Monday, July 03, 2006

An Apologetic for Men's Skirts

I've said in a moment of calm and thoughtfulness, "Put a skirt on him!" I, of course, in that tranquil demeanor that I often manifest, spoke of a lack of masculinity, and I am here to inform you that I want to take it all back. I'm starting to see the light, and I am teetering toward, or perhaps better, prancing closer to the male skirt or dress. Now know that I'm not talking about a woman's skirt or dress, but a male one. No article of clothing is uniquely designed for a man or a woman. And I've been told recently that dictatorial male chauvenists hungry to keep power kept women out of pants. I haven't seen many of them, and I should know why, but maybe I don't anymore, because I don't think it matters how you dress, as long as you can tell the difference.

And I can, well, except for that time that I was sitting in a Vietnamese restaurant in Oakland, and looked over my chopsticks at the next table, and on the other side from one beautiful lady was a woman with a crewcut. I mentally grimaced. Then the gorgeous creature turned around and she was a man with long, thick, breck-girl, jet-black hair. I mentally sickened. Then last week I took rapid transit into San Francisco to pass out gospel tracts at the Gay Pride festivities. Their celebration includes dozens of booths selling food, magazines, paraphernalia, and men's skirts. Yes. You exclaim, "Men's Skirts?!?!" I ambivantly reply, "Yes, and what of it? They weren't woman's skirts." They were uniquely male skirts, you see. And plenty of men with another man by his side were wearing a male skirt. And I could tell that they were both men. Well, I would have known if they were men if they had even worn women's skirts. Some sort of detection ability reminiscent of Sherlock Holmes, I have. Several of these men in skirts did remind me of an old Fred Flinstone cartoon, where Fred was dressed in drag. It didn't take rocket science, folks; not even Barney for that matter. But the men in San Francisco were scooping up these skirts like former President Clinton at an intern convention.

But I digress. I announce to all men (microphone feedback). You are (even more feedback) free to wear dresses! (Stunned silence) All of you John Waynes, Teddy Roosevelts, and Lyle Alzados? Go get your dresses. (Pin drop) Only one stipulation: (Light Murmur) It must be a male skirt or dress! (Cheers) Why? In the Bible in Deuterononomy 22:5, God said this:
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.
At this time, I want to break to give you some vital and important fashion history. Men and women at that time, when Deuteronomy was written, both wore robes. They had not yet invented lycra or blue suede shoes. The sewing machine was not right around the corner. They (hush) had male robes and female robes. So do you know what that means? That means that today we get to wear the same kind of clothes as each other! That's what that mainly means. Yes! And if it doesn't mean that, it means: Don't be a transvestite! (This latter interpretation provided so that your bases will be covered.) (You're welcome.) But what it really means to you men is: Go out and get a male dress or skirt!

Now what it doesn't mean is: Women go put on pants. Why? You've already done that (giggle). Emilia Bloomer started you down that path, followed by Rosie the Riveter, and then the bell bottom. Pants are now female dress. Don't even worry about wearing "woman's pants." That doesn't mean anything anyway, unless you are debating some unsophisticated, neanderthal who wants to keep you in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant. Then you need to tell him (it) that you get women's pants in the women's department and everyone knows that they are different than men's. Did you ever see a man try to put on a pair of woman's pants? (ILOL [infinite lots of laughs]) They're shaped different. "You mean women?" No silly (three stooges poke in both eyes), the pants are shaped different. They make them different for women. "Yer kiddin!?!" Yes, Einstein. Everyone knows that women's pants are different than men's. "They're tighter?!?" (three stooges cuff on both ears) Yes!! I mean, No!! See what you've done; you've got me all confused now. They aren't tight. Well, you can get them tight, but you can get them loose too. I'm really through talking to you anyway. This really isn't a forum for people from the looney fringe. Women are already wearing pants, so Deuteronomy 22:5 means, "Men wear male skirts."

Nuff said.

58 comments:

Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus said...

Men's skirt? Isn't that called a "kilt"?

Not that I approve of those, either.

Greg Linscott said...

Kent,

Are you taking exception to kilts, then?

Kent Brandenburg said...

Well, they didn't say "kilt" on their sign. They said "Men's Skirts," which I thought was quite fitting. They didn't look like the Scottish kilt.

Throwback 13 said...

* I remember a pastor who was very upset at a woman in his church who wore woman's pants. "Pants are for men," he said. I wanted to suggest that he wear a pair of pants just like hers, if they were for men. But, believe it or not, I kept my mouth shut ... until now.
*
* A point of interest, the quote of Deuterononomy 22:5 said "The woman shall not ... neither shall a man ... for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God."
* In Deuteronomy 23:18 God wrote: "Thou shalt not bring the hire of a whore, or the price of a dog, into the house of the LORD thy God for any vow: for even both these are abomination unto the LORD thy God."
* How is that we treat dogs as one of the family, but shun those who mix their dress? They are both listed as an abomination unto the LORD thy God. Doesn't that seem inconsistent?
*
* Making trouble through my hat.
* ... Joel

Jerry Bouey said...

Considering that Scottish kilts are from a society based on paganism... It doesn't matter where or when it came from, I can guarantee it wasn't created by Bible-believing Jews or Christians who were living separated from the paganism and cross-dressing around them.

Yes, I find it so ironic that Christians say they want to live by the Bible, but then ignore what it says when it doesn't fit their lifestyles.

Just yesterday, we had a pastor's wife visit our church from another IFB church - and I noticed how short her hair was, almost as short as the men in my IFB church! I certainly don't find 1 Corinthians 11 a vague passage of Scripture, so what is up with her? (And when I say her hair is short, I mean it is above the neck, not long enough to be a covering in any sense, except for perhaps the ears - what I would probably term short to medium length for a man - not a buzz cut, but not long either.) This bothers me because we have had her husband preach in our church before many times - and they come out every six months or so. This time she came by herself. I don't know if her hair has always been that length - but for some reason I noticed it this time. I wonder what my pastor (who was out of town) would think if he saw that? I know he does preach on hair lengths. No one else seemed to bat an eye though - she was such a regular visitor from such a solid church that I think many just ignored it - but since when does that make it right?

Oh yeah, I forgot the chapter states,

"Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a Corinthian woman pray unto God uncovered? Doth not even nature (ie. the nature of Corinth) itself teach you, that, if a Corinthian man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? But if a Corinthian woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering."

Good thing that God didn't mean this passage to be applicable to all believers at all times! Or did He?

