Sisters and Pants

[Jack Ryan]

If a sister wore trousers to the meeting how would she be viewed?

 

[Evacuated]

Depends on the culture and conscience of the people in area. For example, many woman of Asian origin wear "trousers" as a matter of course and I have often seen this mode of dress worn by sisters at the meeting without adverse comment.

With regard to dress and grooming matters for sisters, 1Tim. 2:9-10 is provided for guidance. In conjunction with the principle in Rom 15:1, it is possible for sisters to dress appropriately for any situation.

[Queen Esther]

Maybe the woman is still a student ? or a sister was directly coming from Job to Meeting...  In my cong. its ok. - nobody is watching negative, we've this on and off....  In my last cong. we had a sister with a special allergy, she was never wearing a dress.

[Melinda Mills]

I have gone to an international assembly in a country with East Indian culture and the losts of sisters were elegantly dressed in Punjabi dresses with pants under them. Check out the dresses on the Internet.  They are very elegant.

[Carmen Erwin]

1. In our mid week study this week imitate their faith in the picture of Esther pouring drink for mordecai she has some kind of garment or rap under her garment all the way to her feet .

[Ann O'Maly]

On 5/10/2016 at 8:06 AM, Eoin Joyce said:

Depends on the culture and conscience of the people in area.

And yet, in this Western culture, where women routinely wear pants in formal, informal and business settings, KH culture still frowns upon JW women wearing them to meetings and in service. Why?

[Evacuated]

15 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

And yet, in this Western culture, where women routinely wear pants in formal, informal and business settings, KH culture still frowns upon JW women wearing them to meetings and in service. Why?

I am responding to this one as I have been quoted, but only for this one posting.

It is a reasonable question, but, like beards or not for male Jehovah's Witnesses, seems to trigger endless debate.

Routine choice of clothing of those outside of the Jehovah's Witness community is not the final arbiter of their dress code for formal activities.

Whilst the scriptures provide guidance, for example at 1Tim. 2:9-10, the practical application of this guidance to a dress code for formal activity in modern times is influenced more strongly by what is felt acceptable overall by the Witness community than by popular culture. Most Witnesses are happy to go along with the standard encouraged by those taking the lead in that formal activity. Of course in determining that standard, some consideration is given to the cultural setting, particularly in what would be generally expected by the public as a form of dress appropriate to the work that Jehovah's Witnesses do, and the life-style that they promote. 

That given, there may well be numerous styles of dress and forms of clothing that no longer generate the controversy or even offence they have done in previous years.These changes in style may well be reflected quite acceptably in the informal attire of Jehovah's Witnesses where there is no violation of Christian standards of modesty.

The dress code adopted by Jehovah's Witnesses for formal activity does not violate standards of modesty either inside or outside of the congregation, and leaves plenty of room for the expression of personal taste. It seems to be adequately fit for purpose at present, and allows for focus on more important matters as advised by the apostle Paul: Ph.1:9-11.

[Ann O'Maly]

2 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

It seems to be adequately fit for purpose at present

Many JW women would disagree. Pants are often more practical and can even be more modest than skirts. They are accepted as appropriate smart-wear for women in the business world. There are no scriptural grounds against them, and I guess it's just another one of those antiquated attitudes where the JW community needs to catch up with late 20th/early 21st century. It may happen - you never know. Look how the Org has embraced digital visual aids and videos as part of their public teaching after resisting them for so many years. 

[WitnessConfectionProgram]

1 hour ago, Ann O'Maly said:

Look how the Org has embraced digital visual aids and videos as part of their public teaching after resisting them for so many years. 

The society never resisted such things.  I remember seeing a video of people using a portable DVD player for the sign language ministry (I think it might have been the 'Organised to Share the Good News' video, but I'm not sure) long before we would have had such a device.  (My first thought wasn't 'They're using videos on the ministry', but 'Wow, you can get DVD players that you can carry around'.)  But obviously, they only widely promoted using videos in the ministry once lots of publishers had devices to play them with - that's just common sense.

As for trousers for sisters (though they are always referred to as 'slacks', which I don't think is really a term we use here in Britain - or maybe women use that word among themselves and I just never hear it said), the Watchtower says as early as 1951 (which is as far back as the Watchtower Library goes, so it may have said it earlier) that there was nothing scripturally wrong with it. (w51 10/1 p.607)  And there are some circumstances in which they are recommended. (g00 9/8 p.19)

The guidance on our congregation notice board says this:

While researching this question however, I found that this comes from betheltours.org, who state in their FAQ, " No, we are not directly associated with the Watchtower Society. "  So it would appear that this guidance which has been on our notice board for years doesn't actually come from the society, a fact which I'll be sure to mention to our elders later this week!

I could think of possible reasons why the society could have considered it unsuitable for a woman to wear trousers, but the fact is, I can't find any definite evidence that they do think that.  All I can find is examples, like the picture above, of individuals having given weight to their own ideas when actually the society itself never said such a thing (and I can think of many examples of that, like how for years it was the popular opinion that you shouldn't use social networks, and one brother even announced that on the platform at an assembly, even though you can look back in the Watchtower Library and see that no such statement was ever backed up by the society).

