As a follow up to Saturday’s post on the Legalist “Not Me” dance, today I want to quote Jerry Bridges on the problem of Judgmentalism.
Bridges is a well known, and respected author. He’s known for highlighting the role of grace in the Christian’s life. I’ve reviewed his book, Trusting God here previously. One of his most recent books, Respectable Sins, takes aim at the sins that we too easily let slide. Andy Naselli posted some excerpts from the chapter dealing with Judgmentalism, and I’m going to share some of them here, but encourage you to go read Naselli’s full post and then consider picking up a copy of the book for more.
The sin of judgmentalism is one of the most subtle of our “respectable” sins because it is often practiced under the guise of being zealous for what is right…
Example 1: Dress
I grew up in the mid-twentieth century, when people dressed up to go to church. Men wore jackets and ties (usually suits and ties) and women wore dresses. Sometime in the 1970s, men began to show up at church wearing casual pants and open-collar shirts. Many women began to wear pants. For several years, I was judgmental toward them. Didn’t they have any reverence for God? Would they dress so casually if they were going to an audience with the president? That sounded pretty convincing to me.
Only I was wrong. There is nothing in the Bible that tells us what we ought to wear to church. And as for dressing up to meet the president, that’s a cultural thing centered in Washington, DC. If you were invited to meet the president while he is vacationing at his ranch, you would probably show up in blue jeans. Reverence for God, I finally concluded, is not a matter of dress; it’s a matter of the heart. Jesus said that true worshipers are those who worship the Father in spirit and truth (see John 4:23). Now, it’s true that casual dress may reflect a casual attitude toward God, but I cannot discern that. Therefore, I should avoid ascribing an attitude of irreverence based purely on a person’s dress….
…My point here is that it doesn’t matter which side of an issue we are on. It is easy to become judgmental toward anyone whose opinions are different from ours. And then we hide our judgmentalism under the cloak of Christian convictions.
Paul’s response to the situation in Rome [in Romans 14] was, “Stop judging one another regardless of which position you take.” …
I suspect that some of my dearest friends may disagree with some things I’ve said in this chapter. Some do not see the manner of dress in church or the type of music we sing as matters of preference. For them, it is a conviction. I respect their thinking and wouldn’t want to change their convictions at all.
I’d like to be like Paul, who took a similar position regarding the divisive issues in Rome. He did not try to change anyone’s convictions regarding what they ate or the special days they observed. Instead, he said, “Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind” (Romans 14:5). Such a statement makes many of us uncomfortable. We don’t like ambiguity in issues of Christian practice. It’s difficult for us to accept that one person’s opinion can be different from ours and both of us be accepted by God. But that is what Paul says in Romans 14. And if we will take Paul seriously and hold our convictions with humility, it will help us avoid the sins of judgmentalism. (pp. 144–48)
What are your thoughts on this? I, for one, think Bridges nails it on this one. This is indeed a problem, and can be for those of us on both sides of the question in dispute. Rom. 14 and 15 have more to say about this, and we would do well to listen.
No, I haven’t yet found a Biblical defense for using Pert’s Plus. I’m talking about what the Bible says about hair length.
This may be a surprise to you, but listen to what Paul says in 1 Cor. 11:14-15.
Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him, but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering.
What do we do with this teaching? In my fundamentalist upbringing, we had hair rules, and for us guys: hair check. If our hair was getting anywhere near our shirt collar or ear lobes, we would be in trouble. Demerits and/or detention would come in a hurry!
It’s easy to discount such standards as tomfoolery. Along with the head covering that 1 Cor. 11 refers to, we can easily contextualize this command as appropriate for Corinthians only. But are we doing justice to Paul’s appeal to “nature” here?
This is the question that a bunch of reforming fundamentalists and I have been addressing in one of our forum topics over at our new group site: Transformed by Grace. The discussion has avoided hard and fast extra Biblical rules, and has been quite profitable. Let me share one small quote, out of several I gave in the discussion. This is from Tom Schreiner in the book Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (Crossway):
Paul’s point, then, is that how men and women wear their hair is a significant indication of whether they are abiding by the created order. Of course, what constitutes long hair is often debated–what is appropriately masculine or feminine in hairstyle may vary widely from culture to culture.
