Hardly anyone today would consider the wearing of pants by women to be a breach of decency or a sign of rebellion against the God-given roles of manhood & womanhood. This is the 21st century, women have been liberated, and times have certainly changed, haven’t they?
The Fundamentalist Position
Yet for many sincere and well-meaning Christian fundamentalists (& by that term I mean those who both hold to the fundamental doctrines of the faith & practice some form of secondary separation with regard to those doctrines–specifically the fundamentalist Baptist movement represented by Bob Jones University and a host of even more conservative institutions) today’s situation is lamentable. Feminism’s triumph, in their minds, is what is most responsible for the abandoning of a generally common distinct dress styles for men and women. After all, the bathroom signs distinguish the sexes on the basis of pants for men, and today’s abandonment of the long accepted cultural norm of pants for men only can only lead to a sinful unisex culture which promotes all kind of sexual sins and spurns the God-ordained unique roles for men and women.
While rooted in the biblical teaching of male headship/leadership in the home and church, this position finds support in these verses as well:
A woman shall not wear a man’s garment, nor shall a man put on a woman’s cloak, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD your God. (Deu 22:5)
For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man…. Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a wife to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him, but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering.
(1Co 11:7, 14-15)
From these verses comes a doctrine of “designed distinction” between the sexes. And specifically on the warrant of Deut. 22:5, it is deemed a grievous sin to blur the line between the sexes by donning the apparel of the opposite sex.
Now the above careful argument is often not what one finds with the more conservative fundamentalists. Often Deut. 22:5 is quoted with the harsh conclusion that women who wear pants are “sluts”. The position is not carefully taught, but rather enforced, with ushers trained to escort women caught wearing pants out the door! Visitors who carelessly forget to check the dress code, are asked to wear a dress or not come back. If you think I’m exaggerating, I’m not. Such is the sad case in all too many fundamentalist churches. They don’t want to be tolerating abominations to God!
Modern Attempts to Dodge the Force of Deut. 22:5
To get around this exegesis of Deut. 22:5, many modern Christians claim it is ceremonial law (like Deut. 22:10-11 for instance) . Others will stress that transvestism or cross-dressing is primarily in view, or that some practice associated with idolatry is in view, hence the strong “abomination” label. Yet these interpretations on the surface feel like a transparent attempt at dodging the force of the text.
The Historic Position on Deut. 22:5
Older commentators don’t flinch at offering some alternative views while at the same time affirming what Calvin says below:
This decree also commends modesty in general, and in it God anticipates the danger, lest women should harden themselves into forgetfulness of modesty, or men should degenerate into effeminacy unworthy of their nature. Garments are not in themselves of so much importance; but as it is disgraceful for men to become effeminate, and also for women to affect manliness in their dress and gestures, propriety and modesty are prescribed, not only for decency’s sake, but lest one kind of liberty should at length lead to something worse. The words of the heathen poet are very true: “What shame can she, who wears a helmet, show, her sex deserting?” Wherefore, decency in the fashion of the clothes is an excellent preservative of modesty. [from John Calvin’s online commentary here.]
Keil & Delitzsch, the Hebrew experts, are even stronger:
As the property of a neighbour was to be sacred in the estimation of an Israelite, so also the divine distinction of the sexes, which was kept sacred in civil life by the clothing peculiar to each sex, was to be not less but even more sacredly observed. “There shall not be man’s things upon a woman, and a man shall not put on a woman’s clothes.” כְּלִי does not signify clothing merely, nor arms only, but includes every kind of domestic and other utensils (as in Exo_22:6; Lev_11:32; Lev_13:49). The immediate design of this prohibition was not to prevent licentiousness, or to oppose idolatrous practices (the proofs which Spencer has adduced of the existence of such usages among heathen nations are very far-fetched); but to maintain the sanctity of that distinction of the sexes which was established by the creation of man and woman, and in relation to which Israel was not to sin. Every violation or wiping out of this distinction – such even, for example, as the emancipation of a woman – was unnatural, and therefore an abomination in the sight of God. [emphasis added, quoted from E-Sword‘s (free for download) Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament]
Examining the Fundamentalist Position
So why do I allow and encourage my wife and daughters to wear pants? Am I consciously violating Deut. 22:5 and blurring the distinction of the sexes? I don’t believe so. Upon a closer examination of the fundamentalist position, I hope you will agree with me. At the onset here, I should note that more and more modern fundamentalists disagree with this position, and I’m sure there have been exceptions for many years. Also, there are some conservative Baptists who don’t like being dubbed fundamentalists, preferring to be called historic Baptists, and avoid the perceived problems with fundamentalism today. Fine, whatever. Still I object to their position on Deut. 22:5, and most people would call them fundamentalists.
What Scripture Actually Teaches
Now if we accept the “designed distinction” view of Deut. 22:5 (which I do), here is what Scripture actually affirms. 1) The sexes should be distinct. 2) Christians shouldn’t wear garments or ornaments associated with the opposite sex. We could infer from this that we are to maintain culturally appropriate gender distinctions in dress.
Now Deut. 22:5 doesn’t teach that we must have male-specific items and female-specific items, per se, it just assumes that a culture has them. It doesn’t specify what the items look like, nor to what degree they are actually distinct. It just says don’t use the female or male items.
The 1 Cor. 11 passage seems to say there is a certain propriety which makes it “natural” for the sexes to be distinguished in some visible way. It doesn’t specify how long or short, “long” and “short” hair is, necessarily, however. Yet it asserts that women should have long hair, and men shouldn’t. (Again, I agree with this point here.)
The Role of Culture
Now we have this Scriptural teaching and we are to apply it to our present situation. Culture can obviously be immoral, and cultures promoting little or no clothes are obviously errant and should be corrected from a Biblical perspective. Yet culture by definition changes over time.
In Bible days, men and women wore long flowing robes. There were inner and outer robes, and a girdle for both men and women. Only men were said to “gird up their loins”, meaning hike up their robes to do manly actions, like fighting in a battle. But there is no indication that their robes were materially different than women’s robes. Instead it was the fit, decoration, and style of the robes that distinguished them from women’s robes.
In our culture 100 years ago, pants were a distinctly male item, but today men and women both wear pants. Still there are differences in fit, decoration, and style that differentiate male pants from female pants. Although it is true that a unisex pants style is in vogue these days. While 100 years ago wearing pants was a trespass of cultural norms with regard to gender distinction, today that is not necessarily the case.