A little bit of sharper irony there... ;)

Cathy McNabb said...

Can I say CSL, seriously. I am at work right now, just south of "boystown" last weekend was gay pride week and can I say gross. I mean really gross. I see nice looking men as I was coming into work then I looked and they were holding hands, enough to make me spew.

So anyway, can I make a request? Please if men are going to start wearing skirts and dresses, please, please, please make sure you have the legs for it. :P

Greg Linscott said...

San Francisco extremes aside, you seem to be using that as an illustration to jump off onto a larger issue.

It does seem, within the context of things, that a Scottish kilt could conceivably fall under the descriptor of a "male skirt." Would you take exception to them under Deut. 22:5, or no?

Kent Brandenburg said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Kent Brandenburg said...

Greg,

If our culture designed an article of clothing for men distinct from woman's clothing, I would support it, because presently there is none. We have no symbol of masculinity any longer remaining in our culture. In our culture, I think most would agree that the kilt would not be that choice. Almost all professing Christians, except for a fairly small minority are silent on the issue, however. The majority of these professing have been most responsible for the disappearance of designed gender distinction, even fighting as hard as they fight for anything, for continued violation of Deut. 22:5.

Joel,

Deuteronomy 23:18 is saying that any monies made in the act of prostitution or sodomy were never to be brought to the tabernacle or temple as a payment of a vow because both practices were an abomination to God. Chapter 23 is a general section regarding the sanctity of the family. The price of a dog is not the price paid for the sale of a dog but a figurative expression used to describe the dog-like manner in which the male debased himself.

Greg Linscott said...

Kent,

We have been over this ground before elsewhere, but again, many Christians would contend designed gender distinction is possible and can be evident on a pair of ladies' pants, just as it can be on a coat when comparing one designed for a man vs. a lady.

Take another cultural stereotype as an example- the apron. The cliché of being tied to apron strings is an obvious implication to being tied to a female, usually one's mother but sometimes also used to describe a domineering wife. We could make the case that culturally, it has been known as a distinct gender article of clothing (similar to the "pants in the family" cliche you refer to in your arguments.

Would you put the same kind of concern over a man wearing an apron at the BBQ grill, even if it is not a frilly pink one?

I understand that you may think this illustration preposterous- and maybe it is. As I've also told you previously, my wife does not wear pants in public, and hasn't owned any (other than some sweatpants she occasionally wears in the privacy of our own home) for several years- so I've got no huge axe to grind.

However, I understand the reason many of my fellow believers struggle so much with the issue. The principle of Deut 22:5 is clear, but the application that you draw so definitively is not. I respect your right to make that application for you and your family- but I would stop short of saying that the principle universally applies to the conglomeration of cultures we have in present-day America- just as I don't think we could universally condemn traditional Scottish culture for men's skir... er, kilts.

reglerjoe said...

Everytime I see a guy wearin' a kilt, I think he looks like a really ugly Catholic school girl.

Throwback 13 said...

* Pastor Brandenburg wrote:
** Deuteronomy 23:18 is saying that any monies made in the act of prostitution or sodomy were never to be brought to the tabernacle or temple as a payment of a vow because both practices were an abomination to God. Chapter 23 is a general section regarding the sanctity of the family. The price of a dog is not the price paid for the sale of a dog but a figurative expression used to describe the dog-like manner in which the male debased himself."
*
* I am glad you answered. My point wasn't that we should approve cross dressing or condemn ownership of dogs, but that God told Peter, "What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common," (Acts 10:15,28&11:9). The context includes the unclean animals and gentiles [which, by the way, were refered to as dogs (Matt. 15:27, Rev. 22:15).]
* Times (not God) are different. What under the O.T. dispensation was condemned by God is not necessarily condemned now. The knee jerk reaction that God said it was an abomination so it must be sin must be limited by the cleansing action of Christ's atonement which brought in the New Testament (Heb. 9:15-20). In this particular case, assuming that dogs were an abomination to God, they are not now. But the moral sins of the O.T. were not included in the blanket vision of Peter's.
* (Nevertheless, sinners are still condemned by the O.T. law, 1 Tim. 1:9.)
* However, pending further information, I disagree that the term Price of a dog is a figure of speech.
* The first rule (for serious Bible believers, using the philosophy of literal hermaneutics, as opposed to figurative hermaneutics) is that if a passage can be understood literally, that is its interpretation. Since one can easily imagine a Nazarite selling his prized AKC Basset Hound pup and bringing the $500 to the temple for a vow, I think a litteral understanding of this verse is probably valid. The Companion Bible does not list the price of a dog as a figure of speech, however some commentaries state that dog should have been translated a priest or an infamous man. Since I believe that God knew what He was doing when He superintended the translation of the Bible (letters KJV left out here so as to not attract the attention of divisive alert search software), I will accept the word DOG here.
* However, the meaning of the verse could turn on whether "both these" refers to the whore and the dog, or the price of the whore and the price of the dog.
* Thus, it seems to me, that whether a male skirt is acceptable socially is unimportant, but what is important is whether it can be classed as a woman's garment. Perhaps what is really needed is a discerning description of what constitutes a man's skirt as opposed to a woman's skirt. Note also that if a man is to ascend to the alter wearing a man's skirt, he should also wear breeches underneath (Lev. 6:10).
* Alas, another Scotish tradition goes by the wayside.

Jerry Bouey said...

What under the O.T. dispensation was condemned by God is not necessarily condemned now. The knee jerk reaction that God said it was an abomination so it must be sin

Trace out the word abomination throughout the Old Testament - every single thing God says was an abomination to Him specifically is still an abomination - He has not changed. A majority of those things are restated in the NT for us - which leaves us to assume that even though some other things are not mentioned, God is still against them.

The passage you are referring to about dogs is regarding sodomites - God was saying it was wrong to bring a harlot's or a sodomite's wage as an offering - He is still offended by that today! He does not want any of us bringing in money that we earned through sinning and using that to support His work - whether that money was from selling ourselves sexually, money we won while gambling, from selling pornography, etc.

God is still against sin - what Peter's vision was referring to was that he was not to disregard a particular people when presenting the Gospel - it had nothing to do with the type of sins in their life. Though the Bible quite clearly states that a sodomite cannot be saved until they repent of their sodomy (1 Corinthians 6:9-11).

