• Reuben

Immodesty and Transgenderism

Updated: 4 days ago


The crucial matter of dress, the spirit of the age like hand in glove, is not so much about exposure, though a huge problem as well, but about gender indistinctive clothing, confounding the garment that once differed the sexes for us—an androgynous attack on God's will and creative order and rejection of authority toward God and husband. It’s a denial of what God has made. Woman wearing that which pertains to a man (De 22:5; 1 Tim 2:9), while not many men are wearing that which pertains to a woman (I.e. dresses). But both are equally an abomination to God. Further, it’s a gospel issue because it’s an external reflection of the heart (Pr 23:7; Matt 7:15-20; Ti 2:11-14; 3:3-7; etc).


In our present day of the last days, transgenderism is the craze being pushed by Satan’s minions upon every sphere of society, to corrupt the minds and hearts of the people including vulnerable children. Intellectually, the debate of transgenderism is the easiest debate in the world to win. The proof is self-evident. Men cannot become women. Women cannot become men. There are only two genders: male and female. But this is not an intellectual debate. They do not care about facts, nor will appealing to logic have any effect. Why not? Because they are reprobates. Their minds are only evil continually. Out of every pore of their body, pours every kind of evil and wickedness known to man (Rom 1:26-32).


But transgenderism however has been on going for many years now, all in the name of “liberty” and “equality” — that is, women dressing like men and wearing their hair short like men, in essence dressing and appearing transgenderly. What else would you call it? If it's applicable to the male gender, why not the female gender? Herein we see the great hypocrisy of “evangelicals” and others. For the one, male, it is considered transgender but not the other, female? If a man wears long hair and a skirt it is considered transgender (and rightfully so) but when the opposite occurs, woman wearing short hair and pants, it is not? Pants at one time were only considered masculine (they still are), a symbol of manhood, which is also one of authority, headship, being in charge, wearing the pants. Everyone knows that. It's a symbol on the door of the men's bathroom for a reason, differentiating the sexes which started with God. Even lost people understand this truth. Orthodox Jews for instance have always practiced modesty from as far back as they existed. But sadly majority churches today have turned away from fundamentals of the truth of the most basic social unit — the family. This is one component of the attack on the family unit.


Most Christian men will still say that it's wrong for a man to wear a dress, but they don't mount a biblical explanation. It's just a preference. They've actually been defending men in dresses for awhile. They say something like, everyone wore robes in Bible times, to justify their wives and daughters wearing pants. That's their argument. It's not one that you can draw from scripture, but it has the purpose of defending a woman wearing a male item. So now when a man wears the woman's item, it's that goose for the gander thing. What can they say? They've taken away their own biblical argument against male dresses or skirts, men dressing transgenderly and the argument against transgender bathrooms in schools. It's all a bit hypocritical. So, please bear this in mind as you attempt to take some sort of stand against the rage of the alphabet soup reprobates.

Where have true believers argued against pants on women and skirts and dresses on men throughout history? They go to De 22:5, 1 Cor 11:3-16, and Job 38:3 and 40:7. If God brings up a particular support of His design that He desires, wants, and requires, then believers, one should assume, would eagerly support just like God requires. For all of the history of the church, believers kept unique designed distinctions between men and woman. This was like breathing. The church just did it. God expected it. The departure from this is a very serious departure. I call pants the male item because of the language of De 22:5. A good understanding of the Hebrew of the KJV English, "that which pertaineth unto a man," is a "male item." It is more than just clothing. Women should not wear what is a distinctly male item. Men should not put on a woman's garment. All who do so are an abomination unto the LORD thy God.


It isn't unusual to get mocked by professing Christians for writing on this. They want to make sure that they stand up and take a strong stand for "women's pants." This is very important to them. I wonder who "wears the pants" in that home.


