joe wrote at 2007-09-24 18:51:33
Think on this awhile. Our god is a unchanging god he doesn't change with the times. If it was wrong in the past it is wrong now. We sometimes try say that it was for another time. God will judge us the same as our fathers. Because somethings are accepted now doesn't make it wright. We have gotten use to sin. So use to it we make it all right. God made man a man a women a women we were made different for a reason. If it was wrong for a women to wear pants in the past its wrong now. I mean back in the 1930s to late 1960s there was a great revival in the USA. And the women didn't dress like they do now. Most wore dresses and didn't cut there hair. When the women stated undressing her self the moral decay started for the USA and its got worse and men try to justify saying times have changed. Times have not changed man and women changed. We serve an unchanging God. Follow the scripture for what is says not what man says. Man try to use knowledge to justify there sin and feel better about thereselfs. You cant teach God. God comes by revelation. Not Knowledge. You cant be taught to be a Christian your born a Christian. Jesus Christ the same yesterday today and forever. Beleive the word which is christ,
tom wrote at 2008-11-16 19:25:21
you already answered your question sister. don't allow your pastor to manipulate you. if you want that then stay, if not find another church.
Angabella wrote at 2009-01-28 19:55:10
clothing; for whoever doeth so is an abomination to Jehovah thy God.” This text certainly was not recorded with the thought in mind of preventing modern women from wearing slacks. Men did not wear slacks or trousers when this was recorded, but what we would view as dresses today. In parts of the Orient, in fact, the men wore dresslike robes and the women wore pajamalike trousers of varying styles. So the wearing of slacks or even work pants, such as around a farm, is not forbidden by this text and is an individual matter. The women can use good judgment as to time and place and what is accepted as proper in the section where they reside. In some sections where winters are severe many women wear trousers or ski suits or some similar garment that covers and protects their legs. Such is not Scripturally wrong.
At Deuteronomy 22:5 the Bible is not dealing with fashions or fretting over styles, but apparently it is here forbidding persons of one sex from wearing the clothing of the opposite sex for purposes of deceit, to appear of the opposite sex, to hide the true facts. Men should not try to deceitfully dress like women to hide the fact that they are men, nor should women try to dress in men’s clothes to hide the fact that they are women. Being more specific, the Bible seems to be striking a blow against the sin of sodomy. It was a disgrace for a woman’s hair to be shorn like a man’s, and it was a dishonor for a man’s hair to be allowed to grow long like a woman’s. (1 Cor. 11:6, 14) The woman was not to appear masculine by having short hair like a man’s or by wearing clothes like a man’s. It might suggest to others that she was available for unnatural sex uses. Likewise the man. If he wore long hair like a woman’s or garbed himself in women’s clothes he would certainly appear effeminate and open to propositions from men for unnatural sex use. So it is this deeper meaning with sodomy in view, and not a mere switching of clothes in itself, that brings this practice under prohibition and makes it deserve the severe judgment: “Whoever doeth so is an abomination to Jehovah thy God.”
theresa wrote at 2009-03-29 03:23:24
I too struggled with "dress" code. I wore a dress on Sunday mornings, but not at night or on Wednesday. Personally, I feel more secure wearing pants. I sang in the choir. After a while, my choir director said I couldn't sing in Also, I noticed that some people in my church are very concerned about it and others aren't. I asked the pastor's wife and she said part of the reason that she wears long dresses is to not offend people who are sensitive to how one dresses.
My son had a fantastic explanation to me. He said Imagine you were meeting the President of the United States. What would you wear? Isn't God more important than the president? Out of the mouths of babes...
Rick wrote at 2010-06-16 16:33:18
Lorna, i am one of those guys who agrees with your pastor, and i will try to explain why
In ther scriptures we are given two basic criteria for dress equally applicable to both sexes. The first is modesty, the second is distinction. I wont deal specifically with modesty, suffice it to say the scriptures give principles for this also. The issue of visible distinction between the sexes is one that comes with a lot of opinions and contreversy. The passage in Deuteronomy is dealing with that distinction. Is it not funny that in our society, we only have issue as far as the dress of the ladies is concerned? You never hear of a church or pastor that is in considered legalistic because they refuse to let the men dress like women. But, it is a useful analogy. What image comes to mind when you think of a cross-dressing man? What is he wearing? A dress. Why is this cross-dressing? Because he is wearing that which we normally associate with a woman. The same princiople works both ways. What in our culture then is distinctly male in our clothing? And, should not a woman then follow the same principle?
Society has changed, but that does not make societies choices right.
The second principle is that of allowing the pastor the liberty to set guidelines. He has to set some, and often someone disagrees with him no matter what it is. But, Biblically it is his responsibility to set them. It is our responsibility as Christians to accept that he is allowed to set those standards and abide by them. The passage in particular is Hebrews 13.
Hope this helps
Preacher wrote at 2014-04-17 21:03:48
Actually pants can be found on me in the old testament. Exodus 28:41-43.