Joel, study out the passage please - God is not referring to a literal dog, right in the context itself He states that the dog is referring to a sodomite - this can easily be determined by comparing verses 17 and 18 and seeing the terms used. He isn't changing his thoughts, just using a different term in the next verse:

Deuteronomy 23:17-18 There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel. Thou shalt not bring the hire of a whore, or the price of a dog, into the house of the LORD thy God for any vow: for even both these are abomination unto the LORD thy God.

Kent Brandenburg said...

Greg,

I appreciate your concern on this issue. You said, "Many Christians would contend designed gender distinction is possible and can be evident on a pair of ladies' pants." People just ignored the exegesis of Deuteronomy 22:5 when I discussed this before. That verse says that women are not to put on the article of clothing designed for a man. This is not making male articles look more feminine for women. And if we are going to design those distinctions then our culture should know what they are. What are they Greg? We at least have to look at the language of the verse. This is not generalizing anything, but is very specific. I at least am glad you haven't bowed to the no-transvesticism view.

I don't think your apron example is preposterous. I think if the apron is an article of clothing designed for a woman, then a man should not wear it. Have we designated this as such? For instance, the article a butcher wears in the front of him, and has for quite awhile, to keep the blood, etc. off him; is that article of clothing a woman's garment? Or is it male?

I haven't condemned the Scots for the kilt if they have designated it a male garment. The kilt is probably something akin to what the old Roman warrior wore that was designed distinct for the male, different than any female clothing. I do think the kilt illustration is preposterous in the U.S., however, because we haven't worn kilts.

Joel,

Figures of speech are part of a literal interpretation. When someone says the price of a whore and then the price of a dog, those two are incongruous if one understands "dog" as the canine species. Also look at the previous verse as a clue, v. 17. Literal interpretation is grammatical and historical, so we understand figures of speech and the history of expressions. Look at Revelation 22:15. Are these "dogs," literally or something else?

As far as your dispensationalism, Christ did not do away with the law (Mt. 5:18). He did not do away with the moral law, and this is a moral law, since it is an abomination to Him. Neither is it knee-jerk, something emotional and personal, not thought out or studied.

And I agree that we don't determine our beliefs based on social acceptance, which is why this whole blog was satirical.

Thanks.

Greg Linscott said...

Maybe I am thick here, but I really don't understand the distinction you are making about designed differences. A pair of women's pants bought in a dept. store are not garments brought in from the men's department and altered to tailor to a woman's figure. They were produced for women- intended for her to wear. How is that dsitinguished? Well, several factors are possible- color, cut, material, and so on.

Taking our kilt illustration another step- how does the design of a quilt differ signicantly from a woman's skirt? I don't know the answer, but you seem to imply there is a designed difference.

Kent Brandenburg said...

Designed difference means that one garment was designed uniquely for a man. You're right. Kilts look kinda like skirts so they wouldn't be good in our culture. But they didn't look like the ankle length, robe-like women's clothes of ancient Scotland. The point is that one particular article of clothing is male, you know, like pants. Ooops, that's right. They're not male anymore, and we have replaced that with....um....nothing. Why not? Because we could care less about Deuteronomy 22:5. We turn it into a "principle," when it doesn't read like a principle at all.

In 1 Cor. 11, women wore the veils and men didn't. They didn't make men's veils and women's veils. Wearing the veil meant submission, not wearing it means headship. These articles pertain to one or the other.

The word "pertaineth" is where it is at---think "designed exclusively for." This is not a new intepretation at all. This is why men wore pants and women skirts. This is why Bible teachers and preachers went against this. It isn't a matter of looking different. It is an abomination to God because it is not respecting His design.

Heather said...

Thanks for this insightful article.

In 2004, I learned something interesting while visiting Kensington Palace in London. This palace, once frequented by Princess Di, houses the Royal Ceremonial Dress Collection, which includes ceremonial outfits dating from the 18th century and educates visitors about the royal clothing worn before the king and queen. For men and women of the court, clothing was quite an ordeal: just the right under and outer garments had to be in place before the monarch could be approached.

I find it interesting that to go before a human ruler, such care was taken for what was worn. But as kings and priests before a holy God, many believers assume that Deuteronomy 22:5 really does include “female slacks” (as distinguished from male slacks) because, of course, “they all wore robes back then.”

Is it possible that the robe—a modest covering for both genders—had some sort of distinguishing quality for men and women? Because why would God, in essence, command women not to wear men’s robes, if there was not some intrinsic distinction between the two? And in Western society, in which about a millennium of history indicates that we do have two distinct garments for two distinct sexes, it would seem that we, as Bible-believing Christians, would seek to carefully maintain this gender distinction, instead of watering it down.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Jerry Bouey said...

In Bible times - OT as well as NT - robes were never some unisex outfit worn by both genders - and studying them out shows them to be something placed over other articles of clothing (like we might wear a bathrobe over our pjs). In the Bible, there were different types of robes, they were used in special occasions, and not everyday articles for both sexes. Some examples, are what warriors wore, the prodigal son given a robe for that celebration, kings in their ceremonial garb, etc. (Trying to go from memory here...)

It is a worthwhile study to trace the word robe throughout Scripture, see the disctinctions made with each Hebrew and Greek word (Strong's does show this), and see the context of each time a robe was worn. I agree with Heather and others - God certainly never meant them to have some unisex robe - He was making a necessary disctinction.

Greg Linscott said...

As I have noted before, if gender distinction is the true concern, the blending of articles of clothing goes well beyond pants and skirts. Take sneakers (or whatever you call them in your corner of the country) and t-shirts. Male and female articles are virtually indiscernable from one another at first glance.

Perhaps the real problem is the loss of formality in our culture- which goes far beyond a simple pants/skirt issue. I mean, let's face it- what is particularly feminine and graceful about the stereotypical Fundy teen girl in a t-shirt and worn-down culottes? All the talk about "dressing for the presence of the King of Kings" seems rather empty and hypocritical when the accepted application in the segments of Fundamentalism that value this standard is just as frumpy (if not more so) than their secular counterparts, only instead of jeans and t-shirts, it's denim skirts and t-shirts, or ratty old, poorly constructed culottes and t-shirts. We may have a sense of what passes for "modesty," but in many cases, we have sacrificed feminine elegance and grace in dress and deportment as much as our secular and evangelical counterparts.

Lest I be misunderstood, I'm not calling for eliteness in our appearance. It does seem, however, that what the overzealous application of the “no slacks on women” standard ends up being an opportunity to promote external self-righteousness and a sort of Christian elitism that can be just as immodest as midriff-bearing blouses and skintight jeans. Both are capable of drawing undue attention (though admittedly not always the samekind of attention).