I think that a dress or a skirt on men is still a bridge too far for most men, let alone professing Christian men, but the defense of that position comes from the Bible. We need men to repent of their capitulation on this issue and to join churches outside the camp to stand upon the Word of God. This is not just a matter of a gag reflex or a personal turn-off. This is about creation order. This is about the preservation of divinely originated roles. This is to preserve the family, which is to guard the truth.


Before men starting wearing dresses, women began wearing pants. Why do you think this was? It isn't rocket science. You know that. You even know why. Pants are a male item, so they symbolize authority. I think this might be an insult to your intelligence, but when women started wearing pants, society as a whole opposed it, women too. Look at any picture prior to the 1940's and you see 100% the same thing: pants on men and dresses on women. Thats how it was for nearly 6,000 years. Pants were masculine. Most people saw pants as rebellious for women. They were bucking male authority. This assumed there was male authority, represented by the terminology, men wear the pants in the family. There is less repulsion and rejection of a dress on a man right now in our culture than there was at one historical juncture with pants on women.


"Evangelicals" don't have a biblical, defensible standard when it comes to modesty (like most other “cultural” things). They have no definition of modesty or nakedness because it’s not God’s Word that dictates their beliefs and definitions. Their opinions are based upon their humanistic ideas, what the crowd, the masses and the world are doing, but not what God’s Word says. Drawing the line at "nudity" isn't scriptural. The Bible doesn't even use the term. It's not biblical, but convenient. Yet at the same time, they attempt to erect barriers to prevent further moral erosion, but it’s all for naught because they do not tune into God's position. It really isn't hard to be against nudity even in the world. I've never seen it in public in my entire life. Christians wear clothes. So do unbelievers.

"Evangelicals" strain at gnats and swallow camels. Lots of subjectiveness but nothing objective. When their arguments are soundly debunked, they resort to these types of Biblical beliefs as "non-essentials," to preserve a coalition and prevent conflict and trials with their wives, daughters and woman of the church, thereby further corrupting the Word of God. Furthermore, they wouldn't want to be seen as different by the world. As I always say, the average professing Christian today loves the world because he or she is of the world. That is their nature, their only nature, for we have only one nature. They won't bring upon themselves any form of persecution from the world, for any type of trial brings the response we see with the unsaved stony soil of Christs parable of the sower and seed (Matt 13). That, like the toleration of ungodly dress standards, many times reveals the heart. Many of them are fakes, false pretenders, counterfeits, who do not “remember all the commandments of the LORD, and do them;” but instead “seek . . . after [their] own heart and [their] own eyes, after which ye use to go a whoring:” (Num 15:39).


Women in Christian churches cannot forsake what Nature demands, they must always recognize and submit to the nature of their design and the God of nature. That also includes the hair. Their hair is given them as a natural ornament of beauty and a sign of submission to men (1 Cor 11:1-16). So to should their dress be distinct and different than the man (De 22:5; 1 Tim 2:9). It should agree with their nature and symbolize their submission to the man and there is no religious exception or special circumstance that takes away from this. So much as it’s a shame for men to have long hair (1 Cor 11:14), it is a blessing and an honour for women to adorn themselves with it (1 Cor 11:15). In like manner, so much as it is a shame for men to wear a dress, it’s a blessing and an honour for women to wear one. And vice versa for pants. For I cannot think of any clothing item in our culture today, recognized by both lost and saved people that clearly and uniquely symbolizes the sexes. The world gets it. The world, led by men- and God-hating feminists, has corrupted the uniqueness of pants over the last 100 years and now feels bold enough to normalize men in dresses. To a degree the world has succeeded in the war on female dress. Weak Christian men have allowed it to happen. Now the world will steamroll the men in dresses issue because majority of professing Christians have already surrendered on the issue of Biblical dress.


