May Christian women wear pants?

[My Pilgrim Way]

I appreciate the points you’ve made and the way you’ve made them. Christians should think seriously about modest, appropriate dress and what changes we may need to make. At work or in some school situations unisex clothing may be required, but women should give some thought as to how to dress distinctively as a woman at other times (again, when not milking cows in -40 degree weather or fishing). Even if it doesn’t involve switching entirely to dresses and skirts. I’m certainly reviewing my own habits of dress again, as I think there are age-related issues of modest dress as well.

I agree, and this should be a topic we revisit often - always reforming in necessary.

I see a lot of androgynous clothing/appearance in the church.

 

[Jie-Huli]

EDIT: In retrospect it was inappropriate for me to put Jie-Huli in the spotlight the way I did in the original version of this post, so I have removed a question I posed. My motive was out of respect for his perceptive interaction here, but to single him out with such a direct question was not prudent. Without further comment, and though they were intended to be complimentary, I have also edited out some remarks I made concerning his church affiliation. I apologize for these things, brother.​

Thank you for your interaction. No offence was taken. Although I should perhaps note that right now I am not primarily attending the church you mentioned in your prior post before deleting, and my views do not necessarily speak for that church. (I think some there would agree and some not.)

It has been a while since I have contributed here, and there may be some outdated biographical information somewhere that I can’t see.

 

[OPC'n]

I will never ever wear a skirt I’ll wear a dress if I feel like it but I will always wear pants. I think I’ll get buried in pants if I’m not cremated

 

[Grant]

I think I’ll get buried in pants if I’m not cremated

Well that would certainly be a strange funeral. Here lies Sarah

 

[Jie-Huli]

For those interested, here is an informative booklet that was actually written for men rather than women. It gives insight into the fashion industry. I think it's good to at least consider these things whether or not someone fully agrees with it.

For the record, modesty is much more than how one dresses and men can be just as immodest with their tight shirts and skinny jeans.

The booklet can be downloaded as a PDF.

http://www.chapellibrary.org/book/cmod/christian-modesty-pollardjeff

Indeed, the topic at hand was women’s dress, but if the topic were men’s dress these days I might have a few things to say too . . .

 

[OPC'n]

Well that would certainly be a strange funeral. Here lies Sarah
View attachment 6334

Haha that was funny

 

[Knecht Christi]

It seems to me that many, if not all of the comments on this thread are assuming a critical matter: Cultural Relativism.

Cultural Relativism (how I am defining it here) teaches that moral principles though objective in the abstract, have no objective practice and must find their appropriate cultural expression.

An example of this ideology (which stems from Modernism) is its interpreting the Scripture to say that modesty, though commanded, is defined by the culture. Thus as a culture is desensitized to certain forms of dress, they meet the standard of modesty. So in an island culture, where bikinis are the accepted norm, those who hold to cultural relativism, to be consistent, must say that Christian women are permitted to wear these things. This also applies to nudist/topless cultures, thus by reductio ad absurdum, we cannot accept this.

The Scriptures teach that modesty is, like all moral truths, objective in its application. Just because a culture has adopted some form of immodest dress (cleavage in the victorian era for example), does not make that less sinful once it no longer becomes shocking, or even becomes an acceptable norm. In fact, one of the reasons why these styles tend to change is that, in order to be provocative, various forms of immodesty must be rotated to ensure their effectiveness after men are desensitized.

The Scriptures and the light of nature (e.g. what shows off the body vs frames the face, causes arrousal, etc.) provide plenty enough instruction on these things to know what modest dress is. (Genesis 24:65, Deuteronomy 22:5, Proverbs 7:10, 2nd Samuel 1, 1st Timothy 2:9, 1st Peter 3:3-4).

Should Christian women wear pants?

No.
1. They are immodest showing off the legs and the buttocks
2. They are very much men's clothing, and historical distance or assimilation of this evil does not make it OK.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/wome...ation_l_5c7ec7f7e4b0e62f69e729ec?guccounter=1
Read the above article (and read the history for yourself) for how our culture sees pants today, they still know.

