• Home
  
  
• Origins of IFBs
  
  
• About Me
  
  
• Whats New?
  
  
• Articles by Topic
  
  
• IFB Church Directory
  
  
• Links
  
  
• Comments
  
  
• Email Me

So whats wrong with woman wearing pants?

by Larry Harriman

Other related articles

In this article I will be reviewing a typical article by an IFB dealing with the issue of women wearing pants. Thankfully many IFB churches in the last 10 years have rejected such pharisaical and false teaching. But there still are a significant number of IFB as well as other "old fashioned" Bible churches which do not allow their women to wear pants.

I was contacted by the author of this article on May 14th 2007 and was informed that he no longer holds the position this article takes and he asked me to remove his name from this article - and I have done so. I respect when people change there positions on things as the Lord moves them, I myself have made changes to things I believe after more careful study and can understand this. The author of this informed me that the fundamental baptist church he wrote this for still distributes the article, but under another person's name since he does not hold to the position anymore.

The author of the article starts out his article with the following statement:

"What does the Bible say about a saved woman wearing pants? Is it even an issue with God? Or is it merely a matter of preference or opinion to be left up to individuals to do what is right in their own eyes? Since we believe the Bible, more specifically, the King James Bible, to be the FINAL AUTHORITY (not tradition, opinions, or how one "feels" led), let’s start there."

The first interesting thing to note is when the author of the article says "is it merely a matter of preference". This is the first problem with many fundamentalists is that they have a problem with the individual soul liberty of the believer. They have a problem with the fact that Christians "feel led" differently on certain disputable matters.

Once again, not all fundamentalists feel this way, I being one of them. But as Charles Spurgeon said there is and has been for over 100 years a pharisitical tendency rising amoungest the ranks of Bible believers which adds the traditions and commands of men to the commands of God. To that system we must not yield for an hour.

The author of the article evidently disagrees with the Apostle Paul when he wrote in Romans chapter 14 - "One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind."(Romans 14:5 NIV).

It is very possible for Christians to come to differing conclusions on disputable matters like dress.

Another interesting thing the author of the article states is "Since we believe the Bible, more specifically, the King James Bible, to be the FINAL AUTHORITY (not tradition, opinions, or how one "feels" led)", let’s start there.".

Isn't the author's belief that the King James Bible(the 9th translation of the Bible in English) is the FINAL AUTHORITY based on his "tradition, opinions, or how one "feels" led". This is an example of how many fundamentalists, like the author, are blinded as to their own inconsistencies.

I agree that the Bible(and any good translation of it) are the final authority in all matters of faith and practice. So lets go on to see how the author of the article will attempt to prove that women not wearing pants is found in the Bible.

the author of the article then writes:

Deuteronomy 22:5 - The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God.

After reading this verse, what things pop into your mind? Earrings and necklaces on men, long hair on men, short hair on women, dresses on men, and of course, pants on women. Notice the word "abomination" is used to describe how God feels about cross-dressing. I looked it up in Webster’s Dictionary.

Deuteronomy 22:5 is an excellent passage relating to this topic of women's dress. It is clear that women should not wear clothing specifically made for men and men should not wear a "woman's garment". But who determines what is a woman's garment and what is a man's? This is determined by the culture and the time one lives in.

He tries to speak for all Christians when he says that "pants on women" pops into our mind as clothing that pertains to men. I(and many other IFBs) do not see women wearing pants as a manly thing if they are made and cut for a women. Anyone who knows a stitch (forgive the pun) about clothing knows that womens pants are cut very differently than mens.

A note at this point - there is and has been for sometime a unisex movement going on in the clothing world - that I do not agree with. But if my daughter or wife are wearing pants that are cut and made for girls then they are not in violation of the scriptures - period.

I don't particularly like "Earrings and necklaces on men" either, and I would not let my sons wear them while they are at home. Having said that, the Bible says nothing specifically about men wearing necklaces or earings - once again it is based on the culture in which you live.

This is something that many fundamentalists(especially the American brand) have a problem with. They do not recognize cultural distinctions. We as fundamentalists all agree that there are some absolutes in this world. We are willing to fight for those absolutes to the bitter end. Some of these would be the deity of Christ and his death on the cross being the full, sufficient and only payment for the sins of mankind. Another would be the inerrancy of scripture.

Unfortunately fundamentalists have taken the old American cultural standards and made them on the same level as the fundamentals of the faith. They fail to realize that while at one time pants were not made for women, they are today. They fail to realize that while at one time men may not have worn necklaces in America, they are acceptable for men to wear today.

At this many "old fashioned" fundamentalists will quote verses like Hebrews 13:8(NIV) - "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.". The problem with trying to use that verse to say women should not wear pants is that verse has nothing to do with clothing styles or dress. It has to do with the unchanging nature of God. If that were talking about clothing then we would all have to start wearing tunics and robes because thats what Jesus wore.

For that matter, women and men both wore robes dearing Bible times. They just wore them differently. Not unlike men and women both being able to wear pants - but pants are cut differently for women than they are for men.

