I would like to recommend that any readers reading this thread take the time to read the article posted by Esaias. The link is here:
https://bellatory.com/fashion-indust...estern-Culture
One of the statements made in this article was,
Before the 20th century, women wore loose pantalettes or drawers under dresses for modesty and warmth. Though actual pants were sometimes seen on women in the late 1800s and in the early part of the 20th century, it was not until the 1970s that the wearing of trousers by women was accepted for business or dress occasions.
If one reads the entire article they will be met with the reality that women of Western culture have nearly always worn bifurcated forms of clothing, or pants. However, they would traditionally wear a dress or skirt over them. As the pictures will show, the pants were often visible below their dresses. This actually answers my question regarding bifurcated pantyhose, which is warn under dresses and skirts today.
What I think our more conservative brethren aren't seeing is... bifurcated garments were never considered an "abomination" on a woman. In fact, their own source above states that women wore pantalettes or drawers under dresses for modesty and warmth. Isn't it interesting that pants were dawned by women and worn under their dresses for the sake of modesty? If wearing bifurcated garments are an abomination, then the women of Western culture have been abominations since at least as far back as the late 1800's (according to this article).
The issue regarding pants vs. skirt for the New Testament Christian is not one of legalistic "abomination" as specified by the Law of Moses. The issue is... modesty. I've repeatedly explained that I have no issue with aspiring to a biblical modesty that involves women choosing of their own free will to wear dresses and skirts instead of pants. Some churches have no issue with women wearing pants at home or casually, but they request that women wear dresses or skirts when attending a church service as a means of ensuring modesty for worship.
So, what's the big debate here? Here are the positions presented:
The conservatives:
- Deuteronomy 22:5 is primarily applied to pants on women.
- Pants on women are an "abomination".
- Being an abomination, wearing pants is a sin that can cost a woman her soul
- Pants on a woman are always immodest.
- Women are therefore commanded to not wear pants.
The liberals (or moderates):
- The exact meaning of Deuteronomy 22:5 is debated among scholars and is about something far more serious than mere pants on a woman (idolatry & perversion).
- We are not under the Law of Moses but under Grace.
- While Christians are not under the Law of Moses, we are admonished to be a modest people.
- Pants in and of themselves are not a sin or an abomination on a woman.
- It can be argued that dresses and/or skirts are more modest than pants.
- Women are encouraged to wear dresses and/or skirts as they seek biblical modesty in their Christian walk.
- Women who wish to wear pants are not regarded as being "in sin".
- Special care should be taken to ensure that one is modest when wearing pants.
I think our readers should chime in and perhaps share their thoughts on the issue after having heard both sides.
Threaded Mode
