Can women wear pants?

[Nithavela]

I know that some Christian denominations do not let women wear pants and I was wondering where that was found in the Bible. I've tried research but haven't gotten a clear answer.

Theres a passage about women not being allowed to wear mens clothing.

Of course, nothing we wear today even comes close to what people wore during the times of the bible. Pants werent even invented until a few centuries ago.

 

[FireDragon76]

All of that was more than a thousand years after Moses penned Deuteronomy.

And the Deuteronomist source's religion dividing the world into symbolic categories for the purposes of ritual purity has very little influence on Lutheran ethics. All it does is show us how difficult it is to commune with God under our own strength, and why we need a mediator.

So really, wear what you want.

 

[The Righterzpen]

This happens all the time when discussing Bible issues: "we're using the wrong word"!

Well, why dont we use the right words instead???

Probably because translators can get confused and are trying to convey best they understand using their particular backgrounds what they think it means.

 

[SwordmanJr]

Oh, and take your threats elsewhere. "Wait til my daddy gets home" doesn't impress anyone.

Threats? Wow. You really are full of yourself....

 

[durangodawood]

Women can not only wear pants. They can wear "the pants".

 

[Darkhorse]

Nothing wrong with women wearing pants. I have never understood the thinking that women wearing pants is somehow more immodest than men wearing pants.

That idea may have come from earlier centuries using horse-and-buggy travel. Women wearing skirts can relieve themselves outdoors without being exposed, which is not possible with pants. There weren't restrooms every 10 minutes along the road back then.

 

[Verv]

Fr. Chad Ripperger had a really tremendous commentary on this some years back...

Obviously, the cultural context completely determines clothing norms other than some basic standards that Christians would have about sexual modesty. Adherence to cultural norms in terms of gender clothing is also something implicit for Christians to follow. It is also not unreasonable for women or men to change their clothing and bend these standards based on circumstances. For instances, it normally isn't acceptable for a man to show up to work with his shirt off, but it is perfectly sensible if he is a lifeguard.

... And now we are at a point where the cultural norms about informal attire have shifted to such an extent that it would be a bit odd to suggest that women wearing pants is utterly off the wall. I was never raised in an environment where it was even a question that women could wear pants, right. It doesn't register with me.

It would be rather silly to start shooting for some target that would've been attainable in the preservation of pants only for men in the year 2019 when we live in a society where abortion, LGBTQ, etc., is completely normalized.

Ultimately, it's an issue that we just should not worry about. However, some would say that we should seek to make it so that women prefer to not wear pants to church. That's a separate topic, I think. And I do not have a stance on it.

 

[SwordmanJr]

Fr. Chad Ripperger had a really tremendous commentary on this some years back...

Obviously, the cultural context completely determines clothing norms other than some basic standards that Christians would have about sexual modesty. Adherence to cultural norms in terms of gender clothing is also something implicit for Christians to follow.

I've heard of situational ethics, but situational morality, with cultural norms as the defining authority for that renegade system of morality, and that can be skirted in "some circumstances"? THAT is an interesting take on this. The logical conclusion to such a system is a moral base built upon a shifting sand foundation.

No thanks. I believe the Bible provides ample guidance for what is moral and what is not.

For example, most preachers behind pulipts are false teachers because they still do such things as pointing to that piece of paper from City Hall as the measure for a moral, marital relationship, and that the absence of that piece of paper somehow constitutes a moral crisis. That social/cultural measure is utterly false because there are no laws requiring a couple to acquire government recognition through sanctioned certificates/licenses for their marriage unless they wish to use that system to acquire other benefits that can otherwise be had through other legal channels without involving the government in a marriage.

It would be rather silly to start shooting for some target that would've been attainable in the preservation of pants only for men in the year 2019 when we live in a society where abortion, LGBTQ, etc., is completely normalized.

We are simply following along in the iron-clad pattern of all the other historic nations, kingdoms and empires. We are soon going to enter the citizen-slave stage of governance. The pants will be worn by the local anzi-style regionalists who will control your life down to when you go to bed, and with whom.

Jr.

 

[Verv]

I am always interested when I see someone more conservative than me, lol.

I would say this: there are cultures where men traditionally do wear things besides pants that can even be compared to 'skirts' and the likes, yet it is in their cultural framework that it is acceptable. The ancient Hebrews and Greeks wore things that we just do not wear at all today, and so perhaps some concepts about modern female dress would be immediately lost on them.

The Bible clearly says that people should not crossdress... are men who are in a culture different from ours crossdressing? Of course not.

If our culture has gotten to a point where the wearing of pants by a woman is normalized, is she crossdressing?

But I do see your point. It makes me pause for reflection.

 

[ThievingMagpie]

I thought underwear was knickers.

