Serious Pants/ Skirts Question... Not Trying to Debate... Thanks!

[Ferd]

Originally Posted by BobDylan

Are there any takers for serious discussion on this topic? Any conservative brethren who want to weigh in? I would really like to hear some good balanced point of discussion from the conservative corner... again, not trying to debate, just trying to get a balanced perspective on the most relevant application and interpretation of Deut 22:5 for us today....

Bob, I stayed out of this pretty much. But after this weekend, some of the things I saw and some of the reflections I have from it, I guess as time permits, I have a few things to say.

I am sure that Newman and others will weigh in on how stupid I am but that is fine.


First, let me say that by an large, with the exception of those wonderful men who have held an old standard, the genie is out of the bottle and as the old saying goes, you cant push water up a hill.

My thoughts are that those who have left skirts for pants have done so mainly because they no longer believe that Deu. 22:5 applies. I think that may be a valid argument on some level. to a 15 year old girl today, there was never a time when men wore pants and women wore skirts. The older ones have some memory but the younger ones dont...except those in old time Apostolic churches.

Having said that, my wife doesnt wear pants and while we dont have a daughter yet, there isnt going to be a day when my money buys her pants, nor a day when my roof shelters a pair of pants in her closet.

What I see is that OP women didnt leave skirts, they left modesty. (go ahead ladies take your best shot). Maybe some of the older ones have maintained some degree of modesty, but they arent teaching their daughters. Makes me nuts.

Modesty means something and this leaving the skirts behind has crossed a bridge in the heart that has led many here to suggest that Modesty as defined BY THE WORLD is all that is needed. what a crock. I see OP girls in pants that look like they were painted on. I dont care what the church kids think, I care that they are no different than the world and we are STILL CALLED TO BE SEPERATE

yea, Im yelling. Im angry. we have lost something much more important than skirts.

[Hoovie]

Originally Posted by BobDylan

Are there any takers for serious discussion on this topic? Any conservative brethren who want to weigh in? I would really like to hear some good balanced point of discussion from the conservative corner... again, not trying to debate, just trying to get a balanced perspective on the most relevant application and interpretation of Deut 22:5 for us today....

I consider myself a moderate, but I am not so sure there is a direct correlation in your thread title and Deut 22:5.

[Esther]

Originally Posted by Ferd

Bob, I stayed out of this pretty much. But after this weekend, some of the things I saw and some of the reflections I have from it, I guess as time permits, I have a few things to say.

I am sure that Newman and others will weigh in on how stupid I am but that is fine.


First, let me say that by an large, with the exception of those wonderful men who have held an old standard, the genie is out of the bottle and as the old saying goes, you cant push water up a hill.

My thoughts are that those who have left skirts for pants have done so mainly because they no longer believe that Deu. 22:5 applies. I think that may be a valid argument on some level. to a 15 year old girl today, there was never a time when men wore pants and women wore skirts. The older ones have some memory but the younger ones dont...except those in old time Apostolic churches.

Having said that, my wife doesnt wear pants and while we dont have a daughter yet, there isnt going to be a day when my money buys her pants, nor a day when my roof shelters a pair of pants in her closet.

What I see is that OP women didnt leave skirts, they left modesty. (go ahead ladies take your best shot). Maybe some of the older ones have maintained some degree of modesty, but they arent teaching their daughters. Makes me nuts.

Modesty means something and this leaving the skirts behind has crossed a bridge in the heart that has led many here to suggest that Modesty as defined BY THE WORLD is all that is needed. what a crock. I see OP girls in pants that look like they were painted on. I dont care what the church kids think, I care that they are no different than the world and we are STILL CALLED TO BE SEPERATE

yea, Im yelling. Im angry. we have lost something much more important than skirts.

Ferd, I do not believe we have interpreted Deut 22:5 correctly. However, I still do not wear pants.

I modesty is possible in pants as in a skirt, but wearing either painted on it NOT modest.

As to being separate, unfortunately, I believe we have missed that as well. In my opinion that was NEVER about dress, but attitude and how you treat others.

We take the easy way out and just dress differently, or at least the women do, and a few men. But so do the Amish and so do Catholic preist and some nuns.

[Ferd]

Originally Posted by Esther

Ferd, I do not believe we have interpreted Deut 22:5 correctly. However, I still do not wear pants.

I modesty is possible in pants as in a skirt, but wearing either painted on it NOT modest.

As to being separate, unfortunately, I believe we have missed that as well. In my opinion that was NEVER about dress, but attitude and how you treat others.

We take the easy way out and just dress differently, or at least the women do, and a few men. But so do the Amish and so do Catholic preist and some nuns.

We agree on some thing Esther, we dont on others.

IMHO at one point Deu 22 was very much about pants and women. now not so much. But on point, the shift away from dresses, has led very much to a slipping in the "modesty standard" and yes, I agree a woman can be modest in pants. All too often, I am afraid, while it is possible, it isnt happening.

One can be just as immodest (if not more so) in a skirt. That is why I said we didnt leave skirts, we left modesty.

Esther, Seperation from the world is about EVERYTHING. It is about how we treat people. it is also about where we go, what we do, what we see, how we dresss, what we eat, what we drink, where we play.

Seperation from the world is important but we have traded it for comfort. and it IS absolutly about dress, just as it is absolutly about so many other things too.

Sadly I see in this thread some really profane idea that the standard we should use is the one the world uses, or something called the "corporate world" or something like that.

I am rambling but I am right, in many ways we have lost our way.

[Esther]

Originally Posted by Ferd

We agree on some thing Esther, we dont on others.