I agree. On this point, I concluded with the following:
I do think women’s hair should be generally long, and men’s generally short. There is some room for varying styles and cultural fashions, but I do think today many of the short, short hairstyles worn by women are both non-attractive, and not glorifying to God.
What do you think? Does the Bible deal with our hair care? What about hairstyles today, is everything neutral or a-moral? Should a Christian look to the Bible before they run to a hairdresser? Please join the discussion in the comments here, or visit the Transformed by Grace forum on the question.
One last point: the Biblical view of a distinction between the genders being reinforced by our dress is also taught in Deut. 22:5. I dealt with that passage (often misused to condemn all women who wear pants) in an earlier post.
In the comments of my recent post on the women-wearing-pants controversy, I was challenged to basically prove my position is a legitimate positive interpretation rather than a mere reaction. To boil down the issue, fundamentalists often use Deut. 22:5 to teach that it is wrong for women today to wear pants. My position is that the text teaches that there is to be a designed gender distinction in the way we dress, but that today there are female-designed pants perfectly suitable for women to wear in most situations. (I do think women should wear dresses from time to time, as they are so expressly and beautifully feminine.)
In responding to that charge, I came across the following excellent treatment of the issue from Elmer L. Towns (former Dean of the School of Religion at Liberty University) in the King James Bible Commentary (edited by Edward Hindson, Woodrow Kroll & Jerry Falwell; Thomas Nelson: Nashville, 1983).
Verse 5 has caused divisions and confusion among sincere Christian brethren. Some have used this verse to maintain that women should not wear slacks. The word “pertaineth unto” (Heb keli) in the original language is used elsewhere not only of clothes, but also of decorations or utensils used by the opposite sex. The intent of this law was to maintain the distinction between the sexes. Today, it would apply to any unisex clothing that would cloud the distinction between men and women. The New Testament recognizes such a distinction (1 Cor. 11:3) and maintains that long hair on women was a sign of that distinction (1 Cor. 11:6-14). During the days of Moses, garments (Heb simlah) worn by men and women were similar (robes), so this command was designed to keep a woman from appearing as a man for purposes of licentiousness (to deceive the man). The major difference between male and female robes was their decoration or ornamentation, and not their cut. The principle taught by this passage is that the proper distinction between men and women in all cultures should be maintained. The passage does not teach against slacks per se (or hats, shoes, gloves, etc.–all worn by both sexes), but against men or women wearing any item specifically ornamented for the opposite sex (e.g., a man wearing female slacks, lipstick, etc.). The wearing of slacks by ladies today is not an attempt to deceive men, although some may be immodest and improper in certain situations. The final crieteria are that women look like females, that they are modest (1 Tim 2:9-10), and that their outward appearance reflects their inner character (1 Pet 3:3). ¹
¹ Pg. 168. Words in quotation marks are bolded in the original.
Hardly anyone today would consider the wearing of pants by women to be a breach of decency or a sign of rebellion against the God-given roles of manhood & womanhood. This is the 21st century, women have been liberated, and times have certainly changed, haven’t they?
The Fundamentalist Position
Yet for many sincere and well-meaning Christian fundamentalists (& by that term I mean those who both hold to the fundamental doctrines of the faith & practice some form of secondary separation with regard to those doctrines–specifically the fundamentalist Baptist movement represented by Bob Jones University and a host of even more conservative institutions) today’s situation is lamentable. Feminism’s triumph, in their minds, is what is most responsible for the abandoning of a generally common distinct dress styles for men and women. After all, the bathroom signs distinguish the sexes on the basis of pants for men, and today’s abandonment of the long accepted cultural norm of pants for men only can only lead to a sinful unisex culture which promotes all kind of sexual sins and spurns the God-ordained unique roles for men and women.
While rooted in the biblical teaching of male headship/leadership in the home and church, this position finds support in these verses as well:
A woman shall not wear a man’s garment, nor shall a man put on a woman’s cloak, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD your God. (Deu 22:5)
For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man…. Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a wife to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him, but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering.
(1Co 11:7, 14-15)
From these verses comes a doctrine of “designed distinction” between the sexes. And specifically on the warrant of Deut. 22:5, it is deemed a grievous sin to blur the line between the sexes by donning the apparel of the opposite sex.