The biblical approach necessitates Christians dressing in a way that will be set apart from the godless culture around them, rather than following two steps behind a culture that descends further into lascivious obscenity. But is not what a people set apart are called to? Historically, Christians have understood this (Tertullian, John Chrysostom, Ambrose, Calvin, etc.)

"Luxurious clothing that cannot conceal the shape of the body is no more a covering. For such clothing, falling close to the body, takes its form more easily. Clinging to the body as though it were the flesh, it receives its shape and outlines the woman’s figure. As a result, the whole make of the body is visible to spectators, although they cannot see the body itself." - Clement of Alexandria 2.265

For further reading, I would highly recommend the book The Myth of Sexual Equality, by Howard Douglas King. It is nuanced and clear in its exegesis, and careful in its critique. It addresses the subjects of modernism, cultural relativism, and modesty very well. https://www.amazon.com/Myth-Sexual-Equality-Howard-Douglas/dp/1591607205

To those who say: "We cannot take one particular norm, and force it on another society or another time. Christians should be sensible and sensitive, not simply conforming or non-conforming."

Cannot a culture have sin? Would any of us be comfortable applying this idea consistently? Is morality bound in culture and time, if biology and Scripture do not change?

Scripture answers:
"I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service. And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God."

 

[Edward]

If you let a woman wear pants, next thing you know she'll want to go fishing.

I'm sure some hyper-Calvinists would be happy to point out that in EVERY reference to fishers in the New Testament, those catching the fish are male.

On the other hand, her head is covered....

 

[Tom Hart]

I move that this thread be closed for the Lord's Day.

 

[Regi Addictissimus]

I move that this thread be closed for the Lord's Day.

I second that notion.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

I second that notion.

Contact a moderator Monday to reopen. Go by PST.

 

[VictorBravo]

I'm sure some hyper-Calvinists would be happy to point out that in EVERY reference to fishers in the New Testament, those catching the fish are male.

Point duly noted...but rejected by the fisher-woman on the grounds that none of them used fly rods or even a spinning rig like she sometimes does.

On the other hand, her head is covered....

Yes. She has head coverings for all occasions, including when our place of worship is cold (which often happens from the summer A/C).

 

[Contra_Mundum]

No one has advocated, or even hinted at, cultural relativism. Admitting there are cultural variables in play is not abandoning morality or biblical principles. Ethics is a challenging field of application for moral standards, precisely because of the interplay between the fixity of human nature and ordinary fluctuations of human societies. We reject "situational ethics," but we admit the ethics of biblical wisdom. It is appropriate to answer the fool according to his folly, and appropriate to not answer him according to his folly, Prv.26:4-5.

Modesty is a principle, not a six inch ruler, to measure the minimum length of a woman's skirt (to the knee? to the floor?). The Bible isn't the K'ran, with expectations that those who respect it will live as if time stands still in the 1st century A.D. Respect/Love for others, not wishing to cause any to sin (as opposed to just not angering or offending someone) is the timeless, unchanging motive guiding us in the way we dress.

For every limit that is applied as a moral/legal norm, someone will think it's too little. Someone will fetishize the hand, the wrist, the ankle, the face or the neck if that alone is the "exposed skin." He or she will give imagination full vent, based on seeing whatever is accessible. The logical end of an ostensibly objective "remove every temptation" approach is the body-bag burka, with a net face-mask. And notice it's always the women, too, who are commanded to pay the price, far more than men.

Peter was out in his boat, making a living, naked in public (Jn.21:7), O my, the vapours. Time and place? Well then, there goes the objectivity of application because of manifold variables. Work, OK; but not the Games? Only men should watch the Male (only) Olympics? No sports for women? Know their role, and all that? What about hmsx temptations for somebody, despite what someone wears, or doesn't wear?