In viewing culture, we hopefully can agree that the Bible doesn’t set up the culture of the 1800s as the most Godly culture ever. There is no reason to view it as more godly than present culture, necessarily. Each generation had its sins, and surely today’s generation has some awful flagrant ones, but there is no Scriptural justification for inferring from this that all present cultural norms should be abandoned in favor of those from the 1800s.
Consistency
In examining this topic, it appears that the clear cut, simple distinction provided by pants versus a dress is desirable by the fundamentalists. And so they have honed in on this item of clothing particularly for applying Deut. 22:5. But there are a host of items which have changed in their gender-designating function over the years. Stockings and T-Shirts were originally male-only dress items. Today stockings are generally regarded as female-only and T-shirts are used for both sexes. Fundamentalists often have no problem with their teenage or college-age girls wearing the high school or college sports jackets of their boyfriends, but wouldn’t that violate the mandates in Deut. 22:5 too? And what about women’s suits (even with a dress skirt rather than pants)?
Some view questions of consistency with suspicion. “It is just an attempt to dodge Deut. 22:5”, they assume. Yet these questions must be addressed. Just because an item doesn’t appear on a bathroom sign, doesn’t mean it has no gender distinction. And then again, why is a bathroom sign so definitive for culture? Isn’t it just a convenient tool for communicating which bathroom is which? It is not authoritative in any sense (well, unless I’m looking for a bathroom…).
Conclusion
Based on the above examination, I conclude that how one applies Deut. 22:5 is up for grabs. The specific application is not mandated by the text. You may feel that the weight of centuries of gender distinct use of pants warrants no pants on women. That may be important to you, especially as you study history and see that feminism and a desire to break the cultural norms in regard to distinction of the sexes played a big role in the modern use of pants by women. Yet Scripture does not specify that I must conclude like you do in my view of the cultural norms of a bygone era. In today’s world, many a woman doesn’t think twice about putting on a pair of pants, because that is what our culture does. I would encourage such women to dress femininely and maintain modesty in light of Scriptural principles, rather than simply condemning them on the basis of cultural norms of a hundred years ago.
It is fine if you disagree with me, but I am applying Deut. 22:5 and not rejecting Scripture. And so, fundamentalists and others who insist that only their application of Deut. 22:5 constitutes obedience are really being schismatic. They are needlessly disrupting the unity of the faith, in their defense of their particular application of Scripture to today’s culture. The oddity of the traditional fundamentalist view on women and pants sadly often becomes a disgrace to the name of Christ.
Before I go, if you want to see some debates over this issue, where both sides (mine and the standard fundamentalist position) being defended and advocated, check out the links below.
- A current debate (see comments) going on at Jackhammr
- A current post defending the fundamentalist position at Jackhammr (no debate there yet)
- Thoughts on the debate by William Dudding (shares my view)
- “An Apologetic for Men’s Skirts” (see debate in the comments) — an older post by one of the contributors to Jackhammr.
Anyone else have more links for good discussions on this?
I appreciate the fundamentalist argument insofar as it is trying to be faithful to scripture and dogmatically so. I really do appreciate that.
Although, I am not at all discounting the value of the actual words of the Bible…(man cannot live by bread alone, but by EVERY word of God..)
…it is also a mistake to take the words without consideration to the surrounding context, the historical context, etc…
God is not so interested in the clothing as he is in the heart of the person wearing them.
Well, Bob, this is probably the fairest dealing with the issue that I have encountered from your side. You didn’t use ridicule as an argument, and I appreciate that.
I don’t intend to come on here like gangbusters, though I don’t agree with your conclusion. And although I take a strong stand on this issue, I also understand that this can be a sticky issue.
Let me say as well that I am not one of those pastors who escorts ladies out of the church if they are wearing pants. Nor does our church prohibit ladies from coming to the church or church functions with pants on. In fact, we have at least one lady who has come for over a year, and to every service, and I have never seen her in a dress. Her salvation is a miracle, and we are delighted in the fruit, and, well, we will let her grow.
I’m sure that there are churches who do what you are talking about. When I was a student in college, that kind of thing was preached against. I think you know that. But I also understand you need to get the rhetorical advantage. And when it comes down to it, you get the advantage because most people agree with you, and most on my side act like jerks when it comes down to it.
Now, I understand what you are saying about “holding on to the cultural norms of a hundred years ago.” And I don’t deny that you have a point on that issue. If I thought that our desire in arguing against pants on women were merely a desire to hold on to those old-fashioned cultural norms, then I’d take your position too. That position would be indefensible.
In my post, I asked a question… I’m quite sure you’ll have a ready answer, so I’ll let you have at it…
Certainly when the women’s movement started wearing pants, it was a rebellion against culture. I think you mentioned that in your post as well. Certainly at the time, Believers in general would have considered it to be wrong to join in with the women’s movement.
I think we can understand this if it came to something like designer men’s skirts/dresses. I really believe that you and most others in the evangelical movement would argue against wearing these, at least on the basis of effeminacy (maybe I’m wrong?). At what point would we cave in to the culture on this? When would we give up and let culture have its way?
By the way, William,
I agree with you that “God is not so interested in the clothing as he is in the heart of the person wearing them.” I don’t think we were arguing the other way on this.
And I felt like, at least, that we were trying to give consideration to the surrounding context, the historical context, etc…
I think there is a difference between dealing with contexts and disagreeing about contexts. In other words, I’m farely certain we dealt with it, and I’m equally sure that you disagree.
I appreciate the interaction here. I clicked “publish” on this article and literally ran out the door. I’ve been busy today. I’ll find time to comment later tonight hopefully (which won’t be so late for you guys on the West Coast). I have to fix a few typos and edit the style in parts of this article too.
Blessings in Christ,
Bob
William,
Thanks for bringing up an important point. For many (probably most?) fundamentalists, their passion with regard to this issue stems from their desires to obey Scripture and follow Christ. That is certainly commendable.
By the way, I thought your post on this issue was excellent. I do think the issue of “misplaced emphasis” is valid.
Blessings from the Cross,
Bob Hayton
Pastor Mallinak,
You bring up a good question. I wish I had a totally perfect answer for you, but I don’t. But before I answer let’s take a step back.
