Has anyone seen the new Docker’s campaign about wearing the pants? It’s for men, evangelicals and fundamentalists. Just to let you know. I assumed you thought “Wear the Pants” was for women. That was the signal you were receiving, but somehow Dockers missed it. Everyone knows that pants no longer are a symbol of masculinity and male headship in our culture, well, at least in evangelicalism and fundamentalism. Notice their campaign ad here. Evangelicals and fundamentalists men no longer wear the pants. They don’t. And don’t tell me you do. You’ve been mocking any separatist who still believes that men should wear the pants. If you aren’t aware of fundamentalist and evangelical mocking, look here at about comment three to the end. Notice how the evangelicals circle the wagons—how sensitive they are.
Evangelicals and fundamentalists, I’ll be expecting you to mock Dockers for the campaign. They obviously don’t know what they are talking about. Evangelicals and fundamentalists, get those letters written. Send them off to Dockers. Let them know that the male garment is the cape or the baseball cap. Give them some of that important cultural awareness that you have.
Thanks brother Brandenburg for a great illustration. "for the children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light." Luke 16:8
This seems ill-advised.
But while we're here . . . I don't get my leadership messages from Dockers. I'm certain that by "wear[ing] the pants" Dockers doesn't mean that the dress within my household should reflect me loving and giving myself for my wife as Christ did for the church or my wife submitting to me as the Church to Him.
That phrase, as commonly used in our culture and now used by Dockers in their cash-wringing attempt, seems to me to appeal more to a Stanley Kowalski type masculinity than to Christian virtue.
Gary, Thanks. Nice verse.
D4,
Thanks for the comment. Ill-advised. It is the truth. There is Deut 22:5 in the Bible and somehow instinctively, Dockers knows this. Actually everyone knows this, but they suppress it. And I don't get close to a satisfactory answer from those who have invented a new position in evangelicalism and fundamentalism.
I understand that Dockers doesn't quite have it altogether, but they are getting the essence of it. Or they just got it.
This campaign wouldn't work if there wasn't truth in there, meaning in there. The newspaper article wouldn't have called it sexist if they didn't know something. Look at that campaign ad article link. That's what the world wants to do, oh, and evangelicals, and call it sexist, because they understand what pants mean. They know it is the male article.
It isn't Wear the Cape. Wear the Baseball Cap. Wear the Jock Strap. Wear the Tie. These are ll the funny things that evangelicals say in their 'good arguments.' And then they laugh and mock. I'm fine, really. They're not though. And it helps me to know that's the best thing they can come up with.
By the way, having my wife wear female garments, not the male garment, and appreciating that, is one way that I do love her.
Thanks again for the comment. We're not afraid of comments here, as you know.
My ill-advised comment was in regards to your link to "evangelical mocking".
As for the rest, it could be that wearing the pants stirs charges of sexism because male headship is a position that has been oft abused to the detriment of women. Entirely fair? No. But when you give 'em an opening . . .
You do have a valid point, though. I think that point is best illustrated by the comments of the female Dockers exec whose comments about ideal masculinity reflect that people really would be "happiest" (for immediate lack of a better word) living under the Biblical model.
Whether that means my wife ought not wear capris when we go to the state park and hike the bluffs, you and I shall most probably disagree.
D4,
A few bad husbands and we don't do away with men wearing the pants. I think we can be pretty sure that a disappearance of the male symbol relates to rebellion against God.
I make a difference between the baggage the phrase has as percieved by the world and Biblical principles. You seem to ignore the baggage (or attribute it all to rebellion against God's authority) and equate the principles (as you understand them) to any use of the phrase.
A few bad husbands. Yes, a mere handful.
Pastor Brandenblogger,
Maybe the problem is that too many Evangelical and Fundamentalist "men" today aren't wearing the pants, in their families or in their churches?
God clearly created men and women with distinctions in appearance and role. Those who think it is acceptable to blur these distinctions are an abomination to God just as Deuteronomy 22:5 states. The fact that the modern “Christian culture” accepts and even defends such abominations reveals the anemic nature of this culture and it’s departure from the love of the truth. It puzzles me to think that such “Christianity” is actually trying to convert people when they are no different than the people they are trying to reach. The Docker’s ad does show a sense of right and wrong from those who do not claim to know the truth. Unfortunately I am no longer surprised when I meet some lost people who have a better sense of right and wrong than the average “Christian”. Thank you, Brother Brandenburg, for pointing this out.
I'm waiting for the comment from the guy who always asks you about head coverings for women.
Anyway, I notice that the page you highlighted has a link to both "men" and "women", and the "women" link clicks through to a page proffering pants for women. Rather than being indicative of any principled stand based on any sense of truth, this appears to be plain and simple pandering meant to rope in the gullible and generate awareness about Dockers on Internet message boards.
"Wear the Pants," a campaign to men, doesn't mean anything, well, if it doesn't mean anything. And what does it mean? Of course it means something. Do they have pants for women? Of course. They aren't attempting to follow the Bible—they're just trying to sell pants to men. And they are using something that means something in order to do that. It wouldn't work if it didn't mean anything. Everyone knows it means something, but evangelicals and fundamentalists—Christians—have to act like they don't get it. It's a charade.
You read Scruton, I've read Scruton, Joshua, the atheist Scruton, by the way. We can pick some talking points up from him. He gets certain things. But if we're going to be consistent, we're going to look to see meaning in more than our music. As this applies to the portrayal of the genders that God designed, will we worship Him by honoring Him in this way that He desires? We could just ignore it like we do meaning in music. We won't if it is all about God.
@Kent – Is Scruton an atheist? That's pretty surprising to me. Anyway, I totally agree with you about seeing meaning in more than our music.
I read his profession of atheism in, I think, his book on philosophy. I was surprised to, because his worldview seems to be the same as our, but I believe he borrows our worldview because it is the only consistent view.
I believe he borrows our worldview because it is the only consistent view
Wow, that's a great way of putting it. I sometimes observe that a broken clock is right twice a day, but your explanation is far more appropriate to many of these "wise atheist" or "wise pagan" situations.