(More on skirts: These write-ups are designed to illustrate circular logic and systemic teachings that are illogical. They are not meant to criticize or look down upon any choice a person may make on a personal level.)
Many church systems teach that women should wear skirts and not pants. This is the main scripture used to teach this doctrine: "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".
Deut 22:5
When this is taught, it is said that it is not salvational but that women wear skirts or dresses because they are saved and not to get saved. This continues the circular logic. No one will actually come out and say the next statement, but what is being said, in effect, is that if you don't wear skirts, or eventually come to that understanding, you are not saved because you are an abomination to God by continuing to wear that which pertains to the opposite sex according to the definitions put forth by these churches and authorities.
Here are some examples of some illogical teachings:
In DK Bernard's Book Practical Holiness; A Second Look, page 180, he writes, as some have an objection to exclusively skirts on women: "There was little difference between male and female clothing in the Old Testament. In fact, men wore skirts." Then he answers the objection: "
Deuteronomy 22:5 stands as evidence that there was a significant difference. Men and women wore different types of robes and headgear, and women wore veils. Among the Hebrews, neither sex was permitted by Mosaic law to wear the same form of clothing as was used by the other (
Deut 22:5). A few articles of female clothing carried somewhat the same name and basic pattern, yet there was always sufficient difference in embossing, embroidery, and needlework so that in appearance the line of demarcation between men and women could be readily detected".
So, this is his argument to the objection. Let's look at pants for a moment. Do pants carry somewhat the same name and basic pattern but there is still sufficient difference to tell them apart? Yes. Is the cut of a woman's pants different than that of a mans? Yes. Are they often patterned with feminine styles? Yes. Is the line of demarcation clearly detected? Usually, yes. So, by his own definition, he answers the objection with an affirmation that pants can be women's apparel.
Another objection (pg 182) "Pants are made in women's styles today, so they do not violate
Deut 22:5." He answers: "Even if we accepted this objection, it would not permit women to wear many things that they do, such as men's jeans and military fatigues. In our culture, pants have always been associated with men so that all forms of pants are still that which pertaineth to a man". Accepting women's pants would leave men without any style of clothing that is uniquely male. Furthermore, the ways in which women's pants are distinguished from men's are very minor. The first impression, the silhouette, the view from a distance, the overall picture is still the same."
Once again, he uses his opinions as a basis for all people in Western society. They probably make military fatigues for women now. If they don't, it's easy enough for women to go by their own conscience in this matter and wear pants that they find suitable and feminine enough for themselves. It is up to the individual to decide. It is not DK Bernard's job to decide this for all women. Pants were associated with men in our society but that idea is long since past. Do men need a style uniquely their own? Did they need a style uniquely their own in biblical times when both sexes wore robes? Once again, DK Bernard draws lines that are illogical. The view from a distance is the same for men and women in either robes or pants. He quotes that
Genesis 24:64-65 is "proof" that the difference in robes were enough to tell from afar off. Here are the verses: "Rebekah also looked up and saw Isaac. She got down from her camel and asked the servant, “Who is that man in the field coming to meet us?” “He is my master,” the servant answered. So she took her veil and covered herself." He is truly grasping at straws here in order to hold onto his tradition and make it mandatory for all women. The sad part is that he, perhaps unwittingly, condemns all those who don't hold his view as being an abomination to God.
(Written by ILG for the Facebook Group: Breaking Out.)
Hybrid Mode