You want to know at what point we give in to culture, and wonder why it is okay to give in. But going back to Scripture, we remember that Deut. 22:5 is simply saying that we should not violate current cultural norms. Don’t put on a man’s garment or a woman’s garment, whatever the case may be. Scripture doesn’t define what makes a garment male or female, culture does. We do well to remember also, that in many cultures today, and in the culture of Bible times, male and female dress were very similar in basic respects. Robes were used of a fairly similar length. But of course the robes were styled differently for men than for women.
Fastforward to the early 1900s. Culturally it was still not normal or acceptable for women to wear pants. The fashion historians are correct to say that the women who did so were deliberately making a statement. That rebellion against the norms was not something Christians would countenance. Such a rebellion would be the case today if men were to don female-looking skirts (not male-looking kilts).
Yet after the WW2 when many women started donning pants for practical and not rebellious reasons, pants gradually became more and more acceptable. For many women it was a matter of comfort and being able to wear the comfortable dress men could, and it wasn’t a strictly rebellious, feminist thing to wear pants. A couple decades later and pants were a wholly female garment with all their own female designs and styles. Today, our culture places no stigma or rebellious element on women who wear pants.
Now to get to your question, again remember that Scripture doesn’t tell us exactly how to do this. It just says avoid male or female garments, but doesn’t give us an indication that we should attach ourselves to what was male or female at a particular time in our cultural history. Of course we should avoid rebellion, especially in respect to God-ordained gender differences, but Deut. 22:5 is fairly limited in its scope. I would say that once male skirts were broadly accepted throughout our culture as a male item, and started having their own designs and styles, etc., that men would be free to use them, as long as they be sure to maintain a masculine appearance (which is possible in kilts, and so I would have to allow could potentially be possible in male skirts).
Now to turn the question back at you, when did it become acceptable biblically for a woman to wear a T-shirt, a collared button-down shirt, a polo-style shirt, a sport-jacket/suit top, or stockings even?
Blessings in Christ,
Bob Hayton
Bob,
This isn’t sour grapes, but true flummox on my part, that is, you debated and argued and questioned a lot when you were with us (doesn’t sound authoritative), because it was encouraged, but you never ever asked about this issue, ever. You were always supportive. You got it. We were right. Now you talk like you’re a chiseled veteran on the numerous positions you’ve changed. You call it an “oddity,” and other things like “whatever.” I like “peculiar” better. We’re peculiar, different, non-conforming. The gospel has affected us in a new creature kind of way.
You do miss the point, and I wish that you had known it, if you don’t. If you want to know the point, I’ll let you know, and I mean that respectfully. I truly think that what I’ll get from you is “we’re at an impasse.” I’m not going to explain something unless you do want to know.
Pastor Brandenburg,
I do remember 1 conversation on this topic where I brought up the possible objection that there are male-designed pants and also female-designed pants, and a woman could follow the spirit of Deut. 22:5 and yet conclude differently than we did. I remember you being “impressed” that I had come up with that thought on my own, and hadn’t read it somewhere.
Actually we had some discussions among friends in the dorm, you know. No, I don’t try to pretend to be authoritative and “well-seasoned”. That doesn’t mean I haven’t thought long and hard on these issues. My story is available for people to see if they want to delve into the merits of listening to me. I’ve preserved the comments too.
To most it seems “odd” and “peculiar”. And I found when examining why I had held to that belief, that what the verse says did not demand how I practiced. Separating over such a difference in application seemed wrong as well.
Enough said for now. By the way, I do not begrudge your contributing to discussion over at my blog, but I have learned to stay out of the comments over at Jackhammr. There may come a day when we’ve had enough interactions over here too, and I’ll respectfully ask you to refrain from commenting. What’s done is done, I’ve changed based on my understanding of Scripture and I have, and continue to give, my reasons and defense. Of course I hope to be “always reforming”.
In Christ,
Bob Hayton
Bob, you said…”their [the fundamentalists’] passion with regard to this issue stems from their desires to obey Scripture and follow Christ.”
I have to say, respectfully, that I believe you are being too gracious in regard to the motivations of some people with this fundamentalist position.
Having come out of extreme fundamentalism and having thoroughly examined my own motivations concerning this and other positions.. I have to honestly admit that on the outside it appeared that I was trying to follow the Bible, but (hidden even from myself) was, in reality, a carnal, selfish, and self-righteous desire to be among the “in-crowd”, that small, dedicated, persecuted, set of believers that had it “right”.
Ugly, at best. However,
As Paul wrote, Inspired…
“Let me show you a better way..”
John,
Every woman wore dresses and skirts and every man pants for hundreds of years, let alone Christians. The Bible had that kind of effect on the entire culture. That’s our heritage. So what was their motive? I’m wondering what the non-gracious motive is that you give to everyone for generations until our modern and enlightened society that now also accepts homosexuality as an alternative lifestyle. Your language sounds bitter. Calvin and Keil and Delitzch, that Bob quoted, what was their motive for their view of Deut. 22:5? I am also wondering who the “in-crowd” is. I think it’s the same in fundamentalism and evangelicalism—the big churches and their pastors get the attention—it seems to be a kind of American thing that doesn’t relate to what group you associate with. It’s a success syndrome.
Bob,
You know I don’t think the story really gets it. It offers the information selectively so that a particular comes off like a hero. When you read the Bible, we get a story that includes some of the ugly details—Peter’s denial, Peter’s sleeping at Gethsamene, Peter’s foot-in-the-mouth on the Mt. of Transfiguration, etc. etc. You’re going to get support here and more of it than you would in your previous assocations. The numbers are on the evangelical side. Why do you think that is?
And as far as me talking over here at your blog—I don’t have anything to be afraid of talking here or your talking at our blog. You know you’re welcome to go over there. Why not open some of your theories to criticism? Without people like me, your going to get the “atta boy” and the echoes from your cronies. I think they need to be exposed and I thought the big advantage of your side (I don’t believe it) is that you are transparent and open, ready to discuss. I see a lot of sloppy exegesis on your part, but you don’t open yourself up to analysis. You prefer the warmth of your “in-crowd.”
You miss it with Deut. 22:5, but I wonder if you are willing to see how, or whether you prefer just to lecture everyone else and then get “good-job” from a bunch of people that already believe like you do.