IMHO at one point Deu 22 was very much about pants and women. now not so much. But on point, the shift away from dresses, has led very much to a slipping in the "modesty standard" and yes, I agree a woman can be modest in pants. All too often, I am afraid, while it is possible, it isnt happening.

One can be just as immodest (if not more so) in a skirt. That is why I said we didnt leave skirts, we left modesty.

Esther, Seperation from the world is about EVERYTHING. It is about how we treat people. it is also about where we go, what we do, what we see, how we dresss, what we eat, what we drink, where we play.

Seperation from the world is important but we have traded it for comfort. and it IS absolutly about dress, just as it is absolutly about so many other things too.

Sadly I see in this thread some really profane idea that the standard we should use is the one the world uses, or something called the "corporate world" or something like that.

I am rambling but I am right, in many ways we have lost our way.

I will agree with you on this. My point being that we have made it in a general sense ALL about the outward appearance. When it is so much more.

I agree with you on this post.

[HeavenlyOne]

Originally Posted by Ferd

Bob, I stayed out of this pretty much. But after this weekend, some of the things I saw and some of the reflections I have from it, I guess as time permits, I have a few things to say.

I am sure that Newman and others will weigh in on how stupid I am but that is fine.


First, let me say that by an large, with the exception of those wonderful men who have held an old standard, the genie is out of the bottle and as the old saying goes, you cant push water up a hill.

My thoughts are that those who have left skirts for pants have done so mainly because they no longer believe that Deu. 22:5 applies. I think that may be a valid argument on some level. to a 15 year old girl today, there was never a time when men wore pants and women wore skirts. The older ones have some memory but the younger ones dont...except those in old time Apostolic churches.

Having said that, my wife doesnt wear pants and while we dont have a daughter yet, there isnt going to be a day when my money buys her pants, nor a day when my roof shelters a pair of pants in her closet.

What I see is that OP women didnt leave skirts, they left modesty. (go ahead ladies take your best shot). Maybe some of the older ones have maintained some degree of modesty, but they arent teaching their daughters. Makes me nuts.

Modesty means something and this leaving the skirts behind has crossed a bridge in the heart that has led many here to suggest that Modesty as defined BY THE WORLD is all that is needed. what a crock. I see OP girls in pants that look like they were painted on. I dont care what the church kids think, I care that they are no different than the world and we are STILL CALLED TO BE SEPERATE

yea, Im yelling. Im angry. we have lost something much more important than skirts.

Ferd, I totally agree with your assessment of the situation, as I have often seen the same thing happen. It appears that often times when someone leaves a belief they once held, they tend to go quite the opposite.

Having said that, here is where I stand on the issue, having once believed it myself (only because I was taught it was in the Bible as it was taught to me).

Here is what I see going on in the church today......skirts are getting shorter and shirts are getting tighter. Immodesty is becoming rampant in the church but the church doesn't address it because.....well, they are wearing the uniform (and yes, I hate calling it that, but it's how I see it).

I see backs and tummies of even adult women, not just teenage girls. Sure, they have skirts on, but sometimes, barely. Even the 21 yr old daughter of my pastor fights her clothing to keep it on certain areas of her body, which often fails.

My daughter and I wear skirts to church but pants most everywhere else. I have been consistent in teaching her modesty in everything she wears, and believe me when I say that at the age of 14 (this Friday), she dresses appropriately at all times, even when swimming (she wears a colored T-shirt and long shorts).

I know that I'm not the norm in what you relate to in your post above, but be assured that there are people out there who, although they once believed the 'standard doctrine', they still believe in modesty in all manner of dress.

[HeavenlyOne]

Originally Posted by Ferd

We agree on some thing Esther, we dont on others.

IMHO at one point Deu 22 was very much about pants and women. now not so much. But on point, the shift away from dresses, has led very much to a slipping in the "modesty standard" and yes, I agree a woman can be modest in pants. All too often, I am afraid, while it is possible, it isnt happening.

One can be just as immodest (if not more so) in a skirt. That is why I said we didnt leave skirts, we left modesty.

Esther, Seperation from the world is about EVERYTHING. It is about how we treat people. it is also about where we go, what we do, what we see, how we dresss, what we eat, what we drink, where we play.

Seperation from the world is important but we have traded it for comfort. and it IS absolutly about dress, just as it is absolutly about so many other things too.

Sadly I see in this thread some really profane idea that the standard we should use is the one the world uses, or something called the "corporate world" or something like that.

I am rambling but I am right, in many ways we have lost our way.

Addressing the bold part of your post, as I agree with the rest........well, I also agree with the bolded part, as there was a time when pants were considered men's apparell only, but that no longer applies today.

To those who think that clothing doesn't change from era to era and gender to gender, men, let me introduce you to the time when you wore stockings and high heels along with ruffled shirts and even lace.

See, there was once a time when those items were known as men's attire, but as we know.......today, that no longer applies (and all the men say PRAISE THE LORD!).

[DividedThigh]

Hey HO, welcome back, i missed you my friend, dt

[Esther]

Originally Posted by HeavenlyOne

Addressing the bold part of your post, as I agree with the rest........well, I also agree with the bolded part, as there was a time when pants were considered men's apparell only, but that no longer applies today.

To those who think that clothing doesn't change from era to era and gender to gender, men, let me introduce you to the time when you wore stockings and high heels along with ruffled shirts and even lace.

See, there was once a time when those items were known as men's attire, but as we know.......today, that no longer applies (and all the men say PRAISE THE LORD!).

And powder!

[Ferd]

What DT said, good to see you HO.