WHAT DOES THE
BIBLE SAY ABOUT WOMEN WEARING PANTS?
I was watching TV one sleepless night and stumbled upon an infomercial for some beauty product. The commercial showed before and after portraits, that to my eye, looked like the same photo just photoshopped. I laughed to myself. Then I made this video.
By Josh Spiers: Formerly Apostolic Pentecostal,
always Christian
The
first thing that we must understand when asking this question is that
no one in the Bible wore pants. They did not exist back then—at
least not in the form we have them today. Because of this, the Bible
never dealt with the subject of women wearing pants. [Note: I have
added an
article on what the Israelites did wear when they were in Egypt and
during the Exodus.]
The Mosaic Law does, however, deal with the subject of
cross-dressing. The Mosaic Law says, "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"
(Deut.
22:5 NASB).
The argument against women wearing pants that I always heard when I
was in the UPC was this:
Deut.
22:5 applies
to us today. Even though we are not under the Mosaic Law anymore,
something that is an abomination to God is always an abomination.
(This is based off of Rev.
21:27,
which says that "no one who practices abomination" (KJV)
will enter into the New Jerusalem.)
Since
pants are men’s apparel, and dresses are women’s apparel, it is
an abomination for a woman to wear pants or for a man to wear
dresses.
Notice
that I said that this is the argument that I heard during my time in
the UPC. It is only fair to say that the official position paper of
the UPC uses a different line of reasoning. They say, "[W]e
should avoid…slacks on women because they immodestly reveal the
feminine contours of upper leg, thigh, and hip1."
In
this article I am going to take a look at both views, and then I’ll
wrap up with an important point about hypocrisy.
Edit
(1/2/07): I
found another
position paper from
the UPCI on men and women’s apparel. In this other paper they do
use a modified form of the Deut.
22:5 argument.
Are
Slacks Automatically Immodest?
I
think that it is ridiculous to say that slacks are inherently more
immodest than dresses. Slacks and dresses can be immodest. It is
possible that pants on a woman would have been considered immodest
200 years ago in many Western societies, but that’s pure
conjecture. Either way, I know of no man in Western culture who is
automatically thrown into temptation because a woman wears pants.
What we have to deal with is what is modest today, not what was
modest 200 years ago or 2,000 years ago. The Bible never defined
modesty, it only told us to be modest.
Are
Pants "Men’s Apparel"?
I
do not think that pants can be thought of as only men’s apparel in
modern Western culture. Cultures and dress codes change over time.
They always have. When Deut.
22:5 was
written men were probably wearing linen kilts and women were probably
wearing "full-length, light weight, loose-fitting dresses2."
In the mid-19th century men were wearing breeches and women were
wearing dresses that did not show even their ankles. Yet now the
dress code laid by the UPC is that women have to wear dresses but
they can come up to the knee3.
Why did they choose this style of apparel and not the style that was
worn when Deut.
22:5 was
written, or the style that was worn in the 19th century? The reason
is that cultures and styles change, and the UPC apparently picked the
style of apparel that happened to be in fashion when their doctrines
started to develop.
There
is no biblical excuse for taking a girl who is a third-generation
wearer of pants and telling her that she has to only wear dresses. At
some point we have to admit that culture has changed. Again, we’re
concerned with what culture is now, not what it was in the 1800s and
early 1900s.
Hypocrisy?
--- “One
of the most serious sins according to the Bible is religious
hypocrisy.”
The
Pants Issue Can Be One Way or the Other, It Can’t Be Both.
Let
me talk to the preachers and teachers for a moment.
Many
preachers and teachers in the UPC feel that Deut.
22:5 still
applies to us today. I don’t take that view, but I’m not going to
debate the point. What I will say is that if you are going to
apply Deut.
22:5 to
the pants vs. skirts debate then you have to apply it to everything.
If you believe that it is an abomination for a woman to wear pants
(because you feel that pants are men’s apparel) then you must be
willing to make a complete prohibition against women wearing men’s
apparel. For instance, many women in the UPC wear pajama pants but
they will not wear pants in public. If pants are men’s apparel, and
if it’s a sin for women to wear men’s apparel, then that means no
pajama pants. It also means that a girl can’t put on her
boyfriend’s jacket or her husband’s shirt, or any other article
of clothing that is designed for a man.
