Long on Pants and Short on Bible Verses
ESPN recently featured some of the embarrassing cousins within the church family. They ran a story about a tiny Pentecostal High School in Virginia who require their basketball teams to wear long pants on the court. No, not just during warm ups, but the whole game.
ESPN has a guy who keeps up to date with the various uniform trends within sports. The writings are typically interesting and funny. In this case, at least for me, not funny. Though I’m sure the rest of the audience enjoyed the feature displaying Christians as painfully weird.
The kicker in this story is in the interview. Watch the flow:
ESPN: A basketball team wearing long pants is new to me. What’s it all about?
Principal Wayne Elliott: We’re a small Christian school, about 52 kids, and it’s just a school dress code that we have, based on our Biblical beliefs and standards. It goes back to dressing in modest apparel — that’s the dress code we set, and the kids abide by it here at the school and at all school functions.
ESPN: And that code would be “no short pants.”
WE: Correct.
ESPN: Please forgive my ignorance on this point, but is there a specific verse of the Bible that addresses this?
WE: There is, but I’d have to look it up — I don’t have it handy, but it’s definitely in Scripture.
First of all, I love how the ESPN guy goes to the Bible for his authority. The principal should have done the same. He then fumbles the question and tosses up a half-court-prayer-shot, “There is, but I’d have to look it up — I don’t have it handy, but it’s definitely in Scripture”
Actually, Wayne, its not. There is not a Bible verse that tells men that they can’t wear shorts or that they have to wear matching short sleeve shirts under their tank tops. If you are a legalist you should at least have your out of context verses handy.
But it gets worse.
Principal Wayne then goes on, almost bragging, that the girls basketball team wears “skirts” and the cheerleaders wear “long skirts”.
I don’t know if Wayne has noticed this before but the ‘skirts’ that girls wear are actually shorter than most men’s basketball shorts. But they want the girls to look like girls (never mind showing off the skin that they so ardently oppose with the boys’ team).
We should just make things easier. The boys should wear snowsuits and mittens and the girls can wear burkhas. This will prevent any questions.
What is so sad is that this school is training their students and the watching world that godliness is gained by what you wear or do not wear.
As if this was all that it took.
What gets lost in this whole discussion is that God came in the flesh and earned a righteous standing before God for his people and he died to pay the death penalty that his people had earned from their sin. This is the basis for standing before God. This is the basis and the means for godliness.
If the good principal would survey the Bible for his phantom verses that tell kids to wear pants when they play hoops he may stumble across a major New Testament theme: Christ has delivered his people from the weak and worthless elementary things of this world! What you wear or do not wear is not you basis for standing or godliness before God but rather what Christ did or did not do. To turn aside to these things as a basis before God (demonstrated by their obligation here) is to turn away from Christ. Paul makes the point in Galatians 4.8-11 that to do this is to turn away from Jesus and turn to Paganism.
You look so pious and religious in your long pants. People are impressed. In the midst of a litany against such false thinking Paul writes:
“These are matters which have, to be sure, the appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and self-abasement and severe treatment of the body, but are of no value against fleshly indulgence.” (Col 2.23)
It is all show. It doesn’t work. It actually distracts from the gospel, veils Christ’s work, confuses the unbelieving world, and exalts your own ability to earn and keep God’s favor.
If Christians are to be laughed at for something (and we should be) let it be our view of the Bible, our understanding of God, our relentless trust in Christ, or our proclamation of the gospel! But don’t let it be these whacy hermenuitics that promote rocking the fundi-wear pants for boys and the hoop skirts for girls.
(props for Seth the legalist hunter for the ref)
Possibly Related posts:
- The Bible is not a Book of Many Stories but Rather Only One
- The Focus of the Bible
- Phil Johnson at Omaha Bible Church
- The Storyline of the Bible in 4 Minutes
- Nebraska Christian Schools Video
21 Responses to “Long on Pants and Short on Bible Verses”
Leave a Reply
About
Subscribe to Updates
Twitter Updates
- @JustinBuzzard Hands down Pillar's Edwards & then Lane. Ferguson's lil book is good as are Keller's & MacArthur's sermons.
- With him there is plentiful redemption (Ps.130.7). This is good for one who's sin is plentiful!
- We are officially in the South- Fried Chicken & Pickles @ the gas station register.
Recent Comments
- Gordan on John Piper on Sermon Prep
- Tweets that mention John Piper on Sermon Prep -- Topsy.com on John Piper on Sermon Prep
- Erik on Running from God and To God
- donsands on Running from God and To God
- Tweets that mention Running from God and To God- Irish Calvinist -- Topsy.com on Running from God and To God
No shortage of stupidity.
That would just feel gross.
Isn’t it amazing that people want to trade the freedom found in Christ for legalism? The legalist is in effect telling Jesus, “your sacrifice wasn’t good enough”.
He should have had biblical support for his position, or admitted there was none.
I think the best support would be verses encouraging modesty.
I think you can play basketball in pants.