When this kind of conversation gets out of hand is when we lose sight of the need for Christian ladies to distinguish themselves by good works rather than outward appearance. I'm not arguing for immodest apparel- but I am saying that our American culture (even, or perhaps especially, our American Fundamentalist sub-culture) has far greater inherent problems than women's pants and men's skirts.

Dave Mallinak said...

Excellent job on this, Pastor B. It sounded like something from Sharper Irony. By the way, I'm one of those who make the knee jerk reaction Joel was talking about. I'm still making it. Knee jerk reaction? Come on, Joel. There just might be another knee jerk coming.

Cathy McNabb said...

Pastor Mallinak you are right it is well said. I whole heartedly agree with Pastor Brandenburg on this.

The problem I see that so many inconsistency arises because of this. Women wearing pants under skirts to keep warm or do things they ought not be doing. If the whole issue is about gender distinction and obeying God with not wearing that which pertaineth to a man and vice versa, and not about modesty, then why do so many Pastor's wifes that believe in what we are discussing wear, pants under their skirts/coullotes.
Do they not understand why it is that women are not to wear pants?

Just because a woman can physically do anything a man can do, doesn't mean they should. Yes, girls can go ride in a go cart, but if they can't do it modestly, should they be doing it all anyway?

my 2 cents

Jerry Bouey said...

When this kind of conversation gets out of hand is when we lose sight of the need for Christian ladies to distinguish themselves by good works rather than outward appearance.

The Bible teaches both are necessary - it is not one or the other.

Jerry Bouey said...

Just because a woman can physically do anything a man can do, doesn't mean they should. Yes, girls can go ride in a go cart, but if they can't do it modestly, should they be doing it all anyway?


Good point, Cathy. I do not know how many times I have heard statements like this: "Me, switch wear dresses? I can't bull ride, bungee jump, or skydive in a dress!" So I think (and sometimes say), "If you can't be feminine and modest in those situations, maybe God really doesn't want you doing that!" - of course, they don't like hearing me say so. (Slight exaggeration above, except for the skydiving - that was a real conversation.)

But it seems today's average Christian woman is more concerned with her fun, with what she wants to do, with fitting in, than she is about pleasing God...

Praise the Lord there are still some women out there that do want to glorify the Lord in their apparel and demeanor.

Greg Linscott said...

Jerry,

No, it doesn't. Even in the OT, women were not to distinguish themselves by a standard of clothing- it was the norm. Those who were distinctive were the ones who put on "the attire of an harlot" and so on.

1 Peter 3:1-4 is a good passage that talks about how Christian wives, in contrast to the women around them, were not to be singled out because of apparel (and yes, I understand this is speaking of finery and gaudiness).

However, don't you find it somewhat intruiging that the NT doesn't go into near the amount of detail that we often have in modern-day American Fundamentalism? In contrast to Judaism, the Gentile converts surely had to have had issues in this area- think Greek marathon runners. Yet Paul and Peter leave things more amibiguous, reminding instead of the need to maintain distinctions between the sexes in both roles and appearance (such as 1 Cor. 11:1-16). When details are given (such as in 1 Tim. 2:9-15), what is detailed to be avoided is elaborate, extravagant jewelry. The woman is instead to "draw attention" to herself, as it were, by her good works (1 Tim 2:10). Modesty is present, it is true- but it is left to be applied in cultural context.

BTW, if the issues of modesty we are facing and combatting are "Pastors wifes" wearing pants under cullotes, then I would contend 1. we have really lost sight of a Biblical understanding of modesty, and 2. we have no understanding of the idea of form and formality in the American Fundamentalist sub-culture.

Throwback 13 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Jerry Bouey said...

I was posting this on another blog today and thought it would be good to post here too, as this blog entry is dealing with the same verse.

Here is a list I compiled (through an online search - which sometimes doesn't list all the passages, so please excuse this if some were unintentionally overlooked) of OT passages that state what was an abomination to God Himself - most would agree that all of these listed below are still applicable and against God today:

Idolatry, witchcraft, sodomy, bestiality, incest (Leviticus 18), occult practices (Deuteronomy 18), A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren (Proverbs 6), offering sacrifices (whether physical or spiritual with a wicked heart (Proverbs 15:8), hypocrisy (Isaiah 1), child sacrifice (Deuteronomy 12:31), bringing in the wages of a prostitute to God (Deuteronomy 23:18), someone remarrying their divorced spouse that had already been remarried with someone else after the divorce (Deuteronomy 24:4), being froward (stubbornly perverse and rebellious toward God - Proverbs 3:32), speaking wickedness (Proverbs 8:7 - in this chapter Christ is personified as wisdom), a false balance (Proverbs 11:1), the way of the wicked (Proverbs 15:9), the thoughts of the wicked (Proverbs 15:26), justifying the wicked and condemning the just (Proverbs 17:15), turning away your ear from hearing the law (God's Word - Proverbs 28:9), adultery (Ezekiel 22:11).

In light of all these passages that portray those things that were an abomination to God in the OT - and I am sure are still an abomination to Him in the NT (and always), I fully believe Deuteronomy 22:5 is still applicable to all believers today. It is still an abomination to God to wear that which pertains to the opposite gender.

For clarification: One point cultists like to trip people up on is the clean and unclean foods - but they were never stated to be an abomination to God, just to the people (see Leviticus 11:10-12; 20, 23) - so that does not conflict with this law being done away with in Christ.

Cathy McNabb said...

"but I am saying that our American culture (even, or perhaps especially, our American Fundamentalist sub-culture) has far greater inherent problems than women's pants and men's skirts"

Mr. Linscott I beg to differ. The start of our problems is excusing something as simple as appropiate dress as something minor. In reality it is a major problem amoung churches. It is an act of rebellion and it is still an abomination, just like homosexuality is an abomination. As Christians we shouldn't have the mentality that we can pick and choose our fights, we should fight and follow the WHOLE Word of God, not what is convinient, and what doesn't make waves.

Kent Brandenburg said...

Joel,

Why forgive me for posting? I don't get that.

Greg,

Why the moral equivalence? Dressing like a harlot is wrong (do we really know how harlots dress, and should we point that out if we see it, Greg?), and so is trying to draw attention to our dress. But, a woman putting on an article of clothing that pertains to a man is an abomination to God. I know why it is controversial. It fits in with the issue of worldliness and conforming to worldly standards. We don't want to be oddballs, or peculiar people or something like that.