It
can be one way or the other, it can’t be both. It must be a
complete prohibition or no prohibition at all. To preach against
women wearing pants, and then allow your wife to wear pajama pants,
is nothing less than total hypocrisy. If you do preach a complete
prohibition against women wearing any men’s apparel then I will
respect your view, even though I will continue to disagree with it.
If you will not do that then I view your teaching as hypocritical in
the extreme.
Conclusion
It
is not safe to end this subject without pointing out that
cross-dressing is almost definitely displeasing to God. When I say
"cross-dressing" this is the usage that I am referring to:
Nearly
every society throughout history has had a set of norms, views,
guidelines, or laws regarding the wearing of clothing and what is
appropriate for each gender. Cross-dressing is a behavior which runs
counter to those norms4.
I
do think that we can extrapolate from Scripture that God would be
displeased with someone deliberately dressing in a manner that
identifies them with the opposite gender. However, I do not think
that a woman wearing pants should be considered cross-dressing. As I
said before, women wearing pants is part of the accepted norm in
modern Western culture. SOURCE:
Holy Snow Skiing Apparel
_________________________________________________________________
Now for the liter side of, "Lets not get carried away being men." -Yechezkel
"It's a joke son..."~Foghorn Leghorn
Women Probably Don't Have Souls!
BIBLE FACT!
Landover Baptist Creation Scientist, Dr. Jonathan Edwards, announced findings related to his research into the female soul early this week. "The absence of either salvation or condemnation for women finds extensive support in the Word of God." He reported. "Jesus said that the sole reason God created women in the first place was to provide company and service to men (1 Corinthians 11:9), God determined that men would be lonely living alone, so he created women purely to keep men company and serve their needs (Genesis 2:18-22). Women are therefore completely subordinate to men (1 Corinthians 11:3). It stands to reason, though, that once men enter the Kingdom of Heaven, they will be one with God, and will no longer be lonely and in need of mortal companionship. Thus, the reason behind having women will no longer exist. Women, like the members of the animal kingdom, will fall by the wayside."
Dr. Edwards went on to say that, "once men reunite with their maker, they will no longer be burdened with the care of women. After all, women were inferior creations from the start. Women are fond of self-indulgence (Isaiah 32:9-11). They are silly and easily led into error (2 Timothy 3:6). They are subtle and deceitful (Proverbs 7:10; Ecclesiastes 7:26). They are zealous in promoting superstition and idolatry (Jeremiah 7:18; Ezekiel 13:17, 23). And they are active in instigating to iniquity (Numbers 31:15-16; 1 Kings 21:25; Nehemiah 13:26). It was the inherent weakness of women that led them to be deceived by Satan (Genesis 3:1-6; 2 Corinthians 11:3; 1 Timothy 2:14). Consequently, women were cursed from the start (Genesis 3:16). There is simply no room in heaven for such flawed and inadequate beings."
Pastor Deacon Fred warned the congregation that there was no reason to be alarmed. "Dr. Edwards' Godly and anointed conclusions still need to be formalized by the Board of Deacons," he assured. "I am certain that our team of religious experts will find some way to tippy-toe around these Scriptures."
Some of the women present to hear the report were visibly shaken. A teary eyed Sister Taffy Crockett said through choked sobs, "I've heard of colored women not having souls... but me? NO! This is outrageous!"
Pastor did have some comforting words for the ladies of Landover. "I personally want to assure all female members of this church that until we examine Dr. Edwards' research to our complete satisfaction, consider yourselves saved until further notice."
We believe that when a person first gets saved, the first thing they should do is buy a suit and a tie. If the individual is a female, then a dress not raised over an inch above the knee is acceptable. Clothing is perhaps the most important thing about being a Christian. If one is not properly clothed and fully representative of what God would want them to appear like... well then, that person is probably not saved. Our motto is "get saved, get to a Christian Clothing store, and get fitted for the kingdom." A man should dress and act like a man, and a woman should dress and act like a submissive female helpmate. That about sums it up. Anyone who does not conform to the dress code at Landover Baptist will be fined no less than$300.00 a violation. It is a privilege to be a Christian and we believe that it is about time folks started acting like it! SOURCE:
Blunt (J. Scott Applewhite/AP)In a win for Democrats, the Senate voted Thursday to table an amendment permitting employers and insurers to opt out of provisions in President Obama's health care law on moral or religious grounds.
