The way I see it the shalwar kameez is waaay more modest than some of the tight skirts and blouses I see some girls at church wear.

Where in the Bible does it say that modesty = Western fashion? Only in European cultures is a dress/skirt = woman and pants = man. In India both men and women wear shalwar kameez. I don’t understand how the Bible says European/Western clothes are what is modest? Please explain?

In Christ,
- Josh S.

I don’t know, I have been taught my whole life against many things but when I ask some of these questions I get told, “that is for the jews”. Ok, then so is Deut 22:5. It can’t be one thing for the women and the men not have to follow some rules too. It is also in Lev about the man wearing the tassles but it’s always just for the jews.
I just pray to be saved and to please God. My girls wear pants to school because they feel more covered. When I first put them in them I asked “how do you feel? Do you feel wierd or like it is wrong? My 13 year old looked at me and said ” I feel more covered mom”. We then discussed being in prayer about it and if at any time felt conviction, then they would go back to all skirts. I have to look out for my family, my girls are very active and there are alot of teenage boys in our nieghborhood and they feel more covered knowing that there undergarmets will not be seen.

Personally, on the dress issue, I feel that God intends His people to be set apart; a peculiar people if you will. God didn’t create man and woman to be equal no matter how much women want it that way- we are the weaker vessel. I think it is a form of submitting to the husband when we wear a dress- and I know it sounds a bit out there- BUT I think it just looks more like a man/woman role when the man is wearing the pants to symbolize the head of the house, and the woman is in a dress symbolizing femininity and grace. When men and women swap out the dress, what do people automatically think or assume?! Deuteronomy 22:5 says that ‘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 they God. I don’t have to have any reference book to tell me what ‘pertaineth to’ means. And the scripture is plain when it includes both male and female in not wearing garments that pertain to the other. God sees it as an abomination- He hates it. Man and woman are not equal, so it stands to reason that there should be distinctions between the two- having a dress code is really the only way that sets the two apart I think. Personally, I don’t think many churches today teach this doctrine- and for sake of making enemies here, – maybe it is because the people do not want their pastor telling them what to do or what the Word says- “Just tickle our ears and tell us what we want to hear or we won’t pay you mentality.”

UPC was not the only denomination that taught their women wear to dresses as a standard of holiness. I remember when the Assembly of God did so as well. Conforming or compromising to please people allows people to think that what they were taught before was perhaps wrong. I was not always in the UPC Organization. When I did become a member of the church, I had no problem with the dress code and I was just a teenager. I felt a change and changing my outward appearance was something I felt I needed to do too. The Bible is plain when it says “Thou shalt not wear that which pertaineth to…” In other words, anything that resembled what a man wore was not acceptable- such as a cap, a tie, or pants. In days of old, men and women wore robes as much as we know from history. Although there were robes, there were distinctions for the two to set the woman and man apart. As times changed, dress also did- BUT there was still that distinction. And if we stop and think about it, there are no dresses for men- putting the buttons on the other side or the zipper on the other side does not make that dress look anymore like a man than leaving it as it was originally. I do believe at the first in our generation, women wore dresses and men wore pants. It wasn’t until later years that women dared to put on pants and smoke cigarettes, etc. And I imagine there were no ‘women’s pants’ at that time since women didn’t yet wear them. Was it a coming out to make a statement or to be rebellious in a way- who knows? Again, as years went by, women got a little bolder, wanting equal rights in regards to the man. I do not think that was God’s intentions for the woman. But God pushes Himself off on no one and so people rebelled and went their own way. We live in a society where anything goes and people do not want others telling them what they can and cannot do. As a man thinketh in his heart, so is he, and what is inside manifests itself outwardly. And so judgement is reserved for all of us- we have to live by the choices we make and only God truly knows whether our hearts are right or not. If the UPC doctrine is wrong then no one is hurt- I do not think UPC members will be sent to hell because of their dress code. BUT if the UPC dress code is right…… Study to show thine own self approved is all any of us can do.