I don’t know women’s clothing brands, but a friend texted this ad. The world knows what pants mean, just like Dockers in its “Wear the Pants” campaign in 2009. The only people who deny that pants mean anything are professing Christians. Pants are the male symbol, just like the skirt or dress is female.
The ad says, pants are power. Will we hear evangelicals and fundamentalists attacking the ad? They should, to be consistent. They should go after these morons at Ann Taylor. Pants mean nothing. Unfortunately, evangelicals and fundamentalists can’t tell us what anything means anymore. They’ve been neutered on the subject of meaning. They don’t wear the pants on what anything means. But that would mean that pants mean something, so I take that back.
About the same time as evangelicals (and now fundamentalists) stopped saying they knew what pants meant, they couldn’t tell you what music meant. All music was amoral. That they knew. Only the words mattered. The world doesn’t care that its music is sexy, so the world says it’s sexy. The world doesn’t care.
Who is supposed to understand meaning? Christians. Not only did Christians in general stop contributing to anything helpful in the world, but they stopped comprehending the meaning of anything, which includes music and dress. Why should anyone listen to them? They don’t know anything. They decided pandering was more important, excusing it as an evangelistic tool, which is worse, but worth it to them to perceive relevance. Whenever a celebrity comes along and hints at something close to the truth, they spasm and seize into a muscle contraction — second best, a near-to-not-Christian becomes a fourth tier celebrity, the same burning in the bosom experience.
Evangelicals and fundamentalists both know. They also know that their capitulation is same sex relations and “marriage” today. They know. They prefer what they think they have in their churches to representing the truth. Rather than believe and practice the truth, they reduce it to the least common denominator for fake unity. Their unity isn’t unity and their love isn’t love. They offend the God, the only God, the God of truth, who created the sexes.
People might be neutered on commenting too. They can't comment because they don't have a pant leg to stand on. May as well put them in a skirt, but that wouldn't matter, because it doesn't mean anything. I can't. It's important to the coalitions and church "growth."
Kent,
There is a book on this subject you would probably like to read. It is called "The Naked Truth." I might have mentioned to you before, but this post reminded me of it again. Even though I agree with everything you said here and have for a long time, I was strengthened significantly by reading this book. Here is a link to it on Amazon: https://amzn.to/2vE3Fg0
Thanks for writing,
Hi Jeff,
It looks like a good book. I've written a book too, but it isn't in the public yet. It's over 300 pages though.
The loss of meaning – what a conundrum. Robert L. Thomas (an evangelical) sounded a warning call back in 2003 (in "Evangelical Hermeneutics") challenging contemporary liberal and conservative evangelicals about their faulty systems of Bible interpretation which would lead to an ocean of uncertainty. What surprised me is that R.L. Thomas pointed out how that Daniel Wallace in his "Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics" pg. 120, and footnote 134 equivocates on meaning in his "Plenary Genitive" category based on two Roman Catholic scholastic commentaries on the Gospel of John. If I didn't know better, I would say that Thomas and even Walt Kaiser, Jr. were prophetic in their warnings. Thomas implicates: Pinnock, Neumann on contextualization, Beale, Osborne, Klien, Bloomberg, Hubbard, G. Fee, D. Stuart, J. DeYoung, Sarah Hurty, McCartney, Clayton, Kenneth Gentry, D. Bock, C. Blaising, M. Payne, even DTS' Roy Zuck. The growing malpractice of handling God's Word leads to meaninglessness.
On the topic of your post: I agree. Worldly fashion designers gets it but not professing Christians.
Hi Kent
I agree. I guess Evangelical/Fundamentalist men are silent on this issue because their own wives wear pants, and Wear the Pants.
Denis Thatcher was once asked by a smug reporter, "Who wears the pants in your family?" "I do," he replied, "I also wash and iron them."
Margaret Thatcher was a truly fascinating figure. She was the most powerful woman in Britain for decades, yet she never wore pants. Though on the one hand she up-ended traditional (Biblical) gender roles by pursuing political leadership, she did not attempt to destroy the complimentarian view of the family. She said once that she ran the country, while her husband ran their household. She was the "Iron Lady", yet she remained a lady. She parallels Queen Victoria in this. Thatcher despised the misandrist, bra-burning, pants-wearing feminism of her day which sought to elevate women simply because they were women; rather advocating hard work, and merit based promotion. The feminists likewise despised her, and still do today, many of them gloating over her death. Her strict Methodist upbringing certainly influenced her political and social positions, and she apparently remained devout throughout her life. At her funeral she chose Bunyan's "To Be a Pilgrim" to be sung.
Sorry if this is a bit off topic, but Mr Thatcher's famous quip always comes to mind when people talk about "wearing the pants".
Some of us aren't silent but believe the text teaches the spiritual truth of headship through the physical symbol of the headcovering. Paul taught the same thing in all the churches, epistles were shared, creation was invoked, historical evidence is plentiful.
Not here to debate, plenty has been said here and elsewhere. Dresses/skirts are important for modesty, but there are other viewpoints that aren't capitulations.
Brendon,
I liked the story. Thanks.
John,
I'm happy the women of your church or your life wear headcoverings.