Why are professing Christians opposed to same sex marriage? Sure, God the Father in Gen 2 and God the Son in Matt 19 teach marriage only between one man and woman. It's God's only way. Yet, what is the major problem with same sex marriage? It is the rebellion against God's design, which is what we read in Rom 1:18-25. The creation rebels against Creator. Someone cannot both love and please God as well as rebel against Him. Those activities are mutually exclusive. The person may say he loves God, but he is rebelling against God. Someone cannot really oppose same sex marriage and accept rebellion against God's design. The latter actually is what leads to the former. If you want the former to stop, you stop it at the latter. Same sex marriage is not the only abomination to God. The women who wear the male garment and the men who wear the female one, all who do so, are an abomination to God (De 22:5). Same sex marriage gets a lot of play still among evangelicals. It is even a political issue and a Supreme Court justice issue. Why isn't the garment an issue? Evangelicals and most fundamentalists long time ago gave it up. Their women already began wearing the male garment.


There is not hope for the marriage issue if churches, if believers, will not stand on the fundamental principle behind it, God's created design. Today when men dress and act like woman, professing Christians who have capitulated on the dress issue with women must shut their mouths because Satan already carried the day on that issue, and it would be rank hypocrisy for them to start protesting about men doing what women had been doing for so long. When the history of the sexual chaos of the 20th and 21st century is written, the rejection of distinction in dress is going to get its own chapter, and will be directly linked as the herald of the coming destruction of gender roles entirely. So your choices really boil down to three: (1) Maintain gender distinction in our culture by the Word of God for the Glory of God, concerning both ladies and men. (2) Cave-in on gender distinction with ladies, and then have to carry out an embarrassing reversal when your hypocrisy is exposed as you resist men wearing women's clothing. (3) Roll with ladies in pants, and then roll with your sons in skirts using the culture excuse.


Truly saved people however will separate from the world, which also means the ways of the world. Separation from the world involves dressing godly and modestly and according to ones sex. Both in the church services and in daily life Christians should dress in a way that is clearly marked by modesty and a distinction between the sexes (1 Tim. 2:8-10, De. 22:5, 1 Cor. 11:14-15), according to the doctrine of godliness (1 Tim. 6:3-5). Why dress Biblical on Sunday to church but not the rest of the week, many times not even the rest of that day?! To those that don’t obey this “teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;” are "proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness:” (1 Tim. 6:3-5a).


Not loving the world involves, among many things, dressing godly, modestly and according to ones sex. Both in church and daily life, Christians should dress in a way that is clearly marked by modesty and a distinction between the sexes (1 Tim 2:8-10, De 22:5, 1 Cor 11:14-15), and according to the doctrine of godliness (1 Tim 6:3-5).


A common argument heard from “evangelicals” is that ‘God is for modesty, but there is not a specific dress code in the Bible.’ In other words, the standard of modesty, for nearly 6,000 years, and of the years we have visual evidence for, let's say, circa 1800’s or even circa 1900’s, were merely subjective? They were not guided by any objective scriptural standard? When they said something was immodest, was it merely relative to the tradition or the norm of the day? This the way of thinking “evangelicals” today who don’t understand Scripture or how to apply it, both of which are of equal importance. The Bible does guide modesty and the Bible does draw lines as revealed in this report, and they should be followed. If not, then you've got no argument for why your women shouldn't wear a mini-skirt, dressing as a harlot.


Modesty is a Reflection of Virtue


The Bible says the woman is the glory of the man and her hair is given for her glory (1 Cor. 11:7, 15). There is nothing wrong, then, with the woman fixing herself up in an attractive way as long as she is modest. The prudent and virtuous woman of Pr 31 didn’t dress plainly. She weaved wool and flax and clothed her household in scarlet (Pr. 31:13, 19, 21).