While I can't state any guidance from the society here though, I know it would look odd to me in the Kingdom Hall.  You say "the JW community needs to catch up with late 20th/early 21st century."  But why should we want to do that?  Quite the opposite, we want to "quit being fashioned after this system of things." (Romans 12:2)  The culture of some witnesses at a Kingdom Hall shares elements in common with the culture of the surrounding country, but it is a different culture, and that is as it should be.  We don't want our language to "catch up" with the amount of swearing that is common for them.  We don't want our morality to "catch up" with theirs.  And there's no reason we should want our styles of clothing to "catch up" with theirs.  Just as the Jews had a blue lining around their garment that garment that set them apart from the world, so our style of dress sets us apart from the world, and that's a good thing.  Now, in their culture, trousers for women may be common (and I suspect, historically became that way through the feminist movement and rebellion against Jehovah's standards of headship, even if that isn't what every woman who wears trousers has in mind now), but in our culture, they aren't, not in a formal setting.  We don't start doing something just because the world does it.  There may not be anything scripturally wrong with a sister wearing trousers, but in the Kingdom Hall it would stick out like a sore thumb.  Now if, as in the example one person gave above, she needs to do so because of allergies or something, then that's fair enough - but if she's deliberately choosing to dress in a way that will obviously draw attention to herself, isn't that an example of immodesty?  (To give another example, there isn't any scriptural rule against dressing like Dorothy out of 'The Wizard of Oz', but I remember a teenage girl came to an assembly dressed like that once, complete with ruby slippers - was it appropriate? 1Co 6:12 )  That would be against scriptural principles.  Of course, it depends on the circumstances.  We've established there isn't any blanket rule against it, and circumstances will vary, but I can see there being times when it will be wrong.  It will depend on motive and attitude.

[Ann O'Maly]

On 5/18/2016 at 1:55 PM, WitnessConfectionProgram said:

The society never resisted such things.  I remember seeing a video of people using a portable DVD player for the sign language ministry (I think it might have been the 'Organised to Share the Good News' video, but I'm not sure) long before we would have had such a device.  (My first thought wasn't 'They're using videos on the ministry', but 'Wow, you can get DVD players that you can carry around'.)

The Society has been resistant to using digital visual aids and videos as part of their public teaching. When did you first see an audio-visual presentation routinely used as part of conventions, assemblies and weekly meetings? Only in the past few years, right?

Don't you remember that there was a time when speakers could use slides and cine film as part of their public talks (maybe before your time)? They were a highlight, a change from the humdrum. Then the Society discouraged them. 

For so long, while businesses, schools and churches had long been fitted out with IT equipment, using it as an everyday teaching tool, the Society lagged behind, preferring to stick with the old lecture/platform demo format. Several years ago, a tech-savvy JW friend of mine suggested that the convention technicians made use of the big screens at the arena. The technology was all there, why not make the talks more interesting and memorable by adding PowerPoints and other visuals? He was told off for, what was considered, a worldly view.

On 5/18/2016 at 1:55 PM, WitnessConfectionProgram said:

So it would appear that this guidance which has been on our notice board for years doesn't actually come from the society, a fact which I'll be sure to mention to our elders later this week!

I wouldn't, as it does actually come from the Society. It's copyrighted to them and has its own literature code - dgb-E Us.

On 5/18/2016 at 1:55 PM, WitnessConfectionProgram said:

You say "the JW community needs to catch up with late 20th/early 21st century."  But why should we want to do that?  Quite the opposite, we want to "quit being fashioned after this system of things." (Romans 12:2)  The culture of some witnesses at a Kingdom Hall shares elements in common with the culture of the surrounding country, but it is a different culture, and that is as it should be.  We don't want our language to "catch up" with the amount of swearing that is common for them.  We don't want our morality to "catch up" with theirs.  And there's no reason we should want our styles of clothing to "catch up" with theirs.  Just as the Jews had a blue lining around their garment that garment that set them apart from the world, so our style of dress sets us apart from the world, and that's a good thing.

Should the Jews still continue wearing long robes with a blue thread 2nd millennium BC style to avoid being fashioned after the modern system of things? 

Which decade or century of fashion do you think appropriate for today's JW woman? Or which country's present day fashion (that of Islamic countries, perhaps)? 

Really, if there is nothing scripturally wrong with western women wearing pants, and they are acceptable even as conservative business and formal wear, the Org. is 'going beyond the things written.' And it is the Org. that is setting the standard here. The r&f JWs follow the leadership's direction whether it is explicit or implicit (e.g. the Bethel Dress brochure).

On 5/18/2016 at 1:55 PM, WitnessConfectionProgram said:

 There may not be anything scripturally wrong with a sister wearing trousers, but in the Kingdom Hall it would stick out like a sore thumb.

That's because it's frowned on! Go out to the workplace office, into the street, and women in pants are commonplace.

By the way, it is also common etiquette to dress appropriately for the setting. You don't see women routinely dressed as Dorothy, a munchkin, or even the Wicked Witch of the West when they are going about their everyday lives, so your example is a straw man (or woman).

[Evacuated]

11 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

Don't you remember that there was a time when speakers could use slides and cine film as part of their public talks (maybe before your time)? They were a highlight, a change from the humdrum. Then the Society discouraged them.

This is getting a bit Apples and Oranges and going off point, although I would quite like to see a topic on old versus new methods of presenting material at K Halls and Assemblies.

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

On 5/9/2016 at 11:17 PM, Jay Witness said:

If a sister wore trousers to the meeting how would she be viewed?

I usually tilt my head at a 45 degree angle, and stare at the ankles.

I used to have ABSOLUTELY no objection for Sisters to wear pant suits at the Kingdom Hall .....

but that was before BrunHillary.