Do you know what else the world sees as odd? The cross. Bold preaching. Sacrificial monetary giving. Why would there be a concern whether you’re odd or not? I believe you touched on exactly the problem for you with that particular analysis. You don’t like being thought to be odd. I don’t see a willingness to change now, even if you saw it, because of evangelical peer pressure. They’d think you were odd. It’s mainly politics, as I see it.
Thank you so much for addressing this often divisive topic. I feel that you addressed it in a balanced and biblical manner. I agree totally that there should be a definite distinction on the way men and women dress, but I wish people would give witnessing, evangelism and cultivating a Christ-like character as much attention as this issue. Can you imagine the amount of souls brought to Christ if they did?
Blessings,
Glenys
Pastor Kent,
I am afraid you have misquoted me..I did say “some” not all that hold to this particular no pants on women issue.
Should not we all ask God to judge our motives in every way concerning how we relate to others, especially our brethren (and of course..sisters)
I have, and that was my conclusion..sorry you don’t agree.
Happy Thanksgiving!
Thanks John & Glenys. I think you’re right John with some people. I know several personally who were coerced in a sense through peer pressure in their small fundamentalist churches/circles to “get with the program” on this issue.
Pastor Kent,
I’ve read lots of what you say on this issue, and was able to preview some of the earlier chapters of your forthcoming book on the issue. I’ve read and heard others on this issue as well. I don’t think I’m missing something. But then this medium of blogging allows for a debate/interaction in the comments.
However, I’m uncomfortable with your desiring me to come begging to you in order to become enlightened. I’ve stated my position, on my blog. This isn’t a lecture. If you think I’m wrong go ahead and show me why. It is these kinds of exchanges (and insinuations) that have gone on long enough.
You clearly don’t like the fact that I have a blog and post my opinion online. I ask you to remember, though, that I have purposefully avoided sharing many things online for all to see. I could disclose things I’ve encountered firsthand or have heard from others who claim to have experienced it firsthand, from various fundamental institutions or churches. I could turn my site into a veritable “Fundamental Forums” version of gossip and rumor too, while I’m at it.
Of course I don’t see that such actions would be right, or helpful and so I restrain from doing that. I have published at least one post where I’ve vented over certain public disclosures made by you in online venues. I’ve also been informed of emails about me coming from you going to people without my knowing about it.
Now, you have 2 blogs yourself and a church website, and you have complete freedom to spread and post your Scriptural positions and understanding as I have. But when you come over to my blog, please interact charitably recognizing what a blog is and acting accordingly. We’ve had our private email exchanges, public blogs are not the place for that.
I welcome interaction, but I reserve the right to clamp down on anyone interfering with the conversation. Generally, it is probably impolite to rally the troops and attack a blog like gangbusters. Defending a position is fine and good, and at times I’ve linked to your blog hoping some of my readers would interact over there, I must admit. But I realize that such things can cross a boundary and turn easily into a hassling and badgering of others.
I try to respect others and ask for the same. Please keep this in mind or don’t bother interacting here.
Respectfully,
Bob Hayton
Pastor Kent,
I’ve read lots of what you say on this issue, and was able to preview some of the earlier chapters of your forthcoming book on the issue. I’ve read and heard others on this issue as well. I don’t think I’m missing something. But then this medium of blogging allows for a debate/interaction in the comments.
However, I’m uncomfortable with your desiring me to come begging to you in order to become enlightened. I’ve stated my position, on my blog. This isn’t a lecture. If you think I’m wrong go ahead and show me why. It is these kinds of exchanges (and insinuations) that have gone on long enough.
You clearly don’t like the fact that I have a blog and post my opinion online. I ask you to remember, though, that I have purposefully avoided sharing many things online for all to see. I could disclose things I’ve encountered firsthand or have heard from others who claim to have experienced it firsthand, from various fundamental institutions or churches. I could turn my site into a veritable “Fundamental Forums” version of gossip and rumor too, while I’m at it.
Of course I don’t see that such actions would be right, or helpful and so I restrain from doing that. I have published at least one post where I’ve vented over certain public disclosures made by you in online venues. I’ve also been informed of emails about me coming from you going to people without my knowing about it.
Now, you have 2 blogs yourself and a church website, and you have complete freedom to spread and post your Scriptural positions and understanding as I have. But when you come over to my blog, please interact charitably recognizing what a blog is and acting accordingly. We’ve had our private email exchanges, public blogs are not the place for that.
I welcome interaction, but I reserve the right to clamp down on anyone interfering with the conversation. Generally, it is probably impolite to rally the troops and attack a blog like gangbusters. Defending a position is fine and good, and at times I’ve linked to your blog hoping some of my readers would interact over there, I must admit. But I realize that such things can cross a boundary and turn easily into a hassling and badgering of others.
I try to respect others and ask for the same. Please keep this in mind or don’t bother interacting here.
Respectfully,
Bob Hayton
Regarding emailing others, it was solely to give them a little more complete picture regarding their linking to you, because they are getting one side. It really was their choice about what to do with it once they found out. I didn’t give details in any of the emails. Of course, I emailed, didn’t post something publically, when I think you are deserving of that. You are making your criticisms of others very public. We were extremely merciful and gracious to you, as were many others. You don’t mention that.
Bob, I really don’t mind you blogging, but it is the nature of what you choose to do with it. If you care about the truth, then it would seem that you would want to hear some debate. You always had a forum at our church.
OK, to the issue. Deuteronomy 22:5 is about God. It isn’t about us. It isn’t whether men and women look different. The woman putting on the male article is an abomination to God. As his creatures, God wants us to recognize Him as Creator of male and female, those separate roles. When we don’t, that’s an abomination to Him. Our world doesn’t recognize God as Creator as seen in the education mandate in public schools and in the media.
Comfort and convenience have replaced God’s glory in our culture or have actually become God’s glory, as if my pleasure were the equivalent of His. I think it is true that I don’t see you changing on this, but you are not only not going to change, but try to get women in pants, as if it were superior. What is superior is God being honored for His design. It is worth being odd for this.
I agree that Deut. 22:5 is about God. It is about more than looking different, per se. It is about aligning ourselves to maintain distinctions in accord with God’s designed distinction of the sexes. These distinctions in dress are to be kept, yes. And I believe in our culture they can be kept without resorting to a no-pants policy for women. The Scripture is not specific enough to mandate that only 1 application to our present cultural position (that of adopting a no-pants policy) is correct.