Now the above careful argument is often not what one finds with the more conservative fundamentalists. Often Deut. 22:5 is quoted with the harsh conclusion that women who wear pants are “sluts”. The position is not carefully taught, but rather enforced, with ushers trained to escort women caught wearing pants out the door! Visitors who carelessly forget to check the dress code, are asked to wear a dress or not come back. If you think I’m exaggerating, I’m not. Such is the sad case in all too many fundamentalist churches. They don’t want to be tolerating abominations to God!
Modern Attempts to Dodge the Force of Deut. 22:5
To get around this exegesis of Deut. 22:5, many modern Christians claim it is ceremonial law (like Deut. 22:10-11 for instance) . Others will stress that transvestism or cross-dressing is primarily in view, or that some practice associated with idolatry is in view, hence the strong “abomination” label. Yet these interpretations on the surface feel like a transparent attempt at dodging the force of the text.
The Historic Position on Deut. 22:5
Older commentators don’t flinch at offering some alternative views while at the same time affirming what Calvin says below:
This decree also commends modesty in general, and in it God anticipates the danger, lest women should harden themselves into forgetfulness of modesty, or men should degenerate into effeminacy unworthy of their nature. Garments are not in themselves of so much importance; but as it is disgraceful for men to become effeminate, and also for women to affect manliness in their dress and gestures, propriety and modesty are prescribed, not only for decency’s sake, but lest one kind of liberty should at length lead to something worse. The words of the heathen poet are very true: “What shame can she, who wears a helmet, show, her sex deserting?” Wherefore, decency in the fashion of the clothes is an excellent preservative of modesty. [from John Calvin’s online commentary here.]
Keil & Delitzsch, the Hebrew experts, are even stronger:
As the property of a neighbour was to be sacred in the estimation of an Israelite, so also the divine distinction of the sexes, which was kept sacred in civil life by the clothing peculiar to each sex, was to be not less but even more sacredly observed. “There shall not be man’s things upon a woman, and a man shall not put on a woman’s clothes.” כְּלִי does not signify clothing merely, nor arms only, but includes every kind of domestic and other utensils (as in Exo_22:6; Lev_11:32; Lev_13:49). The immediate design of this prohibition was not to prevent licentiousness, or to oppose idolatrous practices (the proofs which Spencer has adduced of the existence of such usages among heathen nations are very far-fetched); but to maintain the sanctity of that distinction of the sexes which was established by the creation of man and woman, and in relation to which Israel was not to sin. Every violation or wiping out of this distinction – such even, for example, as the emancipation of a woman – was unnatural, and therefore an abomination in the sight of God. [emphasis added, quoted from E-Sword‘s (free for download) Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament]
Examining the Fundamentalist Position
So why do I allow and encourage my wife and daughters to wear pants? Am I consciously violating Deut. 22:5 and blurring the distinction of the sexes? I don’t believe so. Upon a closer examination of the fundamentalist position, I hope you will agree with me. At the onset here, I should note that more and more modern fundamentalists disagree with this position, and I’m sure there have been exceptions for many years. Also, there are some conservative Baptists who don’t like being dubbed fundamentalists, preferring to be called historic Baptists, and avoid the perceived problems with fundamentalism today. Fine, whatever. Still I object to their position on Deut. 22:5, and most people would call them fundamentalists.
What Scripture Actually Teaches
Now if we accept the “designed distinction” view of Deut. 22:5 (which I do), here is what Scripture actually affirms. 1) The sexes should be distinct. 2) Christians shouldn’t wear garments or ornaments associated with the opposite sex. We could infer from this that we are to maintain culturally appropriate gender distinctions in dress.
Now Deut. 22:5 doesn’t teach that we must have male-specific items and female-specific items, per se, it just assumes that a culture has them. It doesn’t specify what the items look like, nor to what degree they are actually distinct. It just says don’t use the female or male items.
The 1 Cor. 11 passage seems to say there is a certain propriety which makes it “natural” for the sexes to be distinguished in some visible way. It doesn’t specify how long or short, “long” and “short” hair is, necessarily, however. Yet it asserts that women should have long hair, and men shouldn’t. (Again, I agree with this point here.)
