|
Due to our changing
society, the church has been forced in recent years to reconsider its dress
code. Of course, this reconsideration has produced much controversy and
division. One of the most controversial issues surrounding the dress code
involves the woman and pants. Is God pleased with a woman wearing pants? The
answer to this question has been greatly abused and misunderstood. However, the
answer can be found through a careful analysis of the Holy Scriptures and the
facts of history.
In I Corinthians 11 :3, an important doctrine emerges that
is essential to this discussion. The Apostle Paul, under the inspiration of the
Spirit, writes, “But I would have you know, that the head of every man is
Christ: and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God (1
Cor. 11:3).” Within this verse, God reveals His divine order of authority for
the entire universe. The provisions of this order are quite simple. The Supreme
Being of the universe is “Jehovah” or God the Father. Next, Christ because of
His role as our mediator, becomes the head of the man. Finally, the man is
placed as the head of the woman.
This Biblical doctrine is vital to this discussion because
it involves the man and the woman and their respective positions in life. As
noted above, the Scriptures are emphatic that the woman is placed in a
subordinate position to the man (see also I Timothy 2:11-12). While the Apostle
Paul does address the relationship between the man and the woman more
extensively in other passages, such understanding is not relevant to this
discussion. However, it should be noted that this subordination applies only in
earthly realms, for in Christ, “there is neither male nor female (Gal. 3:28).”
Without question, understanding this principle concerning the woman’s
subordination to the man is essential to answering the initial question of this
discussion.
So, with this understanding, one must next consult the pages
of history, for history will reveal when and why that women first began wearing
pants. During the 1840’s, the United States experienced an era of reform. From
the schoolroom to the prison cell, reforms took place. This spirit of reform
finally reached the home. Women, who had been active in the Abolitionist
movement to abolish slavery, soon found that they had much in common with the
slaves. Just as the slaves, women had few rights. Angelina Grimke, a leader in
the Abolitionist movement, said “The investigation of the rights of the slave
has led me to a better understanding of my own.”1 It was this understanding that led
to the beginning of the struggle for the emancipation of women.
Initially, this struggle produced some needed change. For
example, women were gradually able to secure admission to public high schools
and colleges. However, it was not long before this struggle took on a more
militant view. Up to this point, the woman’s place was recognized as the home.
Her responsibilities included her husband and her children. Of course, these
responsibilities were Scriptural. (See I Timothy 5:14) But, as women began
obtaining more rights, they engaged in activities that took them farther and
farther from the home. As they drifted from the home, they tended to lose sight
of their Scriptural duties and position.
Eventually, many of these women came to view themselves as
slaves to their taskmaster husbands. As these early feminists began crying for
emancipation, the teachings of the Apostle Paul were brought to their
attention. Amelia Bloomer, a leader in the struggle for women’s emancipation,
“regarded St. Paul as a distortion of the true spirit of the Bible.”2 In general, this attitude was
predominant throughout the entire movement. As a result, the doctrines of the
Bible were rejected.
As the emancipation movement gained momentum, women found
themselves hindered by a peculiar obstacle. Interestingly enough, this obstacle
was their dress. The dress of that day was fashioned in such a manner that it
posed a health risk to the wearer. Thus, the movement for dress reform began. However,
this movement also gained a more radical note. “They (women) speculated that
women’s clothes were the result of a male conspiracy to make women subservient
by cultivating in them a slave mentality.”3 The dress was also seen as a threat to the women seeking
positions outside of the home. Susan B. Anthony said; “I can see no business
avocation, in which woman in her present dress, can possibly earn equal wages
with man.”4 As a result, the women’s movement
for dress reform soon became the focus of women’s emancipation.
The first attempt by the feminists to put their ideals into
the practice was through the bloomer. This outfit, introduced by Elizabeth
Smith Miller, included a skirt reaching half way between the knee and the
ankle. Beneath the skirt, Turkish trousers coming down to the ankle were
gathered with an elastic band. Although introduced by Elizabeth Smith Miller,
this outfit was popularized by Amelia Bloomer from whom its named was derived.
However, the bloomer’s existence was short lived. These “unsexed” women as they
were referred to provoked a great controversy. It was so great that the
feminists finally abandoned the bloomer. Also, the War Between the States
focused all attention on the plight of the nation. As a result, the move for
dress reform and women’s emancipation soon faded away.
Nevertheless, during the last quarter of the century, these
issues reappeared, but the arguments were still the same. “Traditional dress,
they said, was that of the female slave who served and pampered her male
master. Only with rational dress could pure womanhood free herself from
thralldom, attain health and vigor, and compete equally with men in all
activities.”5 And gradually, this is what they
did. Initially, the wearing of men’s clothes was restricted to the homes. But,
it was not long before women wearing men’s clothes appeared on the streets.
One of the first women to openly wear pants was Mary E.
Walker. After the War Between the States, she practiced medicine in Washington
D. C. Her normal attire was a frock coat and striped pants during the day and
full male attire during the evening. She never married, and in 1897 she
established a women’s colony called “Adamless Eve.” She believed that since the
anatomy of the sexes was so similar they should dress identical. Before long, a
multitude of women seemed to feel the same way.
Finally, by the turn of the century, the wearing of pants by
women became an accepted thing. Nevertheless, it was to be several years before
it really became common among women. With the coming of World War II, large
numbers of women went to work in various factories as the men were called into
the armed forces. And, the common factory outfit included pants. As a result,
many women who held reservations about pants now accepted them. Thus, pants
became an established part of women’s wardrobes. It has become so established
that now a woman in a dress is indeed a rare sight.
However, the initial question still remains. Is God pleased
with a woman wearing pants? At this point, one may definitely say that the
garment itself is not the real issue. The Apostle Paul said, “I know. ..that
there is nothing unclean of itself (Rom. 14:14).” There is no sin in the
garment, for it is but a piece of material. The real issue is what it
represents on the woman. Pants on the woman have become the symbol for the
feminist movement. Gerritt Smith, an early feminist, said, “Your dress movement
involves the whole woman’s rights cause.”6 Therefore, the woman who wears pants, be it men’s or ladies’,
is identifying herself with the feminist movement. It is ironic that many women
refuse to openly associate themselves with the radical feminist movement of our
day, yet lend their support through the manner in which they dress. More
importantly, however, is that this symbol represents a complete rebellion
against the principles revealed in I Corinthians 11 :3. Thus, any woman who
sincerely believes in the doctrines of the Holy Bible should seek to “abstain
from all appearance of evil (1 Thess. 5:22).” Without question, God is not
pleased with that which rebels against His revealed Word.
 Rev. Tim & Sis Donna Hudson Bro Tim is Pastor of the Pocalla Holiness Church in Sumter, SC. He is also the treasurer for African Holiness Missions |