Often you/your side forgets that there are people who are listening to Deut. 22:5 and affirm God’s designed distinction, and yet apply that to culture with a different outcome than you. We are not disobeying the text, we apply it differently than you, and there is freedom to do so.
I don’t think you do apply it. You have no male articles. I’ve never seen one thing written from your side that says that women can’t wear “men’s pants.” Women wear just pants. I’ll be happy for you to show me ONE. Just one. You have the non-position, which is really just the anti-our-position. If not, then show one person that has written anything that shows an actual position from your standpoint. I’ll await that.
Crazy..
Worldly..
Sorry to leave you so long without a response. I was happily Thanksgiving.
I want to briefly address what John Smith said in his first comment on this…
John, while it is without a doubt that some (perhaps many) are motivated this way, I would only point out that this is not an argument for or against the position. This amounts to a self-report. As I hold to a different position, I will tell you that I believe with all sincerity that my position is correct. And I would say the same for any position I hold.
That being said, in the few years since becoming a pastor, I have changed a position or two. And having changed those positions, I can honestly say that when I held the first position, I sincerely believed it to be the right position. And when today, I sincerely believe my position to be the right position.
I think there is something wrong with the idea that everyone who holds the position I hold on pants needs to look deep down inside so that he can find his hidden hypocrite.
Besides, that argument can work in both directions. Sure, there are some who hold the no-pants position as menpleasers. And there are others who hold your position as menpleasers. Do I have permission to discount your position on that basis?
Crazy Nutty…
Bob, before answering your main challenge, I want to point out a few problems in your response to me.
First, you said…
I don’t think this is a careful exegesis of the text. The text says nothing about cultural norms. The text is speaking about male and female distinctions, and the word “pertaineth” (keli-geber) refers to “male specific.” I think you’re bending the text a bit to make it say that “we should not violate cultural norms.”
I understand that you are saying this in reference to male and female clothing.
I should comment on your explanation of the possibility of men’s skirts becoming acceptable. I find the whole idea preposterous myself. Basically, we are saying that it would be rebellious effeminacy for men to wear a dress today, but as it becomes more common, and when men begin to wear skirts for practical reasons and not rebellious effeminacy, when it becomes a matter of comfort (after all, nothing feels quite so free and liberating as a skirt — they tell me of course — because I haven’t worn skirts. At least not very often) and being able to wear the comfortable dress that women can, then it will be acceptable. Yikes!
You asked,
And answering this question gives me the opportunity to reiterate what it is that we are arguing. We are not, nor have we argued that each and every article of clothing must be entirely different. We have argued that there is a male-specific article of clothing (pants) and a female-specific article of clothing (skirts/dresses). The woman shall not wear the keli-geber… the male-specific article. Neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment.
So, we are not arguing that no styles are allowed to overlap period whatsoever. We are arguing that there is a male-specific article of clothing, just as there is a female-specific article of clothing. And these distinctions should be maintained by God’s people.
PMallinak,
You are absolutely correct in what you said. My earlier comments were not a theological position and were indeed a self report. (I think I hold pretty much close to Bob on this one)
Without intending to sound calloused (or bitter, KB), I don’t really care if you or anyone discounts my position (1 Cor. 4:3-5) excepting the Lord Himself who will bring motivations and hidden things within the heart to light one day. I would prefer, personally, to let His Spirit show me now and not be as ashamed then.
I am quite sick however of two things regarding this issue:
A. That people that hold your position cannot accept exactly what Bob has laid out as a sincere attempt at applying the Deut 22 passage and, as such, is Scripturally right (even though you may not agree), and
B. Spending soooo much time debating this issue amounts to me like another passage in 1 Cor. 2 concerning endless theological divisions that prompted Paul to say that he determined not to know anything but Christ and Him crucified, meaning, I believe that it is irresposible for all of us to emphasize these personal theological perspectives over the simplicity of the Gospel…
which, I regret personally I am tempted to do as a redeemed sinner who still struggles with stupid stuff like getting in the last word.
(by the way as personal testimony, before Jesus found me I really was crazy – chronic depression, borderline paranoid schitzophrenic and hypo-manic among other things. Maybe since my sanctification is incomplete I should refrain from posting in blogs…I dunno)
with love in Christ…Crazy Nutty!
Thanks John & Glenys. I think you’re right John with some people. I know several personally who were coerced in a sense through peer pressure in their small fundamentalist churches/circles to “get with the program†on this issue.
Why does it seem that, while I hear a lot about this “peer pressure towards self-righteousness” argument from disaffected former fundamentalists, I’ve never actually seen this phenomenon taking place in any church I’ve been in, visited, or fellowshiped with?
I tend to suspect that it’s more self-justification than anything else.
B. Spending soooo much time debating this issue amounts to me like another passage in 1 Cor. 2 concerning endless theological divisions that prompted Paul to say that he determined not to know anything but Christ and Him crucified, meaning, I believe that it is irresposible for all of us to emphasize these personal theological perspectives over the simplicity of the Gospel…
Note to John Smith – you may want to go back over I and II Timothy, as well as Titus, and see how many times Paul uses the term “doctrine”. Seems it was rather important to him. As it should be to you. The “Gospel” is the whole counsel of God. It is obviously more than *just* the good news of salvation by grace, since Paul told the Roman church (i.e. people already saved) that he wanted to preach the Gospel to them. What did he mean by that? It meant he wanted to disciple them in the rest of what the Scripture says beyond salvation – the “teaching them to observe whatsoever I have commanded you” per Matthew 28:19. That includes dress standards and gender distinctions in clothing.
I’m sure you’ll complain that I’m “judging your motivations”. Why, you might even quote Matthew 7:1 to me out of context. But from where I’m sitting, your position looks like one which is based on the prima facie choice to discount the parts of God’s Word which conflict with your personal preferences.
sorry for the lack of posting here. I will be responding to some of the points above on my overnight shift tonight.
Mr Titus,
Thanks for your responses. Sorry, but I don’t know what prima facie means. Your right..sound doctrine produces right living, and right living adorns sound doctrine. By the way, my pastor is taking us verse by verse through 1 & 2 Tim and Titus on Fridays at 6am right know so I’ll keep my eyes peeled. Thanks for being so helpful.
However, I don’t agree that your statement “That includes dress standards” (interpreted in the usual IFBx way of no pants, only dresses and coulottes??? for women) was what Jesus meant in his discipleship directive. Modesty, yes. Gender distinctions, yes. But the rest? I don’t think so.