Good comments Jerry and Cathy.

Greg Linscott said...

Ok, so now you folks are saying pants on women is an issue on the same lines as homosexuality.

I can't argue with that. Homosexuality is painted as God's judgment on a culture in Romans 1 and so on. Making those kind of reckless comparisons displays a lack of willingness to evaluate and weigh behavior against Scripture, which I have tried to do with you.

So folks, I'm done. All I can say is I am very concerned with following the whole Word of God- which is why I don't preach against women wearing garments designed for women, whether they be skirts or pants. If you do not believe that, then I believe you must follow your conscience before God and obey him in that area. For my family and I, we will strive to obey Him to the best of our understanding as well, and I will teach my congregation the same. As I have noted before, being peculiar people has much more to do with our character and behavior than it does our clothing- otherwise, why not just get a "uniform" like the Amish?

I did find it interesting that no one wanted to respond to my observance of loss of formality in our culture and subculture. However, perhaps the silence illustrates the point.

Good day, all.i

Chris Topher Myers said...

I went to public school all my K through 12 life here in the Bay Area of California. I remember having a school uniform in Elementary school. Girls wore the little blue dresses, boys wore the little blue pants. I mention this because in 4th grade I remember a girl walking into the classroom wearing the regulation blue pants. I distinctly remember my teacher asking the girl why she was wearing what she was wearing. The girl responded that she had stayed at her mom's house the night before (Her parents are divorced and she usually stayed with her dad) and that's what she made her wear. My teacher sent her to the office. She (my teacher) then turned to the class and told us to line-up outside to deliver one of the greatest lessons I have ever learned. She marched us down the walk-way to the bathrooms and pointed at the doors. On them were to symbols. A little girl with a triangle skirt on and a little boy with straight pants on. She then asked us how we think the "kindy kids" (That was the school nick-name for the kindergartners) could know which bathroom to go in. I think a valuable lesson was learned. By the way, I don't ever remember that little girl coming back to school in pants again either. I hope this had something to add to the discussion.

filosofo said...

Kent, there are some things I don't understand about your position. Here you explain your interpretation of Deuteronomy 22:5:

**People just ignored the exegesis of Deuteronomy 22:5 when I discussed this before. That verse says that women are not to put on the article of clothing designed for a man.**

In other words, if an article of clothing has been designed for a man, then a woman should not wear it.

The first thing I don't understand is how you decide on the scope of "article of clothing"; that is, it's unclear to me whether you're talking about the class of clothing or a particular item. Take shoes, for example. The class "shoes" includes objects designed for both men and women, but often a particular shoe will be designed for one and not the other. Why aren't pants like shoes in that respect? Some are designed for men, and some are designed for women. I don't see the difference.

Also, although I understand your guttural reaction to the man-skirt ("eww, that's gross!"), I don't see how it's based in principle. That's because according to your interpretation of Deut. 22:5, if an article of clothing has been designed for a woman, then a man should not wear it. However, the man-skirt is clearly designed for a man. It's labeled as such, the designer had men in mind, and it probably comes in larger sizes than women's skirts typically do. In every sense we can say it's been designed for a man, so according to your criteria, it should be fine for men to wear.

Now perhaps when you say "designed," you mean "way back in time," so for example if we look to the 19th century at the class of "pants," then we could say at that time they were largely (if not exclusively) designed for men. The question is, how do you decide which point in time is determinative for you? You might choose the 19th century, but I choose the early 21st, or perhaps the 1st, when no one in the civilized world wore pants. What makes your time period of choice better than mine?

A second notion of yours I don't understand is that there must be a specific item of clothing unique to each sex. This doesn't follow from your interpretation of Deut. 22:5; where does it come from?

Kent Brandenburg said...

OK, Greg, no one answered your formal dress comments. I wrote on this in my book, and I agree with you. I don't think it relates directly to this issue. You look at old pictures of baseball games and everyone is in a suit, and women wore formal dresses to the park, and on airplane trips, everyone dressed up. This is a worldly trend toward casualness, part of the me first, my comfort first philosophy. I deal with it in the book. By the way, I appreciate you coming over here and interacting with us.

Filosofo, thanks for popping in with some comments. We have a clear OT and NT passage on designed gender distinction. Pants are the article designed for the man. Now it is not. It was the article to clearly communicate to God and the angels that we agreed with God's design. We erased that distinction because we didn't care about having it. We replaced it with nothing. Today, Filosofo, what is the article of clothing that you put on every day that is uniquely male, I don't mean differences in the same article of clothing, but a different article altogether, designed for this purpose. This was very clear and very serious, even as it was an abomination to God. 1 Cor. 11:3-16 is one of the most ignored passages in the Bible. The head covering was solely female, and showed submission to the husband. It was a symbol. We got rid of this symbol in our culture, one that we had because we were a Judeo-Christian culture, but now we have moved to something totally secular, which many rejoice in.

Throwback 13 said...

* I don't know how my comment was posted. I closed the window without sending it because I hope to post something in detail in LAYMAN'S CORNER.
* It will take too much room to explain for someone else's blog.
* Now deleted
* ... Joel

Jerry Bouey said...

or perhaps the 1st, when no one in the civilized world wore pants.

Hm, seems to me, the first books of the OT referred to men wearing breeches 3500 years ago - that is way before the first century.

Exodus 28:42 And thou shalt make them linen breeches to cover their nakedness; from the loins even unto the thighs they shall reach:

Exodus 39:28 And a mitre of fine linen, and goodly bonnets of fine linen, and linen breeches of fine twined linen,

Leviticus 6:10 And the priest shall put on his linen garment, and his linen breeches shall he put upon his flesh, and take up the ashes which the fire hath consumed with the burnt offering on the altar, and he shall put them beside the altar.

Leviticus 16:4 He shall put on the holy linen coat, and he shall have the linen breeches upon his flesh, and shall be girded with a linen girdle, and with the linen mitre shall he be attired: these are holy garments; therefore shall he wash his flesh in water, and so put them on.

Granted, the passage does not state ALL men wore breeches, however it is clear that it was only men that wore breeches in this Biblical context. You might want to trace the word "robe" out throughout the Bible - not everyone wore robes in Bible times, and there was no unisex robes for both genders to wear.

filosofo said...

Hm, seems to me, the first books of the OT referred to men wearing breeches 3500 years ago - that is way before the first century.

