6.
Worldliness in Dress
Today
the result of Higher Criticism may be seen throughout Western society.
Witness the barrenness in the Church, the dearth of gospel preaching and the
tremendous surge in crime, corruption and filth.[1]
These scourges are due to the undermining of the books of the Old and New
Testaments – “all which are given by inspiration of God, to be the rule
of faith and life” – and to the resulting rejection of the authority of
this Holy Scripture, which “is to be received”, said our ancestors,
“because it is the word of God”.[2]
The assault on the Biblical distinctions between man and woman is now so
widespread that in many places it has become necessary for the Lord’s
people, as righteous Lot
in
Sodom, to differ openly
from the general population in matters pertaining to the place of men and
women, even in our dress. “And be not conformed to this world: but be ye
transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is
that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God” (Romans 12:2).
Paul became as a Jew in order to gain his brethren – his “kinsmen
according to the flesh” (Rom. 9:3) – and as one
without law to gain those who were not under the law of types and shadows;
yet he remained “not without law to God, but under the law to Christ” (I
Cor. 9:21).
Because
the directive in Deuteronomy 22:5 does not elaborate on the differences
required in garments, it is argued by many Christians today that the Bible
does not teach anything specific about men’s and women’s apparel and
that the instruction may be interpreted and obeyed by looking to
contemporary fashions. Hence, with fashions changing according to the
desires of ungodly yet influential men and women, Christian women are being
allowed to wear men’s clothes, only of a “different style”. In the 20th
century this worldly doctrine infiltrated Christendom, and it has almost
eliminated the influence that godly and experienced men and women once had
on fashion, leaving young women and children in particular to be swayed by
the whims of perverse sinners.
The “women’s rights” movement of the 19th century, which,
along with Darwinism, was exacerbated and fuelled by the Higher Critical
erosion of faith in Scripture, was itself a catalyst for the disorder in
families which is still reverberating across the globe.[3]
The ringleaders of this movement called for an upheaval of the system
instituted by God at the creation of the first man and woman: they decried
the sheltered life accorded to women since the foundation of the world and
they demanded the abolition of patriarchal headship. Seeking to destroy the
mutual exclusiveness of the roles of men and women, they campaigned for the
woman’s right to participate in men’s professions, and even to wear
men’s clothes. Some, repeating the errors of Théroigne
de Méricourt (1762-1817)
– a pitiful woman who called for “rivalry with the men” during the
French Revolution – drew
much attention to themselves by wearing trousers[4]
and other articles of men’s clothing, while others resorted to more
violent criminal tactics. Although it may be proved from Scripture that the
clothing known in Western history as men’s apparel is indeed prohibited to
women, the very nature of the 19th
century women’s movement
indicates the rebellion inherent in the wearing of trousers by women. And
the immorality of the 20th century[5],
during which unbelieving actresses[6]
and fashion designers popularised the practice, reveals that it began in
evil times among evil people. If the practice has not sprung from rebellion
against paternal authority, but is merely a harmless change in style, why
does society retain a general prohibition against men’s wearing of
women’s garments? Women who “wear the trousers” (or at least the
trendsetters of such behaviour) do so in defiance of the God who ordained
for all women a domestic role. By the evidence of history alone it is clear
that the new dress code did not come out of a faithful study of Christian
principles, and that it is a code to be avoided by those who have been
called not “unto uncleanness, but unto holiness” (I Thess. 4:7).[7]
Such a profound revolution in fashion could not have happened apart from the
openly rebellious and independent spirit which has been increasingly
manifest since the rise of Higher Criticism, and which has encouraged the
scorning of the apostolic command, “Children, obey your parents in the
Lord: for this is right” (Eph. 6:1). It is well pleasing to the Lord that
children obey their parents in all things lawful (Col. 3:20, cf. Acts
5:29),
and that they follow their parents' judicious guiding in matters of dress and
deportment. William Gouge (1575-1653)
told
the people of his day that “parents must have the
ordering of their
children's apparel”:
A
fourth branch of the foresaid subjection of children is about their apparel,
that it be no other, than may stand with their parents' good liking. It is
noted that
Israel
made Joseph a
coat (Gen.
37:3). Doth not the particular mentioning of that circumstance shew, that
parents must have the ordering of their children's apparel? Which is also
intimated in the reason given of Tamar's garment of divers colours
(II Sam.
13:18), namely because with
such garments were the king's daughters, that were virgins, apparelled.
And whereas Rebekah had the keeping of her son Esau's clothes,
it appeareth that his clothes were to the mind of his parents (Gen. 27:15): else he would have hid them from them: for further confirmation whereof it
is noted that his apparel was pleasing to his father.[8]
Unlike many leaders in the Church today, our forefathers in the faith
considered the traditional form of clothing passed down to them, and the
godly practice of their elders, to be guides for the young Christian in
understanding the biblical rules of dress and conduct (Prov. 24:21; Jer.