Clement probably was a valued ancient ethicist in his day. So were the reformers in theirs. So have been dutiful Christian pastors in every age including the present time. But in the USA in the 21st century (unlike Clement's Alexandria) men don't dress in tunics and togas; yet both sexes (still!) tend to wear certain distinctive clothing. Oops, distinctiveness itself could be a sinful prompting; voila, here's an argument for shapeless, unisex garb for everyone.

That is not the way Jesus and the Apostles give us instruction. Here's what the Bible says: Self control. Modesty. Love your neighbor. Human relationships are negotiations; when they come down to merely a bunch of rules of conduct, we've given up on actually living with one another in an endless series of informal accommodations of other people's preferences and weaknesses.

We need some rules. We need some structure, or else again--this time from the other direction--we're no longer living with one another, but living in a state of anarchy, of war and strength. Why would a Christian today wish to resurrect a rule concerning who can wear pants, or first define what "pants" are, and impose it on everyone all the time? Is there a current moral crisis involving pants-wearers?

Pants as basically a unisex item of clothing is a given in our social context. It is how things ARE; and unless one can marshal a careful argument from Scripture that WE NEED A RULE and believing women ought--they have a duty--to shun and repudiate pants as anti-Christian; so that churches everywhere declare, "we have no other custom" (1Cor.11:16) since the apostles... but there is no such apostolic teaching.

We've already encountered somewhere in this thread the "town mouse and the country mouse" realities that prove, regardless of the era, that universal standards of dress don't even work within a national compass of a single generation. Then, there are the variable clothing demands of those who live spread across the world's vastly different climates.

I live with farmers, men and women, and they all wear pants. And in the winter, they all wear insulated coveralls. I think the women are happy they don't feel obligated to put a fake frock on over their Carhartts. The same folk dress up in sex-appropriate suits and dresses fit for other occasions.

There is flaunting one's sex, and there is accepting oneself without shame. Jacob loved Rachel, who was "beautiful of form and appearance," Gen.29:17. How did he know her "form" unless her dress gave clues to it? Was he wrong in being attracted to her? There isn't a hint of that in the text. He was acting like a normal man, interested in marriage, while keeping in bounds. She might not have passed Clement's disapproving eye, but who cares?

Inordinate admiration of another human form is that which passes bounds, and becomes sin; as much as exhibitionism is sin. And that is as much as we can say, except for passing ordinances (when it is in our power) that set reasonable rules and limits in places such as home, school, work, church, etc. Those are "house rules," and house rules vary. We have to handle ourselves under the authority others possess, either exercising self-control or removing ourselves from temptation.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Thread reopened for posting.

 

[ZackF]

I suppose if they fit.

 

[Ed Walsh]

They go so far as to say that, based on that particular scripture, it is a violation of the Fifth and Seventh Commandments for a woman to wear pants. That's pretty serious stuff and in my opinion deserves a studious reply one way or the other.

Some have discussed the motive behind whatever you wear, but I don't think we've touched on the eye of the beholder. For me, as I always tell my beautiful wife, I think she and many women look a lot sexier in a dress than in pants. So much for dressing modestly by insisting on women dressing in only dresses.

I know the following passage is dripping with symbolism, but let's take a quick note how God dresses the woman and future bride He found abandoned in Ezekiel, chapter 16.

Ezekiel 16:8‭-‬14 ESV
"When I passed by you again and saw you, behold, you were at the age for love, and I spread the corner of my garment over you and covered your nakedness; I made my vow to you and entered into a covenant with you, declares the Lord God, and you became mine. Then I bathed you with water and washed off your blood from you and anointed you with oil. I clothed you also with embroidered cloth and shod you with fine leather. I wrapped you in fine linen and covered you with silk. And I adorned you with ornaments and put bracelets on your wrists and a chain on your neck. And I put a ring on your nose and earrings in your ears and a beautiful crown on your head. Thus you were adorned with gold and silver, and your clothing was of fine linen and silk and embroidered cloth. You ate fine flour and honey and oil. You grew exceedingly beautiful and advanced to royalty. And your renown went forth among the nations because of your beauty, for it was perfect through the splendor that I had bestowed on you, declares the Lord God.