Jerry, the point is that fashion trends come and go, something that's true even more so it seems in the last few decades: for example wide suit jacket lapels and ties in the 50s, 70s, and 90s, narrow for the 60s and 80s.

In the 1st Century A.D., Roman citizens considered pants the clothing of barbarians; Paul would be as likely to wear them as I would a grass skirt (or whatever native jungle attire might be).


Kent, you didn't answer my second question, so I'll try again. Let me put it this way. You move from a proposition we agree on--"We have a clear OT and NT passage on designed gender distinction"--to something we don't agree on--that there must be particular item of clothing for each sex. How do you make that move? Why must the distinction between men's and women's clothing be one item instead of a combination of items or the style of a particular item?

**Pants are the article designed for the man. Now it is not.**

Could you clarify these two statements? Taken together, they're contradictory. You seem to be saying that pants are and are not now specifically designed for men. Do you mean pants were designed for men, but now they're not? In that case, why does it matter what they used to be? (See my other unanswered question above--"What makes your time period of choice better than mine?").

Finally, would you mind answering the question I brought up about the difference between pants and shoes? What I would like to know is why for pants you focus on the class of items, but for shoes (I assume) you don't. In other words, I assume you don't have a problem with men and women both wearing shoes, so long as the style of shoes each wears is different. Why not say the same about pants?

Dave Mallinak said...

Greg, in case you are still reading, let me pipe up for you on the one thing that "nobody commented on yet". On that issue, I think you are exactly right. Truth must be adorned (decorated). Beauty is a part of truth, or it isn't really truth. This is a problem that we must work through. When I look at some of the outfits our girls wear, which meet all the technical requirements, and yet fail to meet the requirements of beauty, I think that we are failing in our teaching.

But really, isn't the problem our failure to meet and defeat the sins of our culture. Slobbishness and casualness are sins of our culture. The current trend towards always casual all the time is a form of rebellion against any kind of standard. The rebellion is the natural course our society has taken since we through out norms of dress for men and women. If you don't think that the "pants on women" issue was a rebellion of women, at least in the beginning, then you should read "You Forgot Your Skirt, Amelia Bloomer", published by Scholastic Press. It gives the history.

The point: yes, we must do better at teaching our kids to dress with dignity, and to think of others when they dress. I have enjoyed some of Douglas Wilson's writings on this, particularly his emphasis on dressing for comfort, but not your own comfort - rather, dress for everyone else's comfort... they have to look at you. But throwing out Biblical distinctions does not answer the problem of sloppy dress. BOTH are sins.

By the way, I hope you won't be done over here. I've enjoyed watching the discussion.

Kent Brandenburg said...

Filosopho,

Could you clarify these two statements? Those two statements were surrounded by a whole lot of other statements to clarify them. They seem to contradict when they are taken out of their context. A godless, pagan culture has removed them from being the designed distinction, the symbol of authority, and replaced them, pants, with nothing for men. I don't think it MUST be one item only, but it must be ONE. There is presently NONE. I only capitalize for emphasis; I'm not screaming. Although it is worth screaming about. In 1 Cor. 3 we see the head covering being the item that was being abused, and Paul spends half a chapter in the NT on the subject. Other places show the shame of being without the item that symbolized submission for the woman. There are items that pertain ONLY to a man. Skirts and dresses are that for women, but for men there is no item. Everything people item people mention is not exclusive for manhood any longer. Just be culture vetoes Scriptural teaching, doesn't mean believers follow along.

Do you mean pants were designed for men, but now they're not? They are not designed exclusively for men any longer. In that case, why does it matter what they used to be? Because they had a purpose and now that purpose, which is what is important, is lost. This is not a matter of looking different, but a matter of making articles exclusively distinguish masculinity. Taking those out of play is rebellion against God.

Finally, would you mind answering the question I brought up about the difference between pants and shoes? Shoes might be different, but there are not exclusively male shoes in play as an article exclusively designed for men. People just don't care. Man and women wear the same shoes regularly, especially for jogging, walking, etc. I do think shoes should be considered too, but pants were the obvious item, the one that removed ended this era of American history, where we respected God's Word on this abomination to Him.

Why not say the same about pants? I don't think this is that hard to figure out, except for those who don't like the mockery they receive from the world for believing in different male and female roles, and indicating that publicly through the dress, something God wants.

Kent Brandenburg said...

1 Cor 3 should be 1 Cor. 11:3-16

tony said...

Totally agree with you Pastor!! We adopted 4 sisters after our 2nd son went to Bible college. They all wear dresses and culottes everyday. They love being girls and get tons of compliments when we go any place. Even in church..because they look feminine. Everyone loves to admire them but argues if a person speaks as you do. Oh, and by the way, they have hair down to their waists.

filosofo said...

I don't think it MUST be one item only, but it must be ONE. There is presently NONE.

But why must there be at least one? I keep asking this question, and you don't answer it. All the biblical evidence you've presented suggests only that there be a distinction. If that distinction can be had by a combination of items, or the particular styling of an item, why isn't that good enough?

I don't think this is that hard to figure out . . .

I honestly don't see the difference between shoes and pants. Everything you say about shoes could be said about pants today, especially "People just don't care."

Kent Brandenburg said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Kent Brandenburg said...

Filosopho,

I think what you are asking for regarding me giving you a reason why we believe there should be at least one article that is exclusively male would be both passages, Dt. 22:5 and 1 Cor. 11:3-16.

1 Cor. 11:4-7 says, "Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. 5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. 6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. 7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man." Here we have one article of clothing, the head covering that was an article the woman was to wear and the man was not to wear.

Dt. 22:5 says, "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." "That which pertaineth to" is an article exclusively designed for. The text doesn't say "looks like." Certain articles were masculine and certain articles were feminine. Certain articles were common. But the man was not to put on the female article and the woman was not to put on the male article.

This is difficult today, Filosopho, because it is ignored now in our culture with compliance of professing Christiainity.

filosofo said...

Thanks, Kent; that is helpful.

Your hermeneutics for the Corinthians passage is fairly freewheeling. Note what the passage does say: it says that a woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head. What it doesn't say is that we should extrapolate or generalize from this one example to the idea that there must be at least one item distinguishing a woman from a man. At the most, we can say that there must be a hat on a woman in particular situations; there is nothing there about other articles of clothing or concerning situations extending beyond praying and prophesying.