6:16; I Peter 3:3-6, cf. I Cor. 11:1). James
Durham
speaks against ever-changing
fashions[9]
in his work,
The Law Unsealed:
And therefore we say,
that in men and women both there is condemned by the Lord, . . . 2.
Strangeness in the ever-changing fashions, and extravagant modes of apparel,
while as the Lord by nature hath continued the shape of men’s bodies to be
the same; for what is meant else by strange apparel, so often forbidden in
the scripture, but that which is commonly called the
fashion, or new fashion, a new and uncouth garb? And certainly men’s
minds are often infected with lascivious thoughts, and lustful inclinations,
even by the use and sight of gaudy and vain clothing; and we will see light,
loose, conceited minds discover themselves in nothing sooner than in their
apparel, and fashions, and conceitedness in them.[10]
William Gouge concurs; upon listing women’s clothing
among the “evident and undeniable proofs” of a husband’s superiority
over a wife, he adds, “The very attire which nature and custom of all
times and places have taught women to put on, confirmeth the same: as long
hair, vails, and other coverings over the head: this and the former argument
doth the Apostle himself use to this very purpose, I Cor.
11.7 &c.”[11]
And William Perkins (1558-1602)
says:
In
apparel we must observe a holy comeliness . . . a
man hath his set attire, a woman’s hers, a young man is apparelled on this
fashion, and an old man on that. And therefore it is unseemly for a man to
put on a woman’s apparel, or a woman the man’s. Deut. 22:5, ‘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 thy God.’ To
set down precisely out of God’s word, what apparel is decent is very hard;
wherefore in this case, the judgments and practice of modest, grave, and
sincere men, in every particular estate, is most to be followed and men must
rather keep too much within the bounds of measure, than to step one foot
without the precincts.[12]
In the same vein is David Dickson (a close friend of James
Durham’s), who speaks of “common sense” and “settled custom, . . .
agreeable to nature in respect to what is comely”, as dictating “that it
is unseemly for a woman to pray uncovered, or that a man should wear long
hair, and the contrary is decent”.[13]
Yet the Puritans approved of long-established custom not simply for its own
sake, but because the style of clothing passed down through the generations
was generally in accordance with the rules of Scripture and the light of
nature, being morally and practically acceptable. They condemned new
fashions for their immorality or for their failure to accord with common
sense, as William Perkins demonstrates in his seven rules of
decency and comeliness which guide us in framing and fashioning our attire:
Firstly, that it be
according to the sex: for men must prepare apparel for men, women for women.
This rule is not ceremonial, but grounded upon the law of nature, and common
honesty, Deut. 22:5 The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth to
unto man, neither shall a man put on woman’s raiment; for all that do so,
are abomination to the Lord thy God . . .
Secondly,
Our apparel must be made according to our office;
that is, such as may be fit and convenient for us, in respect of our
calling; that it may not hinder or disable us, in the performance of the
duties thereof. Whereupon
comes justly to be condemned the kind of apparel (specially of women) that
is used in this age. For it makes them like to an image in a frame, set bolt
upright; whereby it comes to pass, that they cannot go well, and with ease
or conveniency, about any good business, but must of necessity either sit,
or stand still.[14]
A sign that our modern confusion of apparel is in opposition even to
nature’s light is the fact that the biblical pattern of distinction in the
garments of men and women may be seen in traditional clothing not only in
lands with a Christian heritage but throughout most of the world. A law that
has a near universal adherence is generally one that is taught by the light
of nature,[15]
because the remnants of God’s laws are still found written in the hearts
of the heathen (Rom. 2:14, 15). Nature itself
teaches man what is comely, and generally only the most degraded of people
– for example, those who thought little of the institution of marriage or
indeed of the lives of their own children – have not insisted that their
women wear long dresses or skirts. A study of the many civilisations and
peoples of the world will show that women have generally worn long dresses,
while most men, except on important occasions, tended to wear shorter tunics
and sometimes trousers. The ancient Greeks, Romans, Britons and Vikings from
Europe; the ancient Egyptians and Berbers from Africa; the Indians of the
Subcontinent; the Japanese, Thais, Koreans and many of the Chinese from
Asia; the Phoenicians, Ottomans, Arabs and Kurds from the Middle East; and
the Pueblos, Aztecs, Incas and Plains Indians from the Americas are but a
sample of those cultures which have, as a rule, attested to this statement.[16]
Of the nations who valued clothing there were but few that allowed ordinary
women to wear trousers as an outer garment,[17]
or short tunics – this sort of dress was rarely
accepted as appropriate for women even among the heathen (cf. I Cor.
