Holding on to the Cultural Norms of a Bygone Era: A Look at Fundamentalism's "No-Pants-on-Women" Oddity

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.

Anyone else have more links for good discussions on this?

Sam Storms on Traditionalism, Fundamentalism, Unity, and More

Recently, I read a fascinating interview of Sam Storms  concerning an upcoming Baptist Conference on the Holy Spirit, which Sam will be speaking at. Sam Storms is best known for his non-cessationist position on miraculous gifts (learn more at his website EnjoyingGodMinistries.Com). However, he is also an advocate of conservative Biblical theology, Calvinism, complementarianism, and the centrality of the Word in worship. He’s also a Dallas Seminary grad, so as you can see, Dr. Sam Storms is an interesting person to interview.

The interview did not just focus on spiritual gifts, however. Since the conference is being hosted by a prominent Southern Baptist church, the interview (conducted by 12 Witnesses) asked Storms what he thought about the current issues facing the SBC. In his responses, he touched on issues central to the purpose of this blog. He touched on problems with fundamentalism and traditionalism, and the need for unity. So I thought I would reproduce some of his comments here for my readers, and encourage them to check out the interesting and informative full interview over at 12 Witnesses.

Question: Within the Southern Baptist landscape right now, what issues do you see driving our mutual discussion? Is there an overarching issue that relates to all of the things abuzz in the Convention? If so, what is it?

Answer: The issues are much the same as they’ve been for generations. The things Christians disagree and argue about are fairly constant: the sovereignty of God and human responsibility, especially as it relates to evangelism and missions; the role of the Holy Spirit and spiritual gifts in particular; the role of women in ministry and leadership; eschatology, spontaneity vs. liturgy in worship, etc. These and a few other issues are almost always at the center of debate, not just among Baptists but across denominational lines.

The one thing these issues have in common is that none of them is central to the gospel itself. They are all, at best, secondary doctrines, or doctrines on which Christ-exalting, Bible-believing Christians can and often do disagree. Sadly, some question the evangelical credentials of anyone who might dare to differ with their view on Calvinism or whether miraculous gifts occur today or the timing of the rapture or the nature of the millennium.

But there is something else that is even more disturbing, and that is the angry and divisive dogmatism that is emerging over behavioral issues on which the Bible is either silent or leaves one’s decision in the realm of Christian freedom. Perhaps the greatest threat to unity and acceptance in the Church is the tendency to treat particular life-style and cultural preferences as though they were divine law. To be even more specific, it’s the tendency to constrict or reduce or narrow the boundaries of what is acceptable to God, either by demanding what the Bible doesn’t require or forbidding what the Bible clearly permits.

My experience has been that this is typically driven by one of three things: either an unjustified fear of being “spiritually contaminated” by too close contact with the surrounding culture, or an unbridled ambition to gain power over the lives of others, or a failure to believe and trust in the all-sufficiency of Jesus Christ (or all three combined).

I’m concerned that in certain segments of the Convention there is a mindset reminiscent of the old “fundamentalism” that is characterized by isolationism, separatism, anti-intellectualism, cultural withdrawal, and a generally angry and judgmental attitude toward all those who dare to differ on these matters that quite simply don’t matter; at least they don’t matter nearly as much as whether or not you believe in the deity of Christ, his substitutionary atonement, bodily resurrection, and salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.

Whereas conservative evangelicalism has typically drawn the line on theological essentials, this more recent fundamentalism draws the line ever more narrowly on issues such as total abstinence vs. moderation in the use of alcohol, the degree of freedom and the role of affections in public worship, the legitimacy of so-called “private prayer language,” etc. Sadly, when one’s commitment to Christ and the authority of Scripture is judged on the basis of this latter group of issues, rather than the former, the situation is bleak indeed.

Question: How do you see the debate over moderation concerning the consumption of alcohol? Do you see a disparity in the approach to the alcohol issue and other issues under debate?

Answer: Honestly, I’m weary of this debate. Certainly anyone who embraces the authority of Scripture must denounce drunkenness. But I’ve never been persuaded in the least by the alleged “biblical” arguments for total abstinence. Having said that, I think total abstinence is a perfectly honorable and permissible practice to embrace. Any Christian is free to abstain from alcohol. But they aren’t free, in my opinion, to insist that others do the same. They are even less free to accuse those who drink in moderation of being sub-Christian. Abstinence per se is neither a sign of spiritual weakness nor of spiritual strength. Neither is one’s choice of moderation in the use of alcohol a sign of weakness or strength. Whether one totally abstains or drinks in moderation is simply irrelevant to Christian spirituality.

Question: What are your thoughts on the Traditional church, the Missional church and the Emergent church?

Answer: …My primary concern for the Traditional church is that its customs, rituals (yes, even Southern Baptist’s have rituals; they just don’t call them that), habits, and accepted patterns for ministry and worship are so deeply entrenched in the spiritual psyche of a people that the Bible itself is not allowed to critique what is done or provide direction for new expressions of life as the body of Christ.

There is also the potential threat of a Traditional church losing touch with the surrounding culture. They can often create a “fortress” mentality, circle the wagons, hunker down so to speak, and rarely engage with the developments in society or the unsaved who populate it.

Too often, in the name of tradition, freedom in worship is stifled, the power of the Spirit is suppressed, age old “doctrines” are immune from biblical scrutiny, and what makes people “feel comfortable” is the decisive factor in evaluating fresh proposals or efforts to reach the lost and more effectively communicate with the saved… [note he does go on to criticize the Emergent church as well]

Emphasis was added in the above excerpts. Be sure to read the whole interview. And please let me know if you think Storms is off on some of his assessments here.

