On a message board I frequent, there's often a debate/discussion on whether "good" Christian women should only wear skirts or dresses. I generally stay out of those arguments because either they're a case of preaching to the choir (threads with only skirts-only women participating) or they become heated and not-quite rational. In any case, I don't see any need to get involved in those threads. It's not been my experience that they actually change any minds one way or the other.
For some reason lately, though, this argument has "gotten my goat." (Unrelated sidenote - what on earth does that mean?)
The arguments I've seen for skirts only generally go as such:
- Deu 22:5 A woman must not wear men's clothing, nor a man wear women's clothing, for the Lord your God detests anyone who does this.
- God doesn't change; therefore, we must continue to follow the commandment shown in #1.
- Women are commanded to dress modestly in many verses of the Bible.
- In this country, women wore skirts/dresses largely until WWII/the evil feminists took over/the sexual revolution.
- Women wearing pants try to usurp authority from men or act male, or actually want to be men.
- You should be able to tell from a distance (of course, undefined) who is a man and who is a woman by the clothing they wear, but the clothing is not supposed to show body shape closely; thus, the need for very distinct forms of dress.
Okay - I think I've gotten the most common arguments out. Now, my take on them:
First - #1 and #2. Okay, sure, the nature and substance of God doesn't change. However, it is pretty clear that God does change what it is that he expects of us - this is why we have an Old Testament and a New Testament.
I have said this before, and I'll say it again - you can either follow OT rules for salvation or NT rules. Personally, I choose the NT rules. Why? Well, I'm not throwing Christ's sacrifice in His face that way.
Also, have you looked at some of the OT rules? Seriously.....how about Deu 22:8 - have you built a parapet around your roof to prevent others from falling? Deu 22:11 - do you wear mixed fiber clothing? Deu 22:13 - 21 - are you comfortable murdering your daughter if her new husband doesn't like her, claims she wasn't a virgin when they married, and you don't have a bloody sheet for proof?
Oh, but what about just the OT rules for clothing? Well, see the mixed fiber thing above. Also, according to Numbers 15:38-40, we should make tassels with blue cords on the corners of our garments so that we can look at them and overcome our sinful natures. How many of the skirts-only women do that? My guess is very very few. And why? Because it is not necessary anymore - it's a commandment with no force for those of us who are saved by Jesus.
Okay - item #3 - modesty. This is a tricky one. We aren't supposed to run around naked...I get that. What I want to know is where in the New Testament (because I do not need to follow OT dictates - see above) it says "Pants on women are immodest." *flip, flip, flip* Gee, it's not there. Sure, pants can be immodest....so can skirts and dresses. Being immodest but still clothed is possible in just about any form of clothing if you really want to do so. I could take a tent from the garage and wrap it around my body in such a way that I would still be immodest.
On to item #4 - the evil feminists. First a side commentary - I find it sadly amusing how all feminists are tarred with the "man-hating, wanting-to-be-men" brush, even by women who enjoy some of the results of the feminist movement, such as the right to vote, the right to own property in their own name, the right to divorce (another hot button topic and one I won't get into right now), the right to refuse "medical care" (lobotomies and/or time spent in the looney bin) even if their husbands think it will stop them from nagging.....and so on. Okay, where was I?
Oh yes.
Firstly, let's say that the timing of this argument is exactly right. Women did start wearing pants in this country around the same time as the above-mentioned events.
So what?
My point is, if we're talking about a Biblical mandate that has stood for centuries, current or near-current events do not matter. Either there's a Biblical mandate or there isn't. The sexual revolution did not suddenly add appendices to the Bible to cover new events that occurred.
Item #5 - Women usurping the role meant for men. First of all, the Bible gives specific roles for women in certain relationships, but not in all areas. For instance, it is not forbidden for a woman to be the authority in a mathematics classroom by any Biblical mandate. Secondly, usurpation (is that even a word?) is a behavior, not a form of dress. I can nag and browbeat my hubby to death in a ball gown, or a dress from Little House on the Prairie.
As far as women wanting to be men or hating men....this is wild and fearfully inaccurate speculation. Sure, there probably are women who wish they were men, and vice versa. But when I put on a nice pantsuit or a pair of jeans, I am not expressing a wish to be a man. I don't want to be a man. I'm not expressing a wish to be masculine - rough and tough and wrestling and burping. (By the way, that wrestling and burping stuff isn't male - it's just obnoxious, for either gender.) Nor am I expressing hatred of men. I like men, and in particular, I love my dh.
Lastly, on to #6. Let's see where it says this in the Bible. *flip, flip, flip* Lookee, it's not there either. Suggesting that this is a Biblical mandate is adding to the Bible - that's a big no-no.
Also, do you really think that if the lady pictured above was walking in front of you on the street, you wouldn't know she's female?
I have no problem with anyone who wishes to wear skirts only. I do have an issue with saying that it's a Biblical directive for Christian women to follow.