To me, passages like this, and there are others, help to explain passages like the standard--let's not look too good girls--passage in 1st Peter 3. I think this is often a misunderstood verse when it comes to the appearance of women and wives in particular. Here are the verses:

1 Peter 3:2‭-‬5 [CSB]
"when they observe your pure, reverent lives. Don’t let your beauty consist of outward things like elaborate hairstyles and wearing gold jewelry or fine clothes, but rather what is inside the heart  — the imperishable quality of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God’s sight. For in the past, the holy women who put their hope in God also adorned themselves in this way, submitting to their own husbands,"

Take note that the verse says not to allow your outward appearance to be the end-all or your beauty. Note what it does not say. It does not say not to wear beautiful clothes, jewelry, or attractive hairstyles. In a way, the verse presupposes that women will try to look attractive, particularly for their husbands. It just teaches that that is not the important thing.

I have never thought that this was a dress down command for women. It is speaking mostly to heart matters. Don't let your appearance be a big deal in your life. It is in your godly Christian heart where your true beauty resides before God and your husband. But I don't think the 1st Peter 3 verse teaches at all that women are not to wear gold jewelry or fine apparel or if your culture dictates a lovely nose ring. But know this: "Charm is deceptive, and beauty is fleeting; but a woman who fears the Lord is to be praised." (Proverbs 31:30 NIV)

=======
Dictated to my tablet so pardon typos that slip through.

 

[arapahoepark]

Better pants than these new shorts ...

 

[Minh]

Better pants than these new shorts ...

I agree with it fully. I don't want to regulate women apparels here. While we should decide which clothing is appropriate for our genders depending on the cultural context, modesty means we should not dress so luxurious or sensually as you note.

 

[Knecht Christi]

No one has advocated, or even hinted at, cultural relativism. Admitting there are cultural variables in play is not abandoning morality or biblical principles.

I didn't say people were abandoning the principles, that is moral relativism.

You very clearly ignored my definition:

"Cultural Relativism (how I am defining it here) teaches that moral principles though objective in the abstract, have no objective practice and must find their appropriate cultural expression."

No one even hinted at the fact that modesty (a moral principle) is subjected to culture? Multiple commenters outright asserted this.

Quoting here regarding modesty (a moral, biblical command):

"You'll get different standards in different parts of the world"

"It depends on the cultural context you live in."

"Times have changed"

"[Modesty is that which is] culturally plain or obvious."

"It is no longer the case that..."

"But at this place and time it isn't."

"Clement was probably a valued ethicist in his day" (ethics is moral, this is assuming that ethics is relative to culture, at least in applying modesty)

"Dress is capable of evolving. The shifting of "style" is proof of it." (referring not only to mode, but to standards of modesty)

"We cannot take one particular norm, and force it on another society or another time. Christians should be sensible and sensitive, not simply conforming or non-conforming."

The final quotation, is asserting that what people wear regarding modesty, is subject (hence subjective) to culture and time. This an assertion of precisely what I defined cultural relativism.

I know some may not like the term, but this is no grounds to redefine it and then plead innocent.

Ethics is a challenging field of application for moral standards, precisely because of the interplay between the fixity of human nature and ordinary fluctuations of human societies. We reject "situational ethics," but we admit the ethics of biblical wisdom. It is appropriate to answer the fool according to his folly, and appropriate to not answer him according to his folly, Prv.26:4-5.

I heartily agree that wisdom is needed, but this passage says nothing about ethics being subjective to culture.

Modesty is a principle, not a six inch ruler, to measure the minimum length of a woman's skirt (to the knee? to the floor?). The Bible isn't the K'ran, with expectations that those who respect it will live as if time stands still in the 1st century A.D. Respect/Love for others, not wishing to cause any to sin (as opposed to just not angering or offending someone) is the timeless, unchanging motive guiding us in the way we dress.