But I really don’t want to argue with any brother anymore about it. You believe Deut 22:5 and apply it, great!
laters,
John Smith
Titus,
Perhaps the reason you never see that phenomenon is because you are in complete agreement with “the program,” so a. it’s not a burden to YOU, since you would behave the “right” way without any external pressure, and b. you believe that any pressure others feel is because of the pricking of their consciences by the Holy Spirit rather than “peer pressure,” thus you feel justified in writing off any such observation as “self justification.” You certainly would notice this phenomenon if you visited churches where any of the external standards or other beliefs they had were not in agreement with what you believe the scripture is actually saying on that issue, especially if it’s something you just can’t put your finger on at the time, rather than something immediately obvious.
Okay, time for some responses.
I find what Pastor Mallinak said below to be important:
Essentially, you guys affirm the text instructs females to not wear male clothing articles, and males to not wear female clothing articles. Then you extrapolate from this that their ought to be male specific and female specific clothing. Then you conclude from an analysis of our culture that pants are male specific and skirts/dresses are female specific. I wouldn’t say it is a primary result from this reasoning, but one of the results is the assumption that all other items of clothing don’t really matter as a gender specific article has been identified, and therefore questions such as I asked can get dodged.
Now was a T-shirt a male item of clothing? If so, Deut. 22:5 comes into play per your own interpretation. Therefore, shouldn’t it be equally absurd for women to wear the T-shirt? And it shouldn’t matter how many years intervened, it should still be masculine for women to wear a T-shirt. Same goes for women wearing stockings, polo-style shirts, and suit tops (with skirts not pants of course). Are you fine with the modern practice of women wearing male-styled ties?
Now I should point out also, that if a T-shirt was male, but quickly became acceptable for females to wear, or if the stockings changed from male to female over time, then in principle your interpretation does admit that culture might be able to change–so culture is important in our assessment of applying this passage to our lives today.
All of this serves to illustrate that I think the text is saying more than just do not wear a male item. I think it is dealing with gender distinction. Wearing a male specific item with the intent of looking male — that seems to be what the text is teaching. This is corroborated by the point many make of the use of keli and geber pointing to warriors implements, or male tools. I understand the parallelism argument, but isn’t it true that women don’t have similar implements but rather garments and so the man wouldn’t be picking up the female war-item, but the female clothing.
Of course the warrior argument doesn’t have to stand, for my interpretation to be legitimate. In the context several of the commands deal with keeping distincitions, and certainly gender distinction is the overall point of the command.
In this way, I get around to Pastor Brandenberg’s challenge. I do not want my wife to wear men’s pants. I want her to dress femininely. Pants that are more masculine-looking, she avoids. Now with female designed pants that still look masculine, there is some leeway. I think the tenor of the verse in Deut. is for us to avoid looking masculine, but they still are female pants. I think using 1 Cor. 11 and an overall teaching of Biblical masculinity and femininity, one can teach and help people along toward a greater gender distinction in dress that does not necessarily demand no pants on women.
Now regarding the challenge to find one person on my side who writes that women shouldn’t wear men’s pants, I’m sure if I dug hard enough, I could. But there are many who claim the verse teaches against transvestism, which would patently include women wearing “men’s pants”. William McDonald, in the Believer’s Bible Commentary, for instance, briefly says this about the verse in question:
Phil Lancaster writing for Vision Forum Ministries says this in his article Female Warriors and Feminized Men“:
He does not go on to specify no pants on women, nor can I find an article at Vision Forum arguing for no pants on women. But from the above, you could conclude they would be against women wearing men’s pants.
Also, this article and this one seem to affirm gender distinction yet not demand no pants on women. (I don’t know much about the organizations or people who wrote those). I’m sure also that some of my readers could point us to some good articles on the subject, that conclude similarly to me.
Check out a quick new post of mine quoting from the King James Bible Commentary, and their thoughts on this issue. It will apply.
You mention my position is “anti-[your]-position”. But shouldn’t it be? Isn’t your position the peculiar one, the one that concludes much more from Deut. 22:5, than people did before? Also commentaries before the widespread acceptance of pants on women, wouldn’t really have seen a reason to elaborate on how to apply the verse to their culture, as you have found necessary. The positive position is to conclude the passage teaches gender distinction. Again see my new post on the issue. (that post will be coming in about 15 minutes or so.)
Thanks again Pastor Mallinak for your interaction here, I do welcome the exchanges and sharpening of iron.
I am sad that my position, and others like me who uphold Scripture and seriously attempt to apply Deut. 22:5, is deemed a non-position and really just a rejection of Scripture. Can’t we be honest and affirm the spirit of one another’s interpretations as both being honest, and fair in dealing with the text and trying to obey it?
Hey Titus, the peer pressure thing does happen. Of course from your perspective that could be good.
I have seen it happen with people who want to identify with fundamentalists. They are trying to do right, and when they haven’t yet conformed on this one issue are “bullied” into submission. Some of the people specifically in mind are still in that church which still has those strict standards, and still the reason they hold to the standards is more to fit in rather than they really hold to them. Evidence for that comes in what they wear whenever they are away on long trips and under the “thumb” of the institution.
Such “bullying” in my mind is wrong. Careful, patient persuasion is by all means acceptable. Bullying and harrassing is sinful, no matter to what end it is employed.
Is it wrong for me to get a small chuckle out of a bunch of men debating over women wearing pants? 🙂
I think men should wear robes. Keeps the women from looking at their crotches. That was the reason the men gave the women at my former IFB church — men look at crotches, it drives them wild and makes them stumble. Did they ever take it into account that they have something to look at and think about too?
I have not read this entire thread…. (because I don’t have a spare 3 hours, lol), but I wished to comment on the subject in general, and from what I’ve read so far. This is a subject upon which I’ve given long deliberate thought over many years, and have authored a book upon, so I’m not shooting from the hip.
If there is any error that has overwhelmed this generation of Christians it is the error of post-modern relativity…. of a total effacing of the notion of objectivity. Like we can’t say that the lead singer to AC/DC screaming into a mic like a devil from hell is evil in itself, because the bible doesn’t mention AC/DC. If people can’t listen to that and say its of the devil, then its not a matter of needing more evidence, its a matter of being blind.