With the Deuteronomy passage, we seem to be going in circles. Of course then there were things that pertain to men and things that pertain to women, just as there are now. But the point is that those things are different in different time periods. Maybe in the 19th Century, pants pertained only to men. They don't anymore, they certainly didn't during the 1st Century, and I doubt they did for the ancient Hebrews. Nowadays "people just don't care" about that distinction, just as they don't care about men's or women's shoes.

So to say "pants are masculine," you're forced to choose an arbitrary point in time and say, "that's the time period that determines that pants are masculine." More importantly, it's not our time period, when what is feminine or masculine in clothing is determined in different ways.

Here's why I find this such an odd hermeneutic: first, you take a general commandment--men and women shouldn't be cross-dressers--and then you apply it to a particular time-period--the 19th Century. Next, you say that the particular application specific for a past century should apply to us. That's the weird part; it's like preaching a sermon against slavery that concludes, "vote Lincoln!"

Kent Brandenburg said...

Filosopho,

I don't endorse Daniel Wallace, but I agree with his exposition of 1 Cor. 11:2-16, and he is the author of the Greek grammar used in most seminaries in the US. Here is the study: http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=1202
Also consider this by someone with whom I don't agree on several issues, Douglas Wilson: http://www.dougwils.com/index.asp?Actionfiltered=Anchor&CategoryID=1&BlogID=2489
Women in the church at Corinth knew they were equal with men in essence, treated more equally than the world at large, and they weren't wearing their head covering on these specific occasions. Paul told them they needed to keep the symbols.

On Deuteronomy 22:5, the language in the Hebrew or the English doesn't read like a prohibition against cross-dressing. It simply says women don't have on a male article of clothing, then vice versa. You are basically making it a euphemism when you read it your way. There is no historic evidence, none, to back up the cross-dress view. That is mere speculation. The old commentaries, pre 20th century don't take the transveticism view. People have latched ahold of that to debunk the Scriptural practice.

This is what you are saying. We get rid of the symbol of masculinity and headship, replace it with nothing, and then argue that it isn't a symbol any more because it isn't being practiced. That doesn't work. We don't live in the closet where we can't know history. You're vote Lincoln parallel was not in the same ballpark as this.

Dave Mallinak said...

Filosopho,

One question I might throw in (before you throw me out) would be this: we know how men cross-dress. But in our culture today, can we really point out a woman who is cross-dressing? What would she be wearing? How would you know she was cross-dressing?

By the way, Douglas Wilson also applies Deut 22:5 to forbid women in the military. I thought that was interesting, because he doesn't take a position against pants on women.

Jerry Bouey said...

Maybe in the 19th Century, pants pertained only to men. They don't anymore, they certainly didn't during the 1st Century, and I doubt they did for the ancient Hebrews.

Do a study on the word breeches - those were worn by men - and yes, that would be ancient Hebrews...

filosofo said...

dave mallinak: One question I might throw in (before you throw me out) would be this: we know how men cross-dress. But in our culture today, can we really point out a woman who is cross-dressing? What would she be wearing? How would you know she was cross-dressing?

Kent wants the answer to be one particular item of clothing, but the truth is that it's usually a collection of things. Men in drag usually wear more than just a dress.

So can a woman today cross-dress? For proof that they can, note that there's a movie currently in theaters that's based on that premise: She's the Man. (Please note: I haven't seen the movie, and I'm not endorsing it--I know about its existence only because it's loosely based on Shakespeare's Twelfth Night, of which I'm a big fan.)

Kent Brandenburg: This is what you are saying. We get rid of the symbol of masculinity and headship, replace it with nothing, and then argue that it isn't a symbol any more because it isn't being practiced. That doesn't work. We don't live in the closet where we can't know history. You're vote Lincoln parallel was not in the same ballpark as this.

No, that's not at all what I'm saying. In fact, I've repeatedly made the point that pants are not "the symbol" of masculinity et al., and that there's no great fashion conspiracy.

What I have been saying is that Kent's argument hangs on two unsupportable premises: 1) there must be at least one particular item of clothing unique to each sex and 2) pants are that item for men.

In support of 1), Kent offers 1 Cor. 11, in particular an interpretation of that passage by Daniel Wallace (the Wilson link doesn't seem to point to anything in particular, so I don't know what that says), an interpretation that takes the head covering to be a "meaningful symbol" of women's submission. Even if for the sake of argument we grant Wallace's take, it still doesn't follow from that there must be at least one particular item of clothing unique to each sex; all it proves is that women must demonstrate their submission. Even Wallace indicates that how they do that changes from age to age.

But I'll go one step further, and let's just say--for the sake of argument--that the 1 Cor. passage does indicate there must be at least one particular item of clothing unique to each sex. We still can't conclude that it is pants for men or a dress for women and not vice versa. If anything, it seems it should be a hat. Or if Wallace is correct about how these things change over time, it could be a lapel pin that says, "I am female and submissive!"

In support of 2), Kent offers vague references to a golden age in which pants were the symbol of masculinity, with (as of yet) no explanation as to why that age (presumably somewhere near the end of the 19th Century) should be normative. Jerry Bouey suggests that the normative standard is the OT term "breeches."

According to Strong's, "breeches" appears five times, and each time is the same Hebrew word miknawce, of which Strong says "from 3647 in the sense of hiding; (only in dual) drawers (from concealing the private parts):--breeches." I'm no Hebrew scholar (that's why I'm using Strong's), but that sounds an awful lot like underwear. If you want to suggest from these passages that all men should wear underwear, I won't protest. What these passages don't say is that all and only men should wear "breeches." Actually, most of them seem to refer to descriptions of priestly garb, the relevance of which to New Testament believers I don't see.

Kent, I agree with you that "We don't live in the closet where we can't know history." However, you are ignoring history. History shows that fashion is a constantly changing thing; what represents masculinity or femininity, whether it be a particular item or a collection of features, changes over time. When it comes to deciding whether a certain manner of dressing is appropriate for us Christians today, we have to understand the fashion of today, not of the last century (or whenever).

Kent Brandenburg said...

I really do think that you are using the ostrich-with-head-in-sand argument, Filosopho. You act like there has been some constant, amoeba-like shifting and changing in this culture from decade to decade. This is how its gone and this is what is agreed upon by every fashion historian that isn't writing a parody. No disrespect, but what you are writing seems like one.

The first colonists came to the U.S. in 1607, Jamestown. The other group came to Plymouth in 1620. Both groups had a strong Bible influence coming from England. The women ALL wore skirts/dresses, which went down to their ankles. The men wore pants or knickers, which are shorter pants to the knees. They brought this from Europe/England where this same thing was happening. This continued from 1607 to at least 1900. Before that, you will see that men had separate garments than women. Some were common, but at least one major one was distinct. At that time a few ladies would wear bloomers out of rebellion. The bloomers wouldn't be worn by men and were exclusively worn by women, but still this was an attempt at a blurring of the distinction between the male and female garments.