And now back to the author of the article's article:

"That’s pretty strong language, wouldn’t you say? While most church members react in disgust to Sodomites who parade down the street in dresses, they readily accept and even defend women wearing pants. According to God’s Word, it is no more of an abomination for a man to wear a dress than it is for a woman to wear a pair of pants."

So here is the jist of what the author of the article has said to this point:
The Bible says that it is a shame for man to wear women's clothing or for a women to wear men's clothing - at that point we all agree. Then the author of the article says that "According to God's Word" it is an abomination for women to wear pants. Funny, I don't find that anywhere in the text. It is the author of the article's opinion that pants - no matter how they are cut or made, are man's clothing and not women's. He ties this in with the passage and says instead of it just saying women should not wear men's clothing it now says women should not wear pants - because the author of the article thinks pants are only for men.

Jesus, speaking to the Pharasisies(then and now), said of them these words "They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men.'"(Matthew 15:9 NIV). The author and other fundamentalists have ignored the words of Paul in I Corinthians 4:6:

"1 Corinthians 4:6(NIV)
Now, brothers, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, "Do not go beyond what is written." Then you will not take pride in one man over against another."

Unfortunately, for the author of the article and other fundamentalists that think like he does, "their teachings are but rules taught by men" and they have gone "beyond what is written" and teach the traditions and commands of men as the commands of God.

That is why it is important for fundamentalists like myself and others, to stand up for the truth and correct these brothers in their adding traditions to the scriptures.

In the next section the author of the article goes into a defense of the fact that Deuteronomy 22:5 is still applicable for New Testament Christians. Since I agree with him about that, but not his application of it, we will skip down to the next section of interest.

the author of the article continues:

"I Timothy 2:9 says, " . . . that women adorn themselves in modest apparel . . ." "Apparel" today is a very general term that means "any article of clothing." But did you know that in 1611 the word "apparel" meant "loose, long flowing garment?" Look it up in an old Oxford English Dictionary that has the archaic meanings of words. Furthermore, the Greek word is katastole which is an EXACTING WORD, and it is the ONLY place in the Bible where it is used. There are lots of words for clothing, attire, etc., but this word comes from a verb form which means "to lower." It denoted a loose-fitting outer garment, which was LONG. Paul used this word specifically to tell women that they are to wear long DRESSES. Pants, miniskirts, tight dresses, etc. can not fit the definition of this exacting word. Consult your Vine’s Dictionary for verification of this word definition."

First off the author of the article makes the mistake of using the meaning of the old English word "apparel" as weight for his argument. This word chosen to translate a Greek word in the New Testament - we should only be concerned with the meaning of the Greek word as many English words do not perfectly fit the Greek they are trying to translate.

The old English definition of apparel may have been a "loose, long flowing garment" but that is more than what the Greek word 'Katastole' means. It is true that the exact Greek word 'Katastole' only appears once in the New Testament but it is based off the Greek word 'Katastello'. 'Katastole' means 'a lowering, letting down' but 'Katastole' from which it is based means 'to send or put down, to lower' or 'to put or keep down one who is roused or incensed, to repress, restrain, appease, quiet'.

In fact the Greek word 'Katastello', from which 'Katastole' is derived, appears twice in the New Testament but in the same passage in Acts chapter 19 when Paul went into the theater at Ephesus and the people wanted to kill him:

Acts 19:35-36(NIV)
35The city clerk quieted [Katastello] the crowd and said: "Men of Ephesus, doesn't all the world know that the city of Ephesus is the guardian of the temple of the great Artemis and of her image, which fell from heaven? 36Therefore, since these facts are undeniable, you ought to be quiet [Katastello] and not do anything rash.

So when the I Timothy 2:9 speaks of women wearing "modest apparel" or as the NIV translates it that women should "dress modestly" it means that women should wear modest and quiet clothing. Clothing that does not draw attention to them and covers them properly.

At this point I will say that I believe many Christian young ladies today have violated this principle of wearing modest and quiet clothing. In fact they wear clothing to attract - to make everyone notice them -whether sexually or not. We as fathers and husbands have a solemn responsibility to make sure that our daughters and wives are wearing modest and quiet clothing.

But is it possible for a women to wear loose fitting jeans made for a women and be following this principle of wearing modest and quite clothing? - absolutely.

the author of the article continues:

"Yeah, but what makes you think that pants are a man’s garment?"

Good question. I have a four part answer to this which demonstrates that pants always pertain to men, even today.

"Breeches" were an article of clothing designed by God for the priests who were all men. The word does not occur very often in scripture, but in every case it’s men’s apparel (Exodus 28:42, Leviticus 6:10, 16:4). According to my Hebrew lexicon, "breeches" means "trousers that extend to the knee, below the knee, or to the ankles." This would include pants, shorts, or culottes.

Until the advent of Hollywood and the movie screen, everyone (including lost people) knew that pants were men’s apparel and dresses were women’s apparel, and they dressed accordingly.

Our culture’s (and sadly most churches’) acceptance of cross-dressing has resulted largely from the influence of television, the placement of women in the workforce, and the pressures of twentieth century feminism.