The Role of Culture
Now we have this Scriptural teaching and we are to apply it to our present situation. Culture can obviously be immoral, and cultures promoting little or no clothes are obviously errant and should be corrected from a Biblical perspective. Yet culture by definition changes over time.
In Bible days, men and women wore long flowing robes. There were inner and outer robes, and a girdle for both men and women. Only men were said to “gird up their loins”, meaning hike up their robes to do manly actions, like fighting in a battle. But there is no indication that their robes were materially different than women’s robes. Instead it was the fit, decoration, and style of the robes that distinguished them from women’s robes.
In our culture 100 years ago, pants were a distinctly male item, but today men and women both wear pants. Still there are differences in fit, decoration, and style that differentiate male pants from female pants. Although it is true that a unisex pants style is in vogue these days. While 100 years ago wearing pants was a trespass of cultural norms with regard to gender distinction, today that is not necessarily the case.
In viewing culture, we hopefully can agree that the Bible doesn’t set up the culture of the 1800s as the most Godly culture ever. There is no reason to view it as more godly than present culture, necessarily. Each generation had its sins, and surely today’s generation has some awful flagrant ones, but there is no Scriptural justification for inferring from this that all present cultural norms should be abandoned in favor of those from the 1800s.
Consistency
In examining this topic, it appears that the clear cut, simple distinction provided by pants versus a dress is desirable by the fundamentalists. And so they have honed in on this item of clothing particularly for applying Deut. 22:5. But there are a host of items which have changed in their gender-designating function over the years. Stockings and T-Shirts were originally male-only dress items. Today stockings are generally regarded as female-only and T-shirts are used for both sexes. Fundamentalists often have no problem with their teenage or college-age girls wearing the high school or college sports jackets of their boyfriends, but wouldn’t that violate the mandates in Deut. 22:5 too? And what about women’s suits (even with a dress skirt rather than pants)?
Some view questions of consistency with suspicion. “It is just an attempt to dodge Deut. 22:5”, they assume. Yet these questions must be addressed. Just because an item doesn’t appear on a bathroom sign, doesn’t mean it has no gender distinction. And then again, why is a bathroom sign so definitive for culture? Isn’t it just a convenient tool for communicating which bathroom is which? It is not authoritative in any sense (well, unless I’m looking for a bathroom…).
Conclusion
Based on the above examination, I conclude that how one applies Deut. 22:5 is up for grabs. The specific application is not mandated by the text. You may feel that the weight of centuries of gender distinct use of pants warrants no pants on women. That may be important to you, especially as you study history and see that feminism and a desire to break the cultural norms in regard to distinction of the sexes played a big role in the modern use of pants by women. Yet Scripture does not specify that I must conclude like you do in my view of the cultural norms of a bygone era. In today’s world, many a woman doesn’t think twice about putting on a pair of pants, because that is what our culture does. I would encourage such women to dress femininely and maintain modesty in light of Scriptural principles, rather than simply condemning them on the basis of cultural norms of a hundred years ago.
It is fine if you disagree with me, but I am applying Deut. 22:5 and not rejecting Scripture. And so, fundamentalists and others who insist that only their application of Deut. 22:5 constitutes obedience are really being schismatic. They are needlessly disrupting the unity of the faith, in their defense of their particular application of Scripture to today’s culture. The oddity of the traditional fundamentalist view on women and pants sadly often becomes a disgrace to the name of Christ.
Before I go, if you want to see some debates over this issue, where both sides (mine and the standard fundamentalist position) being defended and advocated, check out the links below.
As a follow up to Saturday’s post on the Legalist “Not Me” dance, today I want to quote Jerry Bridges on the problem of Judgmentalism.
No, I haven’t yet found a Biblical defense for using Pert’s Plus. I’m talking about what the Bible says about hair length.
Hardly anyone today would consider the wearing of pants by women to be a breach of decency or a sign of rebellion against the God-given roles of manhood & womanhood. This is the 21st century, women have been liberated, and times have certainly changed, haven’t they?
In our culture 100 years ago, pants were a distinctly male item, but today men and women both wear pants. Still there are differences in fit, decoration, and style that differentiate male pants from female pants. Although it is true that a unisex pants style is in vogue these days. While 100 years ago wearing pants was a trespass of cultural norms with regard to gender distinction, today that is not necessarily the case.