The world eroded this standard through the 20th century; Christians, however, hung on for the very Scriptural reasons I have given, and still there is a percentage that has not given into the loss of this male symbol. As the world widdled away at this, our society, culture, just gave in, because it didn't care. Christians have a responsibility, no matter what the world does, to keep the male symbol, the male article, or replace it with something else.

You are not giving almost anything substantial, Filosopho, just employing some kind of attack-mode on what we're saying. I say this with complete calmness, although I know this is a serious issue since "abomination to God" is at stake.

Throwback 13 said...

* How do we know that breaches in O.T. times were exclusively male?
*
* Just asking through my (very male) hat.
* ... Joel

filosofo said...

Okay, let's apply Kent's reasoning above to a different subject. Note that below I've used his words with just a couple of substitutions. Is the argument sound?

The first colonists came to the U.S. in 1607, Jamestown. The other group came to Plymouth in 1620. Both groups had a strong Bible influence coming from England. The men and women ALL drove horses and buggies. They brought this from Europe/England where this same thing was happening. This continued from 1607 to at least 1900. Before that, you will see that the horse and buggy was separate from the horseless carriage. Some were common, but at least one major one was distinct. At that time a few people would ride a horseless carriage out of rebellion. The horseless carriage wouldn't be used by Pilgrims and were exclusively used by the Moderns, but still this was an attempt at a blurring of the distinction between Pilgrim and Modernist transportation.

The world eroded this standard through the 20th century; Amish, however, hung on for the very Scriptural reasons I have given, and still there is a percentage that has not given into the loss of this Christian symbol. As the world widdled away at this, our society, culture, just gave in, because it didn't care. Christians have a responsibility, no matter what the world does, to keep the horse and buggy symbol, the horse and buggy article, or replace it with something else.


. . .

You are not giving almost anything substantial, Filosopho, just employing some kind of attack-mode on what we're saying.

Kent, I've responded to each of the relevant points that the anti-pants folks have brought up, presenting reasons why I think they're unconvincing and asking questions about parts that could use clarification. That's what happens in a "discussion" or an "argument" in the best sense of that term.

Your not replying to those points, not answering the questions, and vaguely saying I'm not "substantial"--those responses do nothing to advance the discussion or to support the anti-pants view.

Kent Brandenburg said...

A male article of clothing is determined by the culture. A female article of clothing is determined by the culture. The symbol of headship is determined by the culture. When the culture doesn't care about the roles of men or women or about headship and submission, then the culture is not careful to preserve these based on Scripture.

A horse and buggy is based on what passage of Scripture? How does it fit any Scriptural presupposition? Where is the anti-non-animal transportation verse?

I don't know what point you are making from 1 Cor. 11:3-16 and Deut. 22:5, the passages in this "discussion."

Jerry Bouey said...

breeches." I'm no Hebrew scholar (that's why I'm using Strong's), but that sounds an awful lot like underwear.

Sounds like isn't the same thing as being like. This is what Noah Webster said the word meant about 200 years after the KJV used it.

Webster's 1828 Dictionary gives this definition of "breeches":

A garment worn by men, covering the hips and thighs. It is now a close garment; but the word formerly was used for a loose garment, now called trowsers, laxoe braccoe.

To wear the breeches is, in the wife, to usurp the authority of the husband.

He gives this definition for trowsers (and we still use the term "trousers" today to mean pants):

A loose garment worn by males, extending from the waist to the knee or to the ankle, and covering the lower limbs.

Dave Mallinak said...

Filo, you should try a logic class sometime. It might cure you of your bad analogies. Where did God dictate modes of transportation, calling one abominable?

When you answered my question, you did a nice dodge. You must be good at dodge ball. I asked what would be considered cross-dressing for a lady in our modern culture, and you answered that it wouldn't really be anything. It would be lots of things, but nothing specific. That makes sense Filo.

Filo, you should try to meet Sofo sometime. It would do you good.

Throwback 13 said...

* Throwback 13 said...
* How do we know that breaches in O.T. times were exclusively male?
*
* Boy, don't you just hate it when someone uses the wrong word or spells it wrong. I spelled it "BREECHES", but some commie must have changed it before it got posted, probably before it even got to the moderator. {:-)
* "Pfooey" (Favorite word of Nero Wolfe)
* ... Joel

filosofo said...

Kent Brandenburg: A horse and buggy is based on what passage of Scripture? How does it fit any Scriptural presupposition? Where is the anti-non-animal transportation verse?

Kent, pants are based on what passage of Scripture? How do they fit any Scriptural presupposition? Where is the anti-non-pants verse?

My point about the horseless carriage was that your attempt to tie the worth of pants to the righteousness of the Pilgrims is an example of the fallacy of the undistributed middle: the Pilgrims were righteous. The Pilgrims wore pants and dresses. Therefore pants and dresses are righteous.

Kent Brandenburg: I don't know what point you are making from 1 Cor. 11:3-16 and Deut. 22:5, the passages in this "discussion."

I've been asking you the same thing. You brought them up as supporting your anti-pants position, and I've already explained why I don't think those verses support that position.

Jerry Bouey: Sounds like isn't the same thing as being like.

Jerry, what about everything else I noted, which applies no matter whether they're underwear?

Me, earlier: What these passages don't say is that all and only men should wear "breeches." Actually, most of them seem to refer to descriptions of priestly garb, the relevance of which to New Testament believers I don't see.

Throwback 13 said...

* Filosofo said: "As the world widdled away at this, our society, culture, just gave in, because it didn't care."
* I think the same commie that changed my reply got a hold of Filosofo's reply also. I am sure he meant whittled.
* On the other hand, if he did mean widdled, I think I can figure out why society didn't care to consider it.
* Definition can be found at http://www.wordwebonline.com/en/WIDDLE. Warning, it is an English (as in Brittish) word.
*
* Talking through my hat.
* ... Joel

Anonymous said...

"Considering that Scottish kilts are from a society based on paganism" - - If following a Pagan based system bothers you this much then you should take a long, close and open look at todays Christian churchs and doctorine. Seeking the true history of almost all churchs have designed the basics of thier faith around many Pagan beliefs in order to bring Christianity to the masses.