoiding confusion, etc. This chapter also teaches us about moral issues. Notice in vs. 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.

Notice how God says that a man shall not wear a woman’s garment, but a woman is not to wear anything that even pertains to a man. Garments in the bible and throughout history were always gender specific. The Israelite men of that time wore breeches and/or robes that came to the knee. Women also wore robes, but of a completely different cut and length. Breeches were specifically male attire both in the bible and throughout history.


Now, consider this: in centuries past, there was a practice called breeching wherein young boys were taken out of the clothing worn by both very young boys and girls alike (usually day gowns or dresses with distinguishing features for each gender) and put into breeches or breech hose. This was considered a major rite of passage for boys.

However, young girls continued on in their dresses. There never was a practice of putting girls into breeches. They remained in their dresses.

Just an interesting fact.

Julia

 

Sorry, it was an oversight. The Bible gives us guidelines on what areas of the body must be covered in order to hide our nakedness. A shirt that covers the area of the body from the neck to the waist is appropriate for both men and women. Nowhere in the Bible is there a distinction made for men's and women's shirts. That is a man-made concept which differs greatly from breeches -vs- long fitting gowns or robes that is clearly laid out in the Word of God.

Where in the Word of God does it imply that shirts with buttons are for men or women specifically. The word "shirt" is not found anywhere in the Bible. The concept of a shirt which is gender distinct is not found in the Bible.

Hyles-Anderson College is not the standard; God's Word is. If the staff and faculty of HAC have/had this standard, they have the full right to enforce it. If one does not agree with it, they don't have to attend. Those who chose HAC new full well what they were getting into. I have no problem with it.

Again, when you get your own college, you can make the rules that you wish the students to abide by. We have no idea what reasons they had for such a rule. They very well may have had good reason. I don't think it was as big an issue for those attending as we are making it here. The overwhelming majority of HAC students had that standard before they came to HAC.

 

I respectfully disagree. I have some long, loose pants.

I like to wear dresses and I like to wear pants.

I do have some thermal coveralls that are made for men that will fit over my clothes when I go snowmobiling, fishing or sailing in the winter. I don't think a dress would be appropriate

I really can't answer how women pants really evolved, but I think it did have something to do with the women working in factories during WWII and of course Hollywood actresses were wearing pants back then also.

I remember when I was a child that women worked on the farm and in the fields and pants seemed to be more modest than dresses. I really think that it started with appropriate dress for working.

I don't think it had anything to do with making a statement of independence. Pants were just more comfortable to work in.

My 90 year old mother wore riding pants when she was young to ride horses, but other than that, she has always worn a dress. That is her choice.
She let me wear dresses or pants.

We have been over and over this but maybe some of the new people have some input.

The Bible says that we should dress modestly.

 

I was simply convicted about how I dressed for several months, and I worried about what everyone would think if "Abby suddenly went fanactical" as some people told me, after I started weraing only dresses and skirts, but I realized it was what God wanted that mattered. I was convicted, and untill I did something about that, I was miserable.
I find the study someone presented on the word Katastole really interesting, and I agree with it. I'd never known that till I read that here. But it makes sense.
I have a conviction about it, and I know other girls who do as well, yet I also know other Chritian ladies, godly, saved and serving God, who only wear their dresses to church. So in my opinion, if you're convicted about it, you'd better do it.
Doing things in a dress I found no harder than in pants. Although, I don't have much balance, or natural grace, so when I fall, I'm always careful to make sure my legs are covered. I've never had a problem with that, though because my skirts are so long.
Another thing to remember, is that some skirts or dresses are more revealing than pants, which i find horrible. Can't understand why a young lady would dileberatly show off something that only her husband {wheither that's in the future or not} shoul have the right to see.
And girls, if you think that "The only way I'll get a boyfriend/ husband is if he thinks I look good" think, just know if a guy is attracted to you because of your form, you've attracted the wrong kind. First, he ought to see your testimony of Christ.
And we ought not to do anything that would cause someone else to stumble. If guys are attracted to how a girl dresses, she needs to make sure she dresses in a way that the guy won't be thinking things he shouldn't.
And with this post, I am going to bed. I'm tired. I cleaned out our church nursery practicaly ceiling to floor today, climbing to reach shelves,getting on the floor to get the dust out of the corner, and quite modestly in my skirt.
~Abby

 

Pastor Bob wrote to Katie: I have a hunch that you might feel ostracized by those women who wear only pants. If they show a bias toward you for what you wear then they are wrong.


I don't know about Katie, but I don't know any women who wear ONLY pants! However I think the shoe might fit very well on the opposite foot in terms of those who choose to wear only dresses showing bias towards those who also wear pants...


TheOliveBranch wrote: I wear skirts and dresses all the time, as do my daughters. We don't have the question of what is proper, nor do we worry about modesty. We do not dress to offend, nor cause men to stumble. Chivalry often becomes the norm for me, even among strangers, because I am treated as a lady by men. They don't expect me to carry heavy items, or even open a door for me, though I am strong and not handicapped.

Some things I don't do are: climb ladders in the presence of men, ride a horse, do flips (especially in church ), or hang upside down on monkey bars.

I assume there is also no roller skating or ice skating, because falling down in a skirt is mighty embarrassing (been there done that in high school, trying to be classy!). I assume the girls are not allowed to run or play tag or hide and seek, for skirts get awfully in the way during playtime, and can easily be torn or cause tripping. I assume they are not allowed to climb trees or swing high on swings or play on the monkey bars themselves...

I have done them all, and so have my daughters -- modestly, in pants.

I have not only ridden horses, I have trained them -- modestly, in pants.