Would you use this logic for other commandments of God? Modesty is based off of Scripture and biology, not whatever culture approves of (most certainly a lascivious one such as ours.

Furthermore, the lack of an exact dress code in the Bible is not the freedom to dress however culture approves. Scripture says far more regarding the specifics of modesty than people are willing to admit. For example, describing the humiliation of the daughter of Babylon as “making bare the leg and uncovering the thigh" (Isaiah 47).

It is also logically fallacious to say that because the application of a principle is unclear, we don't apply it as best we can. The 6th and 7th commandments, for example, require diligent and wise application, this shouldn't make us less zealous for them though, or shy away from very specific application. It is this mentality that has caused many preachers to stop saying anything meaningful by way of application to modesty.

For every limit that is applied as a moral/legal norm, someone will think it's too little. Someone will fetishize the hand, the wrist, the ankle, the face or the neck if that alone is the "exposed skin." He or she will give imagination full vent, based on seeing whatever is accessible. The logical end of an ostensibly objective "remove every temptation" approach is the body-bag burka, with a net face-mask. And notice it's always the women, too, who are commanded to pay the price, far more than men.

This is the slippery slope fallacy. Again, we would never apply this logic to other commandments. "People disagree on what is too much on the sabbath, so lets just jettison that...". The Bible gives us far more boundaries (on both sides) than you are giving it credit for. Women clearly did not wear burkas (their faces were clearly seen). The logical conclusion of rejecting cultural relativism and observing the sufficiency of Scripture in modesty is a return to the Biblical standard, long, flowy dresses with a veil (covering the head), not a burka.

Furthermore, the emphasis of Scripture on modesty is on women, thus is ours today.

Peter was out in his boat, making a living, naked in public (Jn.21:7), O my, the vapours. Time and place? Well then, there goes the objectivity of application because of manifold variables. Work, OK; but not the Games? Only men should watch the Male (only) Olympics? No sports for women? Know their role, and all that? What about hmsx temptations for somebody, despite what someone wears, or doesn't wear?

I, along with nearly everyone in this thread, are referring to mixed company.

And no. Sports, work, or any other circumstance, is no reason for a godly women to expose herself to men.

It is hard to even take this point about Peter seriously. Peter was clearly not nude.

I will quote Christian Modesty: The Public Undressing of America here:

"Thomas Boston observed that “the Hebrews call him naked who hath cast off his upper garment.” So, probably, is the meaning in John 21:7—“Peter was wearing only the chiton.” Peter was not sinfully naked in the context of his work: as a fisherman he was laboring among men away from shore, not publicly socializing in a mixed gathering. Nevertheless, he obviously saw a difference between working in his boat and being on shore in the presence of His Lord, because he covered himself and then swam to Christ. Why? Because he was “naked.” So then, according to Scripture, one doesn’t have to be stark naked to be shamefully naked. Gumnos means “naked, stripped bare; and without an outer garment, without which a decent person did not appear in public.” This second kind of nakedness not only applies to Peter in John 21, but to the prophet Isaiah and King Saul. Peter’s undergarment actually covered more of his body than would most modern shorts or swimwear for men! Though this was not necessarily sinful, it was associated with public shame as Arndt-Gingrich’s definition implies. A decent person did not appear in public this way. This is why Peter put on his outer garment before swimming to shore and why Isaiah was a sign of shame, disgrace, and Judgment to Egypt and Cush. The same could be said for the humiliation of the “Virgin daughter of Babylon” (Isa 47:1-3) in her “making bare the leg and uncovering the thigh.” Isaiah’s “nakedness” would not even be noticed at your average Christian retreat today. Making bare the leg and uncovering the thigh are not only viewed as “normal” practice today, they are considered one’s liberty."

Homosexual temptations are not taken into account by the principles of modesty, generally speaking. Modesty is obviously different when not in mixed company (slave girls helped their women get dressed, etc.).