Knickers refers to women's underwear - pants is more genderless. Any further questions on the British relationship with underwear are welcome.

 

[SwordmanJr]

I am always interested when I see someone more conservative than me, lol.

I would say this: there are cultures where men traditionally do wear things besides pants that can even be compared to 'skirts' and the likes, yet it is in their cultural framework that it is acceptable. The ancient Hebrews and Greeks wore things that we just do not wear at all today, and so perhaps some concepts about modern female dress would be immediately lost on them.

The Bible clearly says that people should not crossdress... are men who are in a culture different from ours crossdressing? Of course not.

If our culture has gotten to a point where the wearing of pants by a woman is normalized, is she crossdressing?

But I do see your point. It makes me pause for reflection.

Any time we diverge away from biblical foundations for absolutes, even in dress, we find ourselves mired in the swamps of subjective morality, which is why I brought up the marriage license bull-pucky sqewed from pulpits for more than a century now. Like Jesus said, a little leaven leavens the whole loaf.

Jr.

 

[Dave-W]

Knickers refers to women's underwear -

And here I though that "knickers" referred to knickerbockers, a mid-calf length pants, shorter than full length but longer than Bermuda shorts.

Also known as "Pedal Pushers."

 

[Ttalkkugjil]

I know that some Christian denominations do not let women wear pants and I was wondering where that was found in the Bible. I've tried research but haven't gotten a clear answer.

Can women wear pants? Every woman who has legs can.

 

[jayem]

Can women wear pants? Every woman who has legs can.

So can a woman without legs.

 

[Desk trauma]

Any time we diverge away from biblical foundations for absolutes, even in dress, we find ourselves mired in the swamps of subjective morality, which is why I brought up the marriage license bull-pucky sqewed from pulpits for more than a century now. Like Jesus said, a little leaven leavens the whole loaf.

Jr.

Are there any details on what makes a garment appropriate for one gender or the other?

 

[jayem]

Any time we diverge away from biblical foundations for absolutes, even in dress, we find ourselves mired in the swamps of subjective morality, which is why I brought up the marriage license bull-pucky sqewed from pulpits for more than a century now. Like Jesus said, a little leaven leavens the whole loaf.

Jr.

Would a no-pants dress code apply to professional attire too? Like this:

Or this:

 

[MyChainsAreGone]

I've done a few studies on this.
Mens' garments?
If you look at the Hebrew in those verses in Deuteronomy 22 though; they are actually talking about warfare. The word sometimes translated "garment" is a reference to battle armor. Yet the verse is not saying woman shouldn't got to war either. Women have also been combatants in wars for millennia. The Roman army had "female auxiliary forces" who protected the family encampments when the male soldiers were out fighting.

So what do these verses mean?

A woman is not to "put on above and beyond (battlements) pertaining to a man" and a man "is not to wear women's clothing".

Now when we take the two halves of this verse together in context of warfare; women are not to be stuck out on the front lines as human shields is what this actually means (as trying to deter the enemy). And men are not to dress as women; by implication being to avoid combat.

Now this of course makes more ethical sense than quibbling over what constitutes male verses female garments.

Very good... you're the first you actually looked at the Hebrew words under this command and you got it right for the "man's garment."

However, while the "woman's garment" does indeed refer to a garment instead of "armor"... I think we need to go one step further in trying to understand what a "woman's garment" must mean.

The easy "out" is to just presume that it means that men shouldn't wear whatever women's clothing happens to be the norm in their own culture (and this is basically the force of your statement), but I don't think that's how God gives us moral guidelines and commands.

I ask myself this... What would have been considered a "woman's garment" when this command was given?

Well, given the fact that all people basically wore the same style of clothes at that time, it can't have anything to do with the "style."

But there IS one garment which can for all time be considered only a woman's garment... and that would be her menstrual cloth.

And since the Bible already has other laws governing the menstruating woman (don't even sit on the same chair she's sat on!), it makes sense that this may be a similar command for men about the use of a woman's menstrual cloth.

My thoughts...

David

 

[Tinker Grey]

it makes sense that this may be a similar command for men about the use of a woman's menstrual cloth

This was a problem?

 

[MyChainsAreGone]

Funny that people who claim to base their morals on the teaching of the bible think that a woman has to wear a skirt or dress...

The fact is that you can't demonstrate from the bible that all people are morally required to wear clothing at all... let alone any particular style.

When the bible was written (and for just about all of human history), bathing for all but the very rich was done in open/public bodies of water. Yet, there's absolutely no biblical teaching about avoidance of public exposure for the general population.

We like to claim that we are "biblical" Christians... but then we still tend to hold fast to cultural norms while claiming they are biblical when they are not.

David