I feel the same issue is at stake here. The position is being advocated, (praise God, in a very polite and godly way), that this entire subject is to be reigned over by culture. That CULTURE gets to decide what is modest/immodest, or feminine/masculine, and that there exists no objective standard by which we can assess any such behavior. The problem with this interpretation is that it unavoidably concludes that a man wearing a pink with purple polka dot silk shirt with lace frills down the front is perfectly masculine… so long as CULTURE says so. If we are so LOST in a sea of relativity, then no wonder that the world cannot find its way when we are “the light of the world”.
The argument made by Pastor Mallinak (sp?) needs a sound reply. If culture is the ultimate arbiter in all such questions of attire, then this completely overthrows the argument of those advocating relativity, because then it was SIN for men to rebel against the 20 centuries of Christians who thought women shouldn’t wear pants, because this was rebelling against the god of culture. And no amount of normalizing of SIN can be lawful. But perhaps if culture is a god, then she can change and do whatever she WANTS to do, but then the position is to say that there is really no standard AT ALL in any practical way whatever. This is where relativity takes you. I don’t want to go there. Especially seeing where it has taken the world and the church. I pray that people will think through this position more clearly. Blessings.
Charles
Experimentia,
Just noticed your post, and thought I’d reply. You speak about this “crotch” problem as though it were a myth. I assure you it is not. I do, however, think it a myth that women generally have this problem toward looking at men. The standard thinking says that women are generally more driven by touch, than by sight, and men visa versa, etc. While there may be exceptions, I think this is generally true. But if it is true as you say that its just as big a problem for women, then this doesn’t disprove that women should wear dresses, but would indeed prove that men should wear robes for your sake. I’d be glad to do that out of charity were it the truth. I don’t think it is, but I think that this heart of regard for the chastity of others has to be part of loving the saints. In fact, I didn’t wear shorts for 20 years, until many women affirmed that it caused no problem for them to see men in shorts, because it wasn’t so much the “sight” thing for them. Blessings.
Charles
Just one more. 😉
It was said:
“Thanks John & Glenys. I think you’re right John with some people. I know several personally who were coerced in a sense through peer pressure in their small fundamentalist churches/circles to “get with the program†on this issue.”
A simple question….. why is this mere “peer pressure” from “small fundamentalist churches” to “get with the program”, but when those on the other side of the question seek to convince others of THEIR side of the question, then its just “biblical discussion”? How would these feel if others described their honest discussion of the topic as “peer pressure” from their “seeker sensitive” churches” to “join the rest of the world” in its descent into godlessness?
Its not just the media that has to beware of “spin”.
Charles
Charles,
Thanks for your interaction. I’ve been away from my blog for a week or more, so I don’t really want to open a huge discussion again. Let me respond quickly, however.
First in regard to your last comment on this thread, I agree “spin” can be a problem. Your comment on my post about Thomas Manton actually belies such a spin as well. We all have to guard against this. I may have spun things a little, perhaps. But in regards to my quote which you provide, I have specific examples in mind which go beyond “biblical discussion”. “Peer pressure” is actually polite for what I’m talking of. A bullying, public pressure, put on people to conform to the standard, or else, is what I’m referencing. People literally looking down their nose at someone else, sneering at them, treating them as inferior, because they found that this person actually wore pants occasionally. This is not patient Biblical discussion seeking to persuade. This is a bullying which seeks conformity above an understanding and submissive assent.
Now I understand your wariness of postmodern relativity. But we both agree Scripture is the standard. Culture can be scriptural or not. And culture can be anti-god. However, the specifics ins and outs of what culture prescribes, can only be measured by Scripture. Where in Scripture is screaming into a mic associated with demonic activity? Is the singer in question yelling obscenities? Is he glorifying an anti-god, Scripturally wrong lifestyle? Then we can determine he is wrong. And to the degree that Satan is behind all ungodly activities in the world, the singer and his group are tools of Satan. Mozart, you will remember, was very perverted and very wicked in his lifestyle. Is his music glorifying that sin? Does it communicate his sin? Is it sinful? Again, we have to judge by Scripture. We know that no food is evil of itself, because only the heart, from which corruption proceeds, is morally good or bad. Yet in certain situations we are instructed to avoid certain foods. Discernment is needed.
Culture, even just a few hundred years ago, did not know a distinct male use of pants. Men wore robes and stockings. Women were clothed to their ankles in skirts. Why is it okay that hemlines have risen at all from that length and that women now use stockings and men would rather die than wear them? How high is too high of a hemline? Again we go to Scripture. Discernment required.
Scripture is clear that we should dress masculinely and femininely and not intentionally blur the lines. The specifics of that aren’t spelled out and can vary culture to culture. Again, my wife would never wear certain kinds of pants or even tops, which are clearly masculine. And I would not wear feminine styled pants or tops, also. We can judge that a lacy top for a man is feminine and not becoming of a Christian man. Is the color pink forbidden? Not necessarily.
Culture can’t be the only standard. And just because culture did it this way, doesn’t mean its wrong that culture changed that. Many Christians would see the cultural movement of prohibition / temperance as a good thing. The Puritans, however, drank alcohol and had no problem with that. So just basing our actions on what the Puritans did doesn’t work, necessarily. We must go to Scripture. Personally, I think moderate drinking is Scripturally encouraged and permitted. I get this from Scripture, and I don’t let culture sway me away from that.
I am not calling for a relativism which lets whatever you want go. I call for a strict study and adherence to the Bible. I’ve argued here and elsewhere that there is no clear Biblical prohibition of women using pants, in a chaste, modest, and feminine way. There is nothing inherent in the nature of the garment that it must be male-only in use.
What you have said, doesn’t change anything here. I respect your views, and ask you respect mine. We can agree to disagree without demonizing one another. A desire to please Christ and a respect for His Word, will not always be enough to achieve uniformity on such issues.
Blessings in Christ,
Bob Hayton
“A bullying, public pressure, put on people to conform to the standard, or else, is what I’m referencing. People literally looking down their nose at someone else, sneering at them, treating them as inferior, because they found that this person actually wore pants occasionally. This is not patient Biblical discussion seeking to persuade. This is a bullying which seeks conformity above an understanding and submissive assent.”
Could not agree with you more on that. This is where they go wrong… their attitude, not their beliefs about pants, etc.