The virtuous woman’s clothing is feminine as befitting a woman. She knows that she is different from the man, and her clothing reflects this difference (De 22:5). Her clothing is modest, as befitting a virtuous woman and as a reflection of her virtuous heart (cf. 1 Pet 3:2-4). Immodest clothing, too, is a reflection of the heart (Pr 7:10; 23:7). The virtuous clothing is attractive, as befitting a woman who is the glory of her husband (Pr 31:22; 1 Cor 11:7). Her clothing is honourable (“strength and honour are her clothing,” Pr 31:25). She does not wear anything that would bring dishonour to her. Even in these wicked end times men tend to honour women who dress honourably. The virtuous women's attire is the opposite of "the attire of an harlot" and is the reflection of her heart (Pr. 7:10; 23:7).


“Believe it or not, strict modesty laws in early 1900s America limited female bathers to only wearing traditional swimwear garments, This led to many arrests and fines for anyone showing anything shorter than the measurements permitted. But it wasn't only women who bore the wrath of the modesty police. Men were also susceptible, and it wasn't until 1937 that males were allowed to go topless on a beach.” (source). The necessity and importance of wearing garments that were gender-distinct and Scripturally modest in other ways is evidenced abundantly in history.


Times sure have changed, and its certainly not for the better!


Paul writes in 1 Tim. 2:9-10,

"In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works."

The word “modest” here means “restrained by a sense of propriety, not bold or forward, not loose, not lewd . . . not presumptuous or arrogant . . . chaste, pure.” It refers to discretion and moderation. When Paul says, “not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array,” it does not mean that the Christian woman can’t fix her hair or wear jewelry or make up of any sort. This is a doctrine that has been forced upon the passage and it puts people into a legalistic bondage. It means, rather, that this must not be the woman’s emphasis or priority and it should not be done in a worldly manner or excess. The external appearance and fashion should not be what characterizes her. She should be characterized, rather, by “shamefacedness and sobriety and good works” (1 Tim. 2:9-10). Paul is talking about moderation. This is clear when we compare Scripture with Scripture. Consider 1 Pet. 3:3-5: “Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel; but let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.” The adorning of hair, jewelry and clothing is not important or priority, but rather her devotion to her husband and her behaviour of a quiet and meek spirit. There are fashions that are morally innocent, and there are fashions that are immodest and unisex-influenced and intimately associated with a rebellious, pagan philosophy and attitude, and wearing pants is certainly one.


Consider a few statements from the world about woman wearing pants:

Italian fashion designer Miuccia Prada on woman wearing pants, says, “Basically I’m trying to make men more sensitive and women stronger” (brainyquote.com).
This style is all about appearing effortlessly cool” (“How to Wear Men’s Skinny Jeans,” TheIdleMan.com).
Women and men who like to flaunt their curves and figure go for Skinny Jeans” (“Difference between Skinny Jeans and Carrot Jeans,” differencebetween.net).

The following excerpt from "Modesty a Matter of the Heart" written by Kathy Murray, 2005 (seedofthesower@gmail.com) is an excellent overview of the issue of clothing and sexuality, male versus female:

"There are those who, while attracting the attentions of men, are unaware of how forcefully their immodest apparel stimulates fiery passions within the opposite sex. An immodestly dressed woman may think a man is simply admiring her--and she likes to be admired--but often there is much more going on within him. Because a man's passions are triggered more easily, the sight of a woman's nakedness or the curves of her body have a seductive effect on his heart and flesh. A good comparison was made in Reflections of Feminine Modesty that will help explain this truth. 'If a nice-looking man were constantly coming up to you and stroking your arms or your neck or your shoulders and gently touching you, how would that affect you? Sensually! That is the same effect a woman has on a man when he sees her wearing a short skirt, a tight or low cut, see-through, or sleeveless blouse, or a pair of pants.’ Though a woman may not realize the degree that her immodest dress affects men, she certainly knows that her behavior attracts a great interest, and she knows furthermore that it is a sexual interest. . . . When a woman cares more about being noticed than the well-being of others, she is desperately lacking the love of God in her heart. Charity seeketh not her own. It vaunteth not itself (1 Corinthians 13:4-6). God has not given us liberty to dress any way we please. 'For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another' (Galatians 5:13). When we love the Lord as we should, our clothing will not be selected in order to attract attention to ourselves. When we love mankind as God loves them, we will desire to have a godly influence on them."

