The Theology of Men Wearing Dresses

Shellie Uncategorized

Last week Candace Owens, a very well-known political commentator, posted the picture you see and she added, that pictures of men in dresses is not going to make her attracted to men in dresses. It seems ridiculous that I am speaking about men in dresses and how ridiculous that is. Make no mistake men in dresses should not be a thing, but according to the world and its feminist agenda, I would interject that men in dresses is a natural evolution of feminism.

I can hear it now “Men in dresses; God does not want men to dress in women’s clothes.”  And by saying that you would be correct. But we are talking about the world and their system, and how that system long ago seeped into the church. We are like a frog in water slowly heated up, and we do not even realize what happened. But we will revisit this in a bit.

Back to the worlds system and how men wearing dresses in definitely a natural and logical progression of the feminist agenda. So we will have to go back in history, not too far, but far enough though. In the middle 1800s women, feminist women, Suffragettes, and especially one in particular was noted as the first woman wearing pants in 1851 her name is Elizabeth Smith Miller. 

Her “pants” were of a Turkish variety, almost like an Aladdin pant, we would say they were quite feminine for today. But to the vast majority of the world, they were aghast, shocked, disgusted, and they let it be known.

Not only pastors, oh no; the majority of Americans were appalled. This was identified as a woman wearing men’s clothing. They lamented “Women should not wear men’s clothing; women are not attractive in men’s clothing; She wants to look like a man.” These were only some of the comments that her shocking photo elicited.

This photo and the one below are not of Mrs. Miller (as far as I know)but are the example photos used for explanation of the type of “pants” she wore that stunned the world in 1851

The Atlantic adds:

“Chafing against clothing norms was, of course, not quite the same thing as rebelling against the patriarchy, but the two issues frequently overlapped, starting in the mid-1800s. Women demanded physical freedom along with other, less tangible liberties, and many early feminists embraced what was euphemistically known as “freedom dress”—or, in other words, pants. But rather than spurring the suffrage movement forward, the garment prompted widespread backlash from a society that saw it as a sign of moral decay and a threat to male power.

They might have stayed there if not for Elizabeth Smith Miller. The daughter of wealthy abolitionists, Miller had the confidence to break the rules and the privilege to get away with it.” 

You see, Elizabeth Miller writes:

While spending many hours at work in the garden, I became so thoroughly disgusted with the long skirt, that the dissatisfaction … suddenly ripened into the decision that this shackle should no longer be endured … Turkish trousers to the ankle with a skirt reaching some four inches below the knee, were substituted for the heavy, untidy, exasperating old garment.

Shortly thereafter, Miller wore this unconventional costume on a visit to Seneca Falls, New York, where she stayed with her cousin Elizabeth Cady Stanton (feminist and writer of The Women’s Bible, removing all references to women and their place in a godly home) Stanton and her friend and neighbor Amelia Bloomer ‘at once joined me in wearing the new costume,’ Miller recalled.”

When did you think women started wearing pants? Did you think they always had worn pants? Were you aware of their feminist roots? Did you think that when the first woman was pictured with pants folks were like “Cool, yes women should wear pants”? No, that is not how it happened. On the contrary, the vast majority of folks that witnessed this atrocity in history were sure that moral decay was afoot. And do you know what? They were right. 

Let’s now fast forward to 2020 and all over the internet and all social media, folks from the feminists and LGBTQ mafia want us to accept men in dresses. And I will say this: just as Mrs. Miller shocked a viewing world of her wearing pants, historically men’s clothing, turned to acceptance, also will be men wearing dresses. 

Look to the future of men wearing pink, blue and yellow dresses and some might wear flats and some heels. The shock you may feel seeing these pictures I can only imagine is a fraction of a what a world in 1851 felt seeing a woman wear pants for the first time. But now the world is pushing it, and sadly whatever the world pushes on the visible church, if pushed hard enough, they will also accept.

From before 1851, women were not caught in pants, and then to the 1960s women rarely wore pants. Still frowned upon but the world was warming up to it thanks to Mrs. Miller and her daring revolutionary picture. Now we in the church look at women wearing pants generally as a good and acceptable practice. 

If anyone questions this in the church you will be promptly escorted to the legalism corner, with your duly earned dunce cap, or made to make a hundred apologies for attempting to touch a sacred cow, that is, women and the way they dress. So, in the same manner, I will argue that by a very shorter margin, men will be attending churches, dressed in their finest dresses, and we will surely castigate anyone wanting to hinder such practice with legalistic fanfare. 

In less than a hundred years, the visible church will accept, as they have done before the standards of a perverse world and disregard clear teaching from God’s Word. 

“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. ~Deuteronomy 22:5

God has not whispered or made it vague for us, here. He states that men and women should not wear clothes of woman and a man.

Is it that God hates men wearing dresses in 2020, but He is just fine with women wearing pants in 1851 and beyond?

Where is your biblical argument? There isn’t one. If you state that women biblically can wear pants, then you can biblically argue that men can wear dresses. Both arguments come from the same well, which is a poisoned one.

And to be clear, saying things like “Pants are made for women’s shape, so they are distinctive to women’s clothes” because in the same way I am sure folks in the church will be saying “dresses made for men are made for men’s shape so, that makes them distinctively masculine.”

No, I am not being legalistic. But you may be, if you argue for women wearing pants but condemn men for wearing dresses. I am being impartial. I am using the same weights and measures of the world that accepted women wearing pants, a type of gender perversion, to men wearing dresses, another type of gender perversion. And most importantly I am standing with Scripture. Scripture in clear, and where it is clear we should not deem to make it vague to accommodate culture. But I fear and have seen great evidence that feminism has affected our eyes to see clearly in a perverted and twisted generation.

Again, imagine a world unaffected by celebrated pride parades, drag queens, and feminism. Imagine a world seeing a woman, a known feminist donning pants, to the worlds’ horror, and then proceed to tell me God is just fine with women wearing “women’s” pants and displeased with men wearing “men’s” dresses.

God is not a God of confusion but order. The world is a world of confusion, perversion and disorder. And sadly, the church has bought into so much of that confusion, and it is no less wicked in doing it, than the world. In fact, it is more wicked, when we follow the world and seek to put God’s approval on it. When the clear teaching of scripture tells us plainly otherwise.

***The photo at the top of this article is dated 1850 during the California God rush. This is an example of how a woman and man would have dressed during the most rugged of situations.