A response to the article entitled ‘The Word of the Lord Endureth For Ever’ in the Friendly Companion for August 2023.

The article contends that trousers are not to be worn by women on the basis of Deuteronomy 22:5, 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.

The Bible clearly affirms the equality of worth between men and women, whilst also outlining their differences of role. This principle, known as complementarianism, is taught in such a passage as 1 Corinthians 11:3-16. A distinction is laid down there when it comes to order in worship, and this is shown to harmonise with the natural human instinct for expressing a difference between the sexes when it comes to appearance, eg. hairstyle (vv 13-15). This is underpinned by reference to the foundational teaching found in the first chapters of the Book of Genesis concerning God’s design for men and women (vv 7-9). Here the headship of the man was instituted, not just in worship but for all of life. It is balanced, but not obscured, by stating that humanness is expressed equally as man and woman (v 11). Thus, the framework of interpretation is established, within which we are to consider any individual text of scripture that has a bearing on the subject.

The law under consideration in Deuteronomy 22:5 is located within a chapter where a variety of commands were given to Israel under the Old Covenant. A simplistic and mistaken approach to interpretation would lift these commands out of their context and place them ‘in the hand of Christ’ for the government and regulation of his church. This would, for instance, forbid us today the wearing of clothes containing a mixture of wool and linen, cf. v 11. Very few would go to that extent, but it seems some would take that line with a select number of these commands. In this is displayed a seeming arbitrariness which makes one ponder: why this one, and not that? No explanation is offered by the author in his article for why verse 5 should be especially taken as ‘the Lord’s command’ for today. Would the commands on other subjects be employed by him in the same way, for instance to regulate correct agricultural practices, cf. v 9?  

It should be noted that the command in verse 5 is limited to forbidding one sex to wear that which belongs to the other. Dr Gill renders it in his commentary on the verse that the woman should not ‘take the instruments of the man’. This had the effect of limiting the role of the women in ancient Israel, according to Gill, so that, for example, women were not permitted to wear armour to join in warfare because this was considered a man’s outfit. Clearly then, such a command indirectly would lead to a degree of difference in the appearance of the sexes, and as this fits in with the teaching of Genesis and the New Testament on the subject, we can perceive a broader principle emerging from the text. We move beyond a plethora of laws designed to create distinctiveness between the Israelites and the surrounding nations, to a matter of moral, and therefore abiding significance: that nothing should be allowed to blur the distinction between men and women.

Clothing is just one aspect of expressing masculinity or femininity. It forms part of an overall ‘package’ of appearance and behaviour which communicates meaning. Much about clothing is in fact shared across the sexes. In ancient Israel, as for us today, the constituent material and overall type of clothing was largely similar for men and women, rather than distinctive. It is the subtleties of styling and fashion which signal the difference. For example, hats are neither masculine or feminine in and of themselves, but how any particular one is styled will determine if it is seen as being for men or for women.

It is true that the denial of gender being defined by biological sex, according to transgender dogma, is a serious, and indeed pressing, issue today, and one that needs to be resisted by the church. However this will not be successfully achieved by ‘locking in’ what is considered as correct dress for men and women to a particular time in the past. Fashion changes, not just seasonally but also in the longer term. Today’s norm in the UK is a quite different look to that of a century ago, not to mention that of medieval times. Even if the initial drivers of change are unchristian ones, once a style has become mainstream, Christians should not feel they must reject it as if they were dealing with a moral evil, unless it is indecent. Questions of suitability and modesty are to be seriously considered in selecting what is right to wear, but changes in style are not wrong in and of themselves. After all, trousers were not considered suitable wear for men until well into the 1800s, certainly not for formal attire. But no one now holds that breeches and stockings are more masculine.

To conclude, it is a pity that the narrow issue of the wearing of trousers by women has been raised again. A similar article to this in The Gospel Standard magazine for June 2023 only compounds the matter. Surely it would have been more helpful in the present day to write about the general biblical teaching of the essential similarities and differences of men and women and their roles. An article such as the one under consideration, being published in a magazine of the status of the Friendly Companion, has the power to inflict considerable feelings of guilt upon those brought up in traditional Christian homes. It elevates the issue of trousers to such a level that the author would measure a person’s faithfulness to Christ by it. This is a serious development and should not be allowed to pass without remark. From a pastoral point of view, it is even more concerning when non-trouser wearing girls and women are being encouraged to see this as a ‘barrier to friendship’ with other Christians who take a different view. To refer to an opinion in the article, it is indeed sad that the likely already small number of Christian friends that some Strict Baptist young people have may be shrunk even further as a result of this, creating loneliness, when there is no necessity for it. Rather than stirring up division, it would be better by far to promote mutual understanding through carefully exploring the breadth of view the Bible may allow on such a topic as this. A constructive article along those lines would be a worthy and welcome contribution to the pages of the Friendly Companion.

Jeremy