Clement probably was a valued ancient ethicist in his day. So were the reformers in theirs. So have been dutiful Christian pastors in every age including the present time. But in the USA in the 21st century (unlike Clement's Alexandria) men don't dress in tunics and togas; yet both sexes (still!) tend to wear certain distinctive clothing. Oops, distinctiveness itself could be a sinful prompting; voila, here's an argument for shapeless, unisex garb for everyone. That is not the way Jesus and the Apostles give us instruction. Here's what the Bible says: Self control. Modesty. Love your neighbor. Human relationships are negotiations; when they come down to merely a bunch of rules of conduct, we've given up on actually living with one another in an endless series of informal accommodations of other people's preferences and weaknesses.

The Bible commands distinctiveness in dress, so this is no argument. You seem to be attacking a straw man of "if anything offends anyone it is immodest". That is not my position, and I think I have been clear about that. I believe that the Scripture is sufficient to instruct us on these matters, and that modesty is not subject to culture, I am not referring to MODE of dress. To say that in other words, it is always immodest for a women to expose her thigh in public (Isaiah 47), that doesn't mean she must wear a toga or robe (dresses are a perfectly modest MODE of clothing). Modes of clothing can be subject to culture, the Church's judgment of whether they are modest or not should not be subject to culture.

We need some rules. We need some structure, or else again--this time from the other direction--we're no longer living with one another, but living in a state of anarchy, of war and strength. Why would a Christian today wish to resurrect a rule concerning who can wear pants, or first define what "pants" are, and impose it on everyone all the time? Is there a current moral crisis involving pants-wearers?

Pants as basically a unisex item of clothing is a given in our social context. It is how things ARE; and unless one can marshal a careful argument from Scripture that WE NEED A RULE and believing women ought--they have a duty--to shun and repudiate pants as anti-Christian; so that churches everywhere declare, "we have no other custom" (1Cor.11:16) since the apostles... but there is no such apostolic teaching.

Yes, the moral crisis is that pants are grossly immodest, and that they are still bowing to the feminists that to this day delight in this fact. (Read the article in my original post for the world's current perspective on the matter. They do not deny that they were meant to eliminate distinctions between the sexes, they celebrate it. Just as Lady Gaga stated in why she wears pants.

We've already encountered somewhere in this thread the "town mouse and the country mouse" realities that prove, regardless of the era, that universal standards of dress don't even work within a national compass of a single generation. Then, there are the variable clothing demands of those who live spread across the world's vastly different climates.

I live with farmers, men and women, and they all wear pants. And in the winter, they all wear insulated coveralls. I think the women are happy they don't feel obligated to put a fake frock on over their Carhartts. The same folk dress up in sex-appropriate suits and dresses fit for other occasions.

As someone who comes from a family of farmers, this is ridiculous. Women lived on farms for millenia without wearing pants, and dressed modestly. Modesty applies equally when one appears in mixed company, anywhere.

There is flaunting one's sex, and there is accepting oneself without shame. Jacob loved Rachel, who was "beautiful of form and appearance," Gen.29:17. How did he know her "form" unless her dress gave clues to it? Was he wrong in being attracted to her? There isn't a hint of that in the text. He was acting like a normal man, interested in marriage, while keeping in bounds. She might not have passed Clement's disapproving eye, but who cares?

Are you really suggesting a woman must be dressed revealingly for a man to recognize her beauty? (You also can't use the cultural argument here because that was a biblical culture). I for one, know I can recognize a woman's beauty even when she is dressed modestly.

Inordinate admiration of another human form is that which passes bounds, and becomes sin; as much as exhibitionism is sin. And that is as much as we can say, except for passing ordinances (when it is in our power) that set reasonable rules and limits in places such as home, school, work, church, etc. Those are "house rules," and house rules vary. We have to handle ourselves under the authority others possess, either exercising self-control or removing ourselves from temptation.

What house rules do you have in mind? It seems your own argumentation would eliminate any such rule-making? The society we live in is a very debaucherous one. We cannot use their accepting of something as a grounds for God's approval.

We desperately need purity in a time such as this.