About AD/DC, Mozart: I’m not a aesthetic relativist either… music has meaning. That’s why, as one man pointed out, you don’t ever hear them play the theme song to Jaws when your on the Dentists chair. 😉
You say,
“Culture, even just a few hundred years ago, did not know a distinct male use of pants. Men wore robes and stockings. Women were clothed to their ankles in skirts. Why is it okay that hemlines have risen at all from that length and that women now use stockings and men would rather die than wear them? How high is too high of a hemline? Again we go to Scripture. Discernment required.”
This is a completely different argument. I was arguing against the relativity of a different argument. This one needs a separate discussion, and that would be good, though I can’t right now.
You say,
“We can judge that a lacy top for a man is feminine and not becoming of a Christian man.” has yet to be answered. Please try to understand the exact argument being made, and if you are inclined and have the time to dialogue about its merit, demerit, etc. Blessings to you, and thank you for your attitude.
Charles
I agree, but this does completely contradict what you were saying earlier…. because what if CULTURE says its ok? Because you’ve made culture the arbiter here in your former argument. Perhaps you are modifying that somewhat? You are admiting to objectivity in this realm, and one in which the bible DOES NOT dictate…. I agree, but I’m just pointing out that it contradicts the post I was disagreeing with.
You say,
“What you have said, doesn’t change anything here. I respect your views, and ask you respect mine. We can agree to disagree without demonizing one another. A desire to please Christ and a respect for His Word, will not always be enough to achieve uniformity on such issues.”
I agree, and can have the problem of irritating others not at all realizing it, and if I’ve done that, I would not at all object to your pointing it out in particular, and I could more sincerely apologize for it.
I would conclude by pointing out that the last paragraph of my first post on this string, (#34)
For some reason when it posted my entry above that it mixed it all up. Wasn’t me, honest! lol There is no “edit” function here, so I can fix it?
Charles
Anyway…. the part that got cut off from my #38 was this,
I would conclude by pointing out that the last paragraph of my first post on this string, (#34) never got answered… Can any answer be made to this:
The argument made by Pastor Mallinak (sp?) needs a sound reply. If culture is the ultimate arbiter in all such questions of attire, then this completely overthrows the argument of those advocating relativity, because then it was SIN for men to rebel against the 20 centuries of Christians who thought women shouldn’t wear pants, because this was rebelling against the god of culture. And no amount of normalizing of SIN can be lawful. But perhaps if culture is a god, then she can change and do whatever she WANTS to do, but then the position is to say that there is really no standard AT ALL in any practical way whatever. This is where relativity takes you. I don’t want to go there. Especially seeing where it has taken the world and the church.
If you did answer this, perhaps you could point out to me where and how it gets rid of the problem. Thanks
Charles
sorry Charles. I meant it when I said I was not looking for an in-depth discussion (take 2). I am busy now and not keeping up with everything on my blog. I will answer your questions sometime soon, hopefully.
Wasn’t rushing you…. just asking a question. I think its a hard question to answer though, and really has no answer but that of acknowledging that such men would not be tolerated in our churches…. if we know them….. and know ourselves.
Charles
Well…. you will have to forgive me Bob! I was thinking this was the string in which we were discussing the Puritans and their successors and how welcome they would be in our modern churches. Sorry! 😉
Charles
Finding some time to get back to this….
Charles said in #40:
…but then the position is to say that there is really no standard AT ALL in any practical way whatever. This is where relativity takes you. I don’t want to go there. Especially seeing where it has taken the world and the church.
I see your point that you don’t want to be left with no standard. But we must honestly acknowledge that Scripture doesn’t present us with such a standard as far as what is male -appropriate dress and what is female-appropriate. Scripture gives us general principles, and doesn’t lay out a supra-cultural dress standard. Since Scripture is silent, why are we so happy to rush in and claim Western dress from 150-50 years ago as definitive? Why do we have to add rules where Scripture is silent?
I’m not sure if I’ve addressed all your points, Charles, but I’m trying to figure out exactly what your points are. I apologize for taking a long time to respond. I’ve been away from the blog and focused on work. And now I am just finishing up a temporary time when I had no internet access from home.
Hi FundyReformed….
Stumbled upon your site again, and it appears that my post about how the Puritans would not have been received in this age has been deleted. See post 43 how I reference it, and yet everything about it above 43 has been deleted.
And that was exactly my point. The truth of what they actually taught is hated… they would not be welcome in our churches…. they are not even welcome on your blog. I’d post their quotes again, but then this post would likely be deleted again. Probably will be anyway.
Charles
Charles,
I love how you assume the worst when not finding your comment. I’m just going to delete all dissonant views from my blog, especially yours, you imply. If you do any looking around on my blog you’ll see I rarely delete comments and preserve many comments I’d much rather delete.
In this case your #43 says it was a mistake for you to have included the comment under this discussion. Since it was a duplicate comment that is in another thread I deleted it here and kept it at the thread it was most pertinent too. Here is a link to the comment on that other thread.
By the way, you started your comments here by just skimming through the other comments, not bothering to read them all (see #34). Then you came on here muscling the whole discussion over to your pet peeve/hobby horse subject.
Let’s agree to disagree over this one. I’m sure some Puritans would be uncomfortable in our kind of churches in our day and age, but this is all assumption and guessing. They aren’t alive today. There are legalists and there are extreme post moderns and seeker sensitive types. Steering away from those errors, there is freedom for various expressions of church life.
I’ve put forth various Scriptural arguments for my positions. I’ve also used the Puritans for support on the importance of unity. You’ve expressed your dissenting opinion. Now please don’t complain about my blog anymore but wait for new discussions and join them as they arise if you’d like. But keep in mind this is my blog and not yours.
Thanks,
Bob Hayton
Hey Bob….
Stumbled upon yoru blog yet again. lol Yeah… I see what I did. I apologize, and ask you to forgive me please. Trusting that you will…. thanks.
Would you mind letting me know where that other discussion was about if the Puritans would be welcome in our modern churches? I’d be interested to revisit that. Thanks in advance.
Charles
Charles,
Here is the link to that other discussion, I believe:
https://fundamentallyreformed.com/2008/03/07/a-persuasive-to-unity-in-things-indifferent-by-thomas-manton/#comment-29132
No problem, you’re forgiven.
Blessings from the cross this Easter,
Bob Hayton
thanks,i still need more explanation on christianity and culture.
thanks,i still need more explanation on behaviour and christianity