I have been a helper meet for my husband by climbing ladders to the roof to help out not only put on the silly roof but clean out gutters, caulk around the chimney, etc. Other men were around, helping us. I was modest -- in pants.

I have an artificial knee that is 23 years old now, and scars from a series of abdominal surgeries. But I lift heavy things when I need to, even though I greatly appreciate it when there is a man around to help. However, after my husband's hernia surgery, there was no way I would allow him to help for a good long time!

But because I enjoy being a girl and I think it shows, doors get opened for me consistently. It's not what I am wearing, it's who I am. I am modest. There is no doubt, no matter what I am wearing, that I am a girl. I don't WANT to be mistaken for a guy, so I make sure I am not, even in overalls.

I love the freedom to be able to work and work hard and still be modest and look like a girl. It doesn't take a dress for me to fulfill both.

But I do love it when I can get dressed up with makeup and stand beside my husband in public and be his support and help there, too. I love the velvet nightgown he got for me a couple of Christmases ago -- but did you folks know that velvet nightgowns used to be the province of rich MEN only?

I wear dresses and skirts a LOT. Probably most of the time. But the freedom not to is something I value highly, for it allows me to do all manner of things modestly, safely, and easily which would not be possible in a dress or skirt.

 

I don't think you can have it both ways. Scriptural principles are universal and non-optional. God isn't telling some folks to wear dresses and others to do what ever is right in their own eyes.

The question is, "Hath God said?"

I think the "long, loose and flowing" crowd is making a great case.

 

Well good for her, thought we weren't going to let hollywood dictate our dress habits acording to an earlier post by a dress only person. Seems that rule is for those who wear pants and not for those who wear dresses only. Different rules I see. Hollywood can dictate your dress as long as it is dresses. humm, smell a rat here.
I'll tell you what I've done farm work and could not think of wearing a dress, ever cut tobacco to buy groceries? Strip it and haul it around the barn? Ever have to fool around with hey(yuck). Ever have to go out in the below 0 temperature in a foot of snow and help your husband cut wood so your children could have heat? Wouldn't think of wearing a dress. No matter what culture you live in comeone wants to punish women for being born female.
edited becaue i left off half a post.

[ March 23, 2003, 01:09 AM: Message edited by: kate B...007 ]

 

Which makes the real question, what was mens and womens clothing at the time that was written, what were they being told not to wear? Were they being told not to wear pants? Bible men wore dresses, so it seems your not anymore biblical then you judge me to be.

Why can't anyone ever get this straight, only priest, not all men, men and women both wearing what we today call dresses, pants did not exsist.

No it is not clear. Only priests wore these breeches, not all men, if they were mens clothing all men in the bible would have been wearing them. Long gowns? Nope sorry, you change scripture on this one, thats no where in the bible, fact is men wore the same clothing design as women, dresses, non one wore pants in the bible times. Don't make up scripture.

What noone ever seems to see when this topic comes up is that the women who wear pants never tell women who only wear dresses that it is wrong, but women who do wear only dresses are always telling the rest of that we are wrong, unglodly, faithless and a whole list of other names. None of us do that to dresses only women, but we aren't give the same consideration.


I don't know a single woman who only wears pants.

[ March 23, 2003, 01:14 AM: Message edited by: kate B...007 ]

 

I do not do those things either. But, I find it intriguing that women of yesteryear did all of their work with dresses on. My great grandmother who made cement bricks, worked a farm, raised 12 children and did many other things wore dresses for all of this work.

And I enjoy looking at paintings of women from the 1800's when all women wore dresses and probably most worked much harder than I do in my home.

 

If it shows your curves it is not going to be modest. Most women do not dress modestly by biblical standards if you look at what a katastole is in Paul's time and he called that modest apparel. Women wore long robes for centuries in countries influenced by the Bible.

Pants for women in this country started because of women challenging men's authority not because of modesty or functionality.

Marlene Dietrich started it in 1914 or so and when asked why she wore men's suits she replied, "Because I am tired of men having all the fun." Hence Hollywood started it.

Note that pants once denoted male authority in the home. "Who wears the pants in your family?"

Women cutting their hair short started in 1927 when Mary Garden, a vocalist "bobbed" her hair. Reason?
"It is one of the last shackles of men's authority over women."

Now, we start getting into other areas other than modesty. Now, we get into rebellion and erasing the roles God put in place. See I Cor 11.

Y'all have fun with this one.

 

[/QB][/QUOTE]Originally posted by kate B...007:
What noone ever seems to see when this topic comes up is that the women who wear pants never tell women who only wear dresses that it is wrong, but women who do wear only dresses are always telling the rest of that we are wrong, unglodly, faithless and a whole list of other names. None of us do that to dresses only women, but we aren't give the same consideration.
[/QB][/QUOTE]

Katie, could you please, for my benefit, show me the posts where someone has said that because you wear pants that you are: ungodly, faithless, and a whole list of other names? As for saying you are wrong, well, that just happens when there are opposing views on what folks believe the Bible says. But I really haven't seen any name calling in this topic.

And, to tell you the truth, I have people tell me quite often that I am wrong for my beliefs. In fact, just by your, and others, posting on this topic, you are telling us that you believe we are wrong in what we believe, though you might not come right out and say it.

Julia

 

You know this is a good idea, girls, then we wouldn't have to diet, watch what we eat, keep slim and trim or at least try to.

We can wear "tent" dresses.

I don't know why we keep going over and over this.

I am treated no differently when I wear a dress than when I wear pants. It is all in one's attitude. I am treated with respect in dresses or pants.