Its a good reminder of what Jn 14:23-24 and 1 Jn 2:3-5 say on what transpires when we actually have the love of God in our heart, for you either have it or you don't, for you are either saved or you're not. Here is 1 Jn 2:3-5,

"And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him."

Modesty Reflects A Truly Saved Heart


Many professing Christians today consider this of little consequence, but it is a clear and important biblical issue, and in fact a gospel issue. Modesty dovetails with the issue of salvation. If you are saved, you follow God's design. Even many lost people follow God’s design (though it doesn’t save them, as they may suppose); how much the more would it be true in the redeemed saint! Woman that dress in this manner and men that allow it are actually attacking Scripture and therefore, God. The Biblical truth is, women or men that dress as the opposite sex are an abomination to God (De. 22:5). Take away God's design and then created order, and you can have egalitarianism. The symbols have to go. The representation of the roles have to change. “Evangelical” church’s have played right into this and so woman now wear the pants (and men act effeminate, noted also in their singing techniques which is revolting). This was forbidden for thousands of years even in the culture but now it’s accepted. The world mocked the idea that women shouldn't wear pants. Now professing Christians mock the idea that women shouldn't wear pants. If they aren't ridiculing the practice or the requirement, putting space between them and those who hold to it, then they are talking about how unimportant it is. The family is one of the means by which truth is passed down. Less people believe the gospel because of the apostasy of the family, and nowhere is it seen as brazen as wives dressing and having their hair like their husbands. It speaks of rebellion to authority, and the world sees it. But you can't deny the truth and believe the gospel. They go together. Except a man repent, he will likewise perish. I don’t let professing Christians fool me. No one should.


It affects the gospel to accept role reversal and transgenderism. Another way this is related to the gospel is that disobedience is permitted as a means of fitting in with the world, which flies in the face of Christ’s Lordship, repentance, and then represents a false view of grace. It relates to who God is, who Jesus is. This is akin to a "new measure." Whatever it takes, even if it means ignoring unrighteousness. For some strange reason, they (some) have enough decency to dress modestly and according to their sex on Sunday mornings, as if the church is the Holy of Holies, but not the rest of the week and many times not even the rest of Sunday. “By their fruits ye shall know them” (Matt 7:15-20) and those that have this unBiblical attitude and behaviour are more times than not proving themselves to be just Sunday morning Christians — corrupt fruit falling from a corrupt tree.


Dressing modestly doesn’t save a person. It’s the fruit of salvation. The bible does put focus on outer appearance, because it’s an evidence of salvation, the external reflecting the internal. Saved people don’t remain unchanged and following after the fashions of the world. Though modesty doesn’t change or save a person, even many times it is used by the religious as a cloak for self-righteousness, this is irrelevant to its proper usage as a reflection of a regenerate heart. The same grace that saves, changes the person immediately and permanently (Matt 7:15-23; Ti 2:11-14; Ti 3:3-7; 1 John; etc). Jesus condemned the Pharisees because of their hypocrisy and self-righteousness, not because of their outward appearance. Read Matt 23. “Evangelicals” and many others are distorting truth and the grace when they advocate for something that is contrary to Scripture. The grace they embrace is condemned in Ju 1:4, “turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness.” The true grace of God that saves a sinner (Ti 2:11) does teach the saint to “deny ungodliness and worldly lusts,” and to “live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world; . . . and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.” (Ti 2:12-14). That starts immediately at salvation, not at some point after. When the saint lives “soberly, righteously, and godly,”—and he will—this will ALWAYS bring external change. Jesus addresses this in Matt 23:26, "cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also." Internal regeneration (i.e. conversion, the new birth) by the cleansing of Christ's blood, will always bring about eternal cleansing. There is no one example anywhere in Scripture where it didn’t and there are many many more verses like these and plenty of examples as well. The dress standards for woman of the world are the clothing of the strange woman, noted in Proverbs, the “attire of an harlot” (Pr 7:10). So when a woman (or man for that matter) says she is not convicted over the issue, she is essentially saying she is without the indwelling Spirit of God because the Spirit of God will bring conviction over this matter, which we know because of what Scripture teaches. That is how God works.