While I don’t think the Bible forbids women wearing shorts as a general rule, why not stand beside your brother? He is trying to glorify God.
The cheerleaders in many high schools are dressed in a horrifying way. At least this guy is trying.
Great commentary!
[...] Irish Calvinist on legalism and fundamentalist Christian high schools that make their basketball teams wear long pants …. [...]
Calling this conviction about long pants legalism is not right. Now, I believe that it finds no warrant in Scripture, but schools ought to be free to make decisions on this. Legalism suggests that they are trying to work for their own righteousness, and have fallen from grace – this is what Paul was addressing in Galatians.
Having a weak conscience about long pants is emphatically not what Paul was referring to. Is a man to be condemned for trying to love God by trying to obey His commands? Paul condemns those who condemn those with these weak consciences. He does not even suggest that they have fallen into “legalism” and ware trying to work their own righteousness, rather commends them for obeying their conscience, and commands those proud arrogant accusers not to do anything that would cause their brother to stumble.
This is a prideful post, and one that slights the Gospel of grace, which it attempts to defend. We don’t achieve righteousness by accusing others of legalism either. See Romans 14, and 1Co 10.
Defending the Gospel of grace here, would be to commend those “weaker” brethren for not negating their conscience, and to graciously point to the freedom of conscience in the area of dress code. But they are right that our clothing ought to be modest, and I won’t be condemned by anyone for wearing what I consider to be modest, since I do it for the Lord.
Talk a bit more about liberty of conscience (which goes both ways) in the spirit of our responsibility to obey God’s commandments, rather than denouncing people as legalists, and mocking them with the world.
Even better, bear witness to what the Bible says about Pentecostalism, that’s their real problem.
Erik,
In regards to the post and in response to what Samuel posted above, I can see two sides to this story.
On the one hand this was stated …
“There are some schools in our conference that require visiting teams to wear modest apparel too, although we don’t do that at our gym, because I feel it wouldn’t be fair to be pushing our preferences on people.”
So, you might say that they are trying to make it an issue of personal conviction for the school.
On the other hand this was said …
“Yeah, because the Bible says there should be a separate distinction between a man and a woman in terms of their apparel, so that’s what it’s all about.”
I would take issue with this statement because he has made an appeal to Scripture as giving this command. He is not stating this as a preference about applying a truth from Scripture but making a statement that he claims is Scriptural. In which case, I think of Colossians 2:16 “Therefore, let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath.”
In regards to the definition of legalism, I think you have to be honest in admitting that this word in our culture has more than one connotation. In regards to Scripture, this word is not found in most translations. So, I would think that scolding someone over the improper use of this word is probably coming out of a theological definition rather than a biblical one. Plus, I think you both know what Erik meant by this definition.
In regards to “commending those weaker brethren for not negating their conscience in the area of dress code”, I would have to disagree. I can clearly see that loving patience is commanded from Romans 14 and not putting a stumbling block in front of the one, who is weak in faith (as Rom. 14:1 calls it). However, Ephesians 4:11 – 16 is a mandate for church leaders to equip the body to be mature. While I certainly wouldn’t want to mock an immature believer or be impatient, I certainly would commend him to stay weak in faith forever.
correction to that last phrase
it should read: I wouldn’t commend a brother weak in the faith to stay weak forever.
Samuel.
Whether you know it or not, you have only hit one part of legalism. One looks to our own righteousness to “gain” salvation. You mention that above.
The other though, which erik, and myself, are regarding as legalism is anything that turns from a conviction to a rule in regards to maturity in Christ. No doubt the Pharisees sought their own righteouness to be saved, but they also went beyond that and demanded excessive rules and regulations on others so to show their maturity in God.
So, with legalism, one is salvific, the other is daily maturity.
Both are dangerous.
So, when you tell someone that they must wear pants to play basketball because of a verse that doesn’t exist in the Bible, you are being a legalist because you are setting up regulations that are not put forth in the Scriptures.
Now, if it is your own conviction that pants should be worn to keep modesty, go for it, that is your deal. But, when you cross conviction into rules, that is legalism.
That’s too funny, and sad. Funny that the girls are less modest than the boys. Sad that they would force these kids to abide by another man’s conscience. Yep, legalism- turning your convictions on indifferent matters into rules others must follow. They have been enslaved by these man-made rules. Didn’t Jesus say something about that….
Nor was Paul gracious to legalists either. Both he and Jesus had their only harsh words for those who enslaved others.
[...] team to wear long pants during the game, for modesty purposes. This is ridiculous, and as Erik Raymond has written about it – it makes Christians look really weird. Read this short exchange with the [...]
I love the jami pants! Much better than the 1980′s short shorts we wore in high school. I would have loved to find a verse that we could of used to get out of wearing those!
wow, what you wrote was interesting. But instead of saying everything I don’t like that some Christians are doing, I will say this:
It is admirable that the school is trying so hard to follow the Word of God. However, what the principal said did remind me of something…
We all need to be ready with an answer if we should be asked why we believe what we believe. We need to have more than just our own opinion. And if what we claim to believe is founded on scripture, then we will have a place on which to stand. In this the principal failed. Would we believe something if a Muslim said, “I know it is in the Koran somewhere” ? NO! Absolutely not. Why then would someone believe it if a christian said that about the Bible?