The Holiness of High Standards

I came across a post today that almost blew my socks off! It is such an important topic, and the post was worded so perfectly. So I thought I should stop everything, and encourage you all to go read this post. Let me  introduce the post more fully, and then I’ll give you the link.

William Dudding, who is a KJV using, Independant Fundamental Baptist, is also a reformer. His blog, The Reforming Baptist, deals with many of the struggles that face fundamentalists. And although we don’t always see eye to eye on every issue, I have tremendous respect for Will. He doesn’t go with the flow, and he respects God’s Word. His posts are often challenging and enriching.

This post is entitled, “High Standards = Right Doctrine“. Let me give you an excerpt from the beginning of the post, and then send you off to read the rest.

I remember growing up as a strict Fundamentalist Baptist that I used to think because we held to such a high standard of living, that we must be the most elite of Christians; the ones most in touch with God; the ones who were the closest to genuine Christianity as God intended it to be.

We would look condescendingly down on another Christian who disagreed with any of our positions whether they be soul winning, the King James Bible, Dispensationalism, etc. The measure of correct doctrine to too many of us in Fundamentalism is the length of a woman’s skirt, or the shortness of a man’s hair.

Isaiah 65:3,5 “A people that provoketh me to anger continually to my face; ….Which say, Stand by thyself, come not near to me; for I am holier than thou.”

[Read the entire post.]

Preaching Pictures

Having recently pushed for my viewers to buy a movie ticket to see The Nativity Story, I was very intrigued by Kevin Bauder’s recent article on the history of fundamentalism and the movies. This first article is primarily history while part two, apparently, will be Bauder’s own assessment of the morality inherent in going to a movie.

With this discussion on my mind, I stumbled across By Faith magazine, and some recent articles they have on movies and drama.  

The article entitled “We Do Theater Because We Believe” by Charlie Jones drives home the point that drama has the ability to move us. It tells a story, and stories are powerful, especially in a post modern age like our own! Drama often preaches a sermon, so to speak. It can powerfully communicate a message. And if you look around, there are lots of sermons and millions of listeners. But it is not us Christians who are doing the preaching.

In an interview with Christian playwright and actor Tom Key, Key claims that “art always leads the person to slightly or profoundly more than change, whereas the entertainment that is not art will not experientially, existentially affect the recipient.” So while drama can move us, if it isn’t good art, it probably won’t. Which leads us to wonder with Art Within founder Bryan Coley, “In a media-saturated generation, where are we as Christians?”  

I guess these articles (they are all fairly brief) caused me to ponder a few things. First, that the art form of drama and motion pictures is a powerful medium which Christians should redeem, and feel free to experience (with discernment of course). Second, that Christians should be more involved in the production of artful plays and movies. And lastly, such Christian involvement in the production of drama would lead to both a communication of Christian themes to a wider audience, as well as providing a healthy alternative to secularism’s often lustful creations–to “criticize by creating” as Michelangelo and Bryan Coley put it.


∼striving for the unity of the faith for the glory of God∼ Eph. 4:3,13 “¢ Rom. 15:5-7

Cast Your Vote for Wholesome Entertainment

The Nativity StoryI am planning on going to a movie theater for only the second time ever. I blogged about my first visit here. And once again, I go because I want to support wholesome entertainment.

No longer an extreme fundamentalist (IFBx), I see nothing morally wrong with going to a theater to see a movie. You can see the post I linked to above for a defense of this position, or you may be interested in my post on 1 Thess. 5:22—either way, that whole argument is not really the point of this post.

What I am trying to do with this post is encourage you all to get out and support The Nativity Story. It is the first time in dozens of years that a major Hollywood film studio has produced a Bible-themed movie. Hollywood, which is so often maligned by Christians (and rightly so), has actually stuck its neck out and risked by producing this overtly “Scriptural” movie. Shouldn’t we then support the movie so that Hollywood will realize that we Christians want wholesome entertainment, not the all too common base (and at times downright offensive) variety?

The Nativity Story does its best to “stick to the Script”, so to speak. The screenwriter, Mike Rich, took great pains to stick to material that would fit with Matthew and Luke’s accounts, and director Catherine Hardwicke made his dream a reality. Mike spent months researching to understand the time period as well as to understand what Matthew meant when he described Joseph simply as a “just man”.

The movie fills in the gaps of the Scriptural record in an attempt to depict who Joseph and Mary really were. Before you protest, from what I have read, the movie does this in a much more agreeable way than the old classic The Ten Commandments did with the story of Moses. The main message of the nativity story shines through the movie version, and the extra material does not detract from this message, for the most part.

Albert Mohler and World Magazine give the movie great reviews. While David Neff of Christianity Today reminds us that Hollywood does miss the mark, by turning the story into a bit of a love story, rather than highlighting how the actual events that took place point to the prophetic significance of Jesus Christ.

All in all, this seems like a great movie, and I would encourage you to go see it. Take a few bucks and cast a vote for wholesome entertainment. You can be salt and light to the world even while you are enjoying a great holiday movie that will cause you to dwell on the true meaning of the season rather than (merely) thinking of Clarence’s wings.


∼striving for the unity of the faith for the glory of God∼ Eph. 4:3,13 • Rom. 15:5-7