People that continue to argue away modesty and gender distinctive clothing are scoffers and skeptics (2 Pet 3:3), pathways on the broad road of apostasy which is a road of "faithlessness." Each step of the disobedient and sceptical way takes away confidence in the Word of God that should be there. Not believing what the Bible actually says, which isn’t really that hard to discern even using simple grammatical rules, never mind for the true believer who has the indwelling Teacher of Truth (1 Jn 2:27, 20-21), is a position of a scoffer and scorner, with the Holy Spirit of God completely left out of the equation by most of evangelicalism. That is very tell-tale to the unbiblical nature of such positions.


Conclusion.


Faithful and obedient Christians and churches recognize that those who love God from the heart will obey His commandments (Jn. 14:15-24; 1 Jn. 2:3-5), and recognize that He has given us commands about out outward appearance as well (which demonstrates the condition of the heart — Mk. 7:21-23; Pr. 23:7). 1 Cor. 11:14-16 state that the “churches of God” recognize that “if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him but if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering,” and that “The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God” (De. 22:5), so they practice gender-distinction in appearance. They wear “modest apparel” (1 Tim. 2:9), since God says that He will “punish . . . all such as are clothed with strange [heathen, ungodly] apparel” (Zep. 1:8).


Loving the truth means hating error (Ps 119:127-128). A woman having her hair short (1 Cor 11:3-16) or dressing like a man (De 22:5) is not loving Jesus, since she is disregarding and disobeying those passages and commands. She is un-submissive to God’s Word, which is a reflection of her heart (Pr 23:7a), while ALL saved people are submitted to the Word of God. She is antagonistic to the Authority of her Creator, who made male and female and deems it abominable when men and women crossdress (De 22:5) and a shame for a woman to have short hair (1 Cor 11:3-16). She doesn’t consent to the doctrine of godliness (1 Tim 6:3). Immodesty is indeed a gospel issue, revealing carnality and love for the world, not spiritually minded and love for God (Rom 8:1-9; 1 Jn 2:3-5, 15-17).


When a woman cares more about being noticed or dressing sensually than obedience to God's Word or the well-being of others, she is desperately lacking the love of God in her heart. “Charity vaunteth not itself . . . seeketh not her own” and “Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth” (1 Cor 13:4-6). God has not given us liberty to dress any way we please. “For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another” (Gal 5:13). When we love the Lord as we should, our clothing will not be selected in order to attract attention to ourselves. When we love mankind as God loves them, we will desire to have a godly influence on them. When the heart is immodest and in rebellion to God, it reflects an absence of God’s love (Jn 14:23-24; 1 Jn 2:3-5) and thus will not and cannot “love thy neighbour as thyself.” (Gal 5:14). This truth is taught in 1 Jn 5:2-3,

“By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments. For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.”

The issue of immodesty and transgenderism is very often the issue of of conversion, salvation, the new birth. It’s often absent in that temple. I call you dear sinner to salvation if this is you, which you can find by reading here: How A Sinner Can Be Saved and Have Eternal Life

While some might be aghast that I expose these “controversial” errors, I do so without apology. It is sinful to have a respect of persons (Jam 2:9). We are commanded to test all things by Gods Word (Ac 17:11; 1 Th. 5:21), and study it carefully as commanded (2 Tim 2:15) and warn of sinful practices such as immodesty, that destroy people and corrupt scripture and reflect an unsaved heart.


Take heed and be wise, obey God's Word.


For further reading on this subject, see the following report: The Ongoing Hypocrisy of Reformed Calvinists and Evangelicals


34 views0 comments