The universal symbol for designating a men’s bathroom is a stick figure wearing a pair of pants. The universal symbol for designating a woman’s bathroom is a stick figure wearing a dress. Coincidence? Hardly. Even our sinful society recognizes that there is a difference in a man’s and woman’s clothing.

Pants are a symbol of authority, as evidenced by the saying " I’m the one who wears the pants in the family." Sadly, most women might as well wear the pants, since they rule their homes anyway!"

While the author of the article is right in pointing out that the priests wore these 'breeches' and it was only referenced toward men he never shows where the scriptures forbid women from wearing these 'breeches' or pants. In fact all the other men who were not priests at that time wore tunics and robes, and so did the women, they just wore them differently.

I agree that historically women wearing pants came about as a result of the feminist movement. In large part this was due to women entering the workforce and dresses and factories did not mix well.

Lets stop here for a minute to recognize the classic "guilt by association" tactic of the author of the article here. Many fundamentalists use this to say things are wrong - not because the item itself is wrong, but because of the association with something else.

If these same fundamentalists used this ideology consistently they would not be able to buy anything at any stores or attend any food chain restaurants because they might be associated with some cause or group that we as Christians are against.

We must judge each thing we do, or buy, or participate in based on its own merits, otherwise we fall into this sea of guilt by association and we are paralyzed.

the author of the article speaks about our acceptance(the church and the culture's) of "cross-dressing". This is perhaps the greatest point against the author of the article's argument. When the scriptures speak of men not wearing what pertains to women and women not wearing what pertains to men this is exactly speaking of cross-dressing. The scriptures are forbidding women from trying to look like men and men from trying to look like women.

In our time and culture this would be referring to drag queens(men that dress like women) and lesbians(women that want to look like men). If you have ever been to a major city you have seen men walking down the street in a dress with makeup and a wig. You may also have seen a women with her hair cut just like a man's and wearing a man's suit trying to look like a man. This what the scripture is forbidding.

the author of the article continues:

"To try and say that wearing pants may be wrong for some saved women and not for others is to engage in moral relativism which strips all authority from God’s Word. God does not have two sets of standards. He is no respecter of persons.

Acts 10:34 - Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:

Wearing pants is either wrong for ALL saved women, or it is wrong for none. In deciding if something is right or wrong, our first consideration must ALWAYS be what the Word of God says, not how we may "feel convicted.""

Here again is the problem with "old fashioned" fundamentalists like the author of the article, they cannot accept the individual soul liberty of the believer. They instead opt for a 'one size fits all' mentality. It is true that the Bible is absolute about many things - but it does allow for there to be differences between believers on disputable matters.

The Apostle Paul believed there were and would arise more disputable matters amongst Christians. Apparently the author of the article disagrees with the Apostle Paul when he write in Romans chapter 14:

1Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters. 2One man's faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. 3The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him. 4Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand. 5One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind.

the author of the article and other fundamentalists who believe as he does on this issue of women wearing pants believe they may pass "judgment on disputable matters" and that they are able to "judge someone else's servant" and that people don't need to be fully convinced in their own minds - but let the author of the article and others like them settle the matter for them.

The last item of the author of the article's article we will cover has to do with his appeal to history:

It’s kind of funny that for nearly 6000 years, women always wore long dresses, but only since the last 40 years, a dress is suddenly "impractical" to wear. You cannot change history to validate what you want to make acceptable for today. Nowadays, women think that they cannot so much as rake a few leaves without adorning themselves in a pair of pants.

He says that women always wore long dresses - this is not exactly true. women AND men for about 5000 years or so wore tunics and robes. Women wore their tunics to just above their ankles. A tunic was a long continuous item of clothing(similiar to a long tee-shirt) and it was customary to wear a belt around the center. Sometimes people wore outer robes around their tunics(something like a coat) and other times they did not.

Kings, priests and noblemen however, continued to wear their tunics all the way down to the ground and sometimes had outer robes that did the same.

So here is a summary of the way clothing was worn prior to the last 500 years or so: Everyone wore tunics, labor class men wore them down to their knees, labor class women wore them just above their ankles and nobilty,priests and kings and queens wore them down to the floor.

Around the middle ages the Germans started wearing something similar to our modern pants under their tunics to keep warm while they worked in the cold northern winters.

Eventually pants caught on more because they made horse back riding easier for men. The male nobility wore pants down to their knees with stockings or boots below that. Labor class men wore their pants down to their ankles. Eventually, long pants were worn by both nobel and labor classes.

But clearly the distinction of men wearing pants and women wearing dresses is a modern phenomenon originating in the last 500 years or so.

So if women wear their "tunics"(pants today) differently then men wear their "tunics"(pants today) where is the problem? If the women is not dressing to look like a man and is modest and quite in her clothing she is not violating the scriptures.

So in conclusion, the assertion by the author of the article and other like-minded fundamentalists that women wearing pants is an "abomination" falls flat on its face when compared with the Scriptures. They are simply teaching the traditions of men for commands of God - not a good place to be in.