Gender Distinct Clothing – Part 2
Does the Bible really require us to wear gender-distinct clothing?
Mike
Mike
Dear Mike,
In my last column, I noted (1) that gender–distinctness in clothing is a part of the much larger biblical theology of the image of God in man, (2) that God regards failure to be gender-distinct in clothing as an abomination (Deut 22:5b), and (3) that God did not give specific instructions on how men and women are to express gender-distinctness in clothing.
Before addressing how to apply the principle of Deuteronomy 22:5 to our culture, let me explain that when I use the word “culture,” I’m referring to the values, perspectives, and practices shared by a group of people. Culture is multilayered. We belong to national, regional, local, family, church, and, perhaps, corporate cultures. Culture is multi–faceted. It includes our entertainment, education, work, methods of relating to others, modes of self–presentation, and so on.
There are at least three aspects of any cultural practice we must evaluate when seeking to view it biblically: its direction, message, and theological character.
The “direction” of a cultural practice involves its history, its present practice, and its future direction.
The “message” of a cultural practice involves answers to questions like: “Why do the creators and participants say they engage in this cultural practice? What do participants and observers say this cultural practice means? What values and perspectives are promoted or demoted by this practice?”
Paul tells us to consider how our “message” is perceived by three groups of observers: the Jew, the Greek, and the church of God (1 Cor 10:32). The “Jew” was the unsaved monotheist with deeply held conservative values. The “Greek” was the unsaved pagan polytheist, who nonetheless had ideas and values about what is appropriate and what isn’t. The church of God included all true believers, whether weak or strong in their faith. Paul commands, “Don’t give offense” to any of these groups of people, even in matters as mundane as eating and drinking (1 Cor 10:31). Rather, we are to seek their profit—salvation for the unsaved; edification for the saved (1 Cor 10:33).
The “theological character” of a cultural practice is determined by asking questions such as, “How does this practice reflect love for God and for others? To what degree are its direction and message in harmony with Scripture?”
Without careful attention to all three of these components, cultural analysis is easily skewed either in favor of what is traditional or in favor of what is popular. My best effort to analyze these three components of clothing trends in America has led me to the following conclusions:
Direction: For most of American history, our culture was gender–distinct in its clothing: men wore breeches/trousers and women wore dresses/skirts. The trend of the last 120 years has been unisex, and currently seems to be “any sex—your choice.” These are trends Christians should reject. God desires us to be visibly gender–distinct in our clothing.
Message: The original promoters of pants worn by women were unapologetically opposed to any form of men’s clothing being off limits to women. Contemporary cultural observers (social critics, fashion designers, feminist ideologues) say that pants on women still communicate masculinity and power, despite its near universal adoption by women. This surprises me. I wonder if ads like Dockers’s “Men Wear the Pants” reflect a desire for unambiguous masculinity, even in clothing.
Theology: A rejection of God’s plan for gender distinctions is one error which helped spawn our culture’s rejection of gender-distinct clothing as a value.
When a culture retains gender-distinctness in clothing as a value, and replaces one form of gender-distinct clothing for another, then a Christian is free to adopt the new style without compromising the biblical value of gender–distinct clothing. Our culture has not retained gender–distinctness in clothing as a value and has not sought to replace the old norm (pants/dress) with a new norm that honors that value.
Blessings,
Philip
In my last column, I noted (1) that gender–distinctness in clothing is a part of the much larger biblical theology of the image of God in man, (2) that God regards failure to be gender-distinct in clothing as an abomination (Deut 22:5b), and (3) that God did not give specific instructions on how men and women are to express gender-distinctness in clothing.
Before addressing how to apply the principle of Deuteronomy 22:5 to our culture, let me explain that when I use the word “culture,” I’m referring to the values, perspectives, and practices shared by a group of people. Culture is multilayered. We belong to national, regional, local, family, church, and, perhaps, corporate cultures. Culture is multi–faceted. It includes our entertainment, education, work, methods of relating to others, modes of self–presentation, and so on.
There are at least three aspects of any cultural practice we must evaluate when seeking to view it biblically: its direction, message, and theological character.
The “direction” of a cultural practice involves its history, its present practice, and its future direction.
The “message” of a cultural practice involves answers to questions like: “Why do the creators and participants say they engage in this cultural practice? What do participants and observers say this cultural practice means? What values and perspectives are promoted or demoted by this practice?”
Paul tells us to consider how our “message” is perceived by three groups of observers: the Jew, the Greek, and the church of God (1 Cor 10:32). The “Jew” was the unsaved monotheist with deeply held conservative values. The “Greek” was the unsaved pagan polytheist, who nonetheless had ideas and values about what is appropriate and what isn’t. The church of God included all true believers, whether weak or strong in their faith. Paul commands, “Don’t give offense” to any of these groups of people, even in matters as mundane as eating and drinking (1 Cor 10:31). Rather, we are to seek their profit—salvation for the unsaved; edification for the saved (1 Cor 10:33).
The “theological character” of a cultural practice is determined by asking questions such as, “How does this practice reflect love for God and for others? To what degree are its direction and message in harmony with Scripture?”
Without careful attention to all three of these components, cultural analysis is easily skewed either in favor of what is traditional or in favor of what is popular. My best effort to analyze these three components of clothing trends in America has led me to the following conclusions:
Direction: For most of American history, our culture was gender–distinct in its clothing: men wore breeches/trousers and women wore dresses/skirts. The trend of the last 120 years has been unisex, and currently seems to be “any sex—your choice.” These are trends Christians should reject. God desires us to be visibly gender–distinct in our clothing.
Message: The original promoters of pants worn by women were unapologetically opposed to any form of men’s clothing being off limits to women. Contemporary cultural observers (social critics, fashion designers, feminist ideologues) say that pants on women still communicate masculinity and power, despite its near universal adoption by women. This surprises me. I wonder if ads like Dockers’s “Men Wear the Pants” reflect a desire for unambiguous masculinity, even in clothing.
Theology: A rejection of God’s plan for gender distinctions is one error which helped spawn our culture’s rejection of gender-distinct clothing as a value.
When a culture retains gender-distinctness in clothing as a value, and replaces one form of gender-distinct clothing for another, then a Christian is free to adopt the new style without compromising the biblical value of gender–distinct clothing. Our culture has not retained gender–distinctness in clothing as a value and has not sought to replace the old norm (pants/dress) with a new norm that honors that value.
Blessings,
Philip