We also need to ask ourselves, “is this just opinion, or a command of God?” There is a vast difference.
I did appreciate what you said about the line between convictions and legalism. So often we (myself included) tend to blend the two.
I live in the Florida Keys and it is hot enough here that I usually wear shorts at church. I think that some people would have a problem with that, kind of a reverse legalism. Interesting!
Have been thinking about this some more and I wonder if those posting here would . .
1. Allow their sons to play in Speedos if that was the norm?
2. Allow their girls to pay in bikinis? (Beach volleyball, anybody?)
3. Allow their girls to play in cropped tops and tight, little shorts?
4. Allow their girls to cheer in tight mini skirts and cropped tops?
And, to push the idea further, suppose your were a principal of a Christian high school. Would you allow the other teams to come in and play in Speedos or bikinis? If not, would you be a “legalist?”
And if not, why not?
I wouldn’t allow any of the above, but I don’t have a particular “Bible verse” to quote, except those that require modesty.
Unfortunately, modesty can mean different things to different people.
So, what standard do we use? Or is it “current culture rules?”
Marie,
Modesty can be difficult to define in terms of styles and inches. To say all particulars are ridiculous would be unbiblical as Paul even gives some in 1 Timothy 2. However, the issue here is that basketball pants are not a clear cut example of immodesty and the guy claims his authority is the scripture without any backing.
All of your counter-examples here are kids whose parents have authority over them. If you determine, as a parent, that these things cross the line in your judgment, you have the authority to tell your kids not to wear certain clothing. However, be careful to tell them that it is your judgment and rules as a parent and don’t start adding appendices to the Scriptures. God is perfectly capable of being clear.
To prove this point, do you denounce Christian cyclists in your congregation from wearing bike shorts on the local trails? Do you call out all the Christian’s boys at the birthday pool party and make them put on a shirt and long pants? You better be pretty sure its in the scripture if you’re going to impose standards on other people. If you have authority over them, feel free to make a rule, but don’t put words in God’s mouth.
Matt, I’m not a fundamentalist. I’d let my sons wear bike shorts. I wear shorts. My daughters wear skirts above the knee. So I am not arguing for fundamentalism.
I am arguing for respect that this principal has a certain set of standards for modesty. We argue that his standards are arbitrary. But so are ours!!
I am arguing that at least the principal CARES enough about his students to set a standard. One we may not agree with, ok.
But again, you would really let the opposing team play in Speedos if their parents said ok? You’d really let the opposing team’s cheerleaders cheer in bikinis? I wouldn’t. Even if their parents said it was ok! I wouldn’t let them on my campus dressed like that.
I think the basic idea that this prinicipal has is to keep modesty relevant in today’s world. Modesty is so important because America is obsessed with everything sexual. In 1 Corinthians 3:18 it talks about not causing a fellow believer to sin. The Bible also talks about holding your thoughts captive. Most of the time men, and women, will have trouble keeping their thoughts under control when unmodest clothing is being waved in front of their face. For women, it’s seeing a man’s legs and daydreaming about how masculine he is or a pair of tight skinny jeans and how it accents his assets. For a man, it’s seeing how nicely shaped her legs are or how she looks when she runs. Now granted some people have more self control than others, but I think that this principal is doing a good thing with the restrictions in place at the school. If you are so embarrased by being represented in this way, then you don’t see that if it weren’t for their “ridiculous” dress code, the news would have never even covered a chrisitan school. People won’t notice your different if you look exactly the same and follow the same standards.
Even more stupid is why anyone cares and makes an issue of it. If it works for them, more power.
As to the writer’s point regarding “Christians being seen as weird”, what ignorance of the scripture! Try reading Matt 5:10-16 sometime. We are supposed to stand apart!!
I ,personally, simply define legalism as an attempt to earn my salvation or righteousness with actions or works.
While I am certain that these people don’t think they are earning salvation, they probably do believe they are pleasing God or are “more holy” because of their decision. Not even that they are puffed up about it, just that they fell like they need to be doing something in order to feel righteous. Just as with the many example given by Paul regarding food, I’m not to judge these “weak in faith” christians, but I’m called to accept them.
The fact is, if I’m following the great commandment given to us by Jesus and loving my neighor as myself, then I won’t want to steal from them, I won’t murder them, I won’t covent what they have and most of all I won’t make them stumble. Everyone has their own definition of modesty. The school in the story, I personally believe, goes overboard, but that’s their decision. I personally have no problem with either a woman or a man wearing shorts as long as it’s done modestly. I don’t have to wear long pants to know that I am righteous. My wife doesn’t have to keep her hair in a bun and wear skirts to the floor to know she is saved by grace. All that being said, I shouldn’t judge someone else who does because we are all Gods.
I do ,however, think it’s a good idea know the scripture reference if you’re gonna claim one.