5:1).[18]
And when the gospel of Jesus Christ was preached among the Gentiles the
beauty of modesty was seen in a clear light, and modest long garments were
recognised as the only attire ordained of God for even the poorest of women.[19]
Even those nations who formerly were most degraded, and for centuries forgot
nearly all sense of shame and modesty, now have an abundance of wonderful
accounts of men, women and children whom God rescued from the depths of
heathen depravity and who joyfully covered themselves with clothing suitable
to their sex and place.[20]
In
his autobiography, the 19th century Scottish missionary John
Paton tells of the young men and women of his classes in Glasgow, who
“would, if it had been possible, have gone with me, to live and die among
the Heathen”, and who, though extremely poor – they were “chiefly
working girls and lads in trades and mills” – were led to “unite their
pennies and sixpences, and to buy web after web of calico, print, and
woollen stuffs, which they themselves shaped and sewed into dresses for the
women, and kilts and pants for men, on the New Hebrides.”[21]
Once
settled on the cannibal island of Tanna in that archipelago, Mr Paton defied
in the name of God the sorcery of the Sacred Men trying to kill him, and his
bravery quickly opened the way to putting some of the kilts and shirts to
good use. He tells of some of those witchdoctors:
If
not truly converted, the two priests were fast friends of mine from that day, as also
another leading man in the same district . . . These two and a number of
others began to wear a kilt, and some a shirt also. Three of them
especially, if not Christians, appeared to be not far from the
Kingdom
of God, and did all that
was in their power to protect and assist me. A few began to pray to Jehovah
in their houses, offering a kind of rude Family Worship, and breathing out
such prayers and desires as I had taught them for the knowledge of the true
God and only Saviour. And these, as my companions, accompanied me from place
to place when I visited their district. But let us return to the war. Many
Chiefs and villages were now involved in it . . .[22]
He later tells of the conversion of a young warrior chief on the
island of Aniwa (also in the New Hebrides), at a time when the Holy Spirit
was poured out from on high, a time when many were being brought down in
conviction of sin and regenerated by the power of God. Mr Paton continues:
Like
those of old praying for the deliverance of Peter, and who could not believe
their ears and eyes when Peter knocked and walked in amongst them, so we
could scarcely believe our eyes and ears when Youwili became a disciple of
Jesus, though we had been praying for his conversion every day. His once
sullen countenance became literally bright with inner light. His wife came
immediately for a book and a dress, saying, ‘Youwili sent me. His
opposition to the Worship is over now. I am to attend Church and School. He
is coming too. He wants to learn how to be strong, like you, for Jehovah and
for Jesus.’[23]
The conversions continued and the natives of Aniwa began to prosper,
participating in the worship of God and hearing His Word expounded. “As
their knowledge and faith increased,” says Mr Paton,
we
saw their Heathen practices rapidly passing away, and a new life shaping
itself around us. Mrs. Paton taught a class of about fifty women and girls.
They became experts at sewing, singing, plaiting hats, and reading. Nearly
all the girls could at length cut out and make their own dresses, as well as
shirts or kilts for the men and clothing for the children. Yet, three short
years before, men and women alike were running about naked and savage. The
Christ-Spirit is the true civilizing power.[24]
Needless to say, these ladies’ dresses were full-length, and commodious
enough to satisfy modesty and comfort in their tropical climate,[25]
and the
kilts and shirts also were admirably suited to the men’s occupations and
environment. Godly practice is indeed “profitable
unto all things, having promise of the life that now is, and of that which
is to come” (I Tim. 4:8). And as believers have been created anew in the
image of God incarnate – the Man who is holy, harmless, undefiled,
separate from sinners (II Cor. 5:17; Heb. 7:26) – they cannot but see the
beauty of His holy commandments from the least to the greatest (Matt. 5:19;
22:37, 38). “And they come to Jesus, and see him that was possessed with
the devil, and had the legion, sitting, and clothed, and in his right
mind” (Mark 5:15). Converted savages
worldwide will doubtless rise up in judgement against wanton professing
Christians of this generation, and will condemn them.
Our Lord Jesus Christ counsels lukewarm Christians to buy of Him gold tried
in the fire that they might be rich, and white raiment that the shame of
their spiritual nakedness might not appear, and to anoint their eyes with
eyesalve that they might see (Rev. 3:18). It is possible for one who is born
again of the Holy Spirit to comprehend His inspired words, and also to see
that many issues considered by worldly churchmen to be paltry matters, mere
trifles (cf. Prov. 14:9), belong to the beauty of holiness in the kingdom of
God. And the glorious liberty of the sons of God includes no licence to take
away anything – not one jot or tittle – from either the gospel or the
moral law (Deut. 4:2; Matt. 5:18; Rev. 22:18, 19).
Thomas Boston rightly says:
As
ye will not be libertines in your life and practice, being dead to sin and
the world with Christ; so ye will not be legalists in your life and practice
neither, being also dead with him to the law as a covenant of works. Your
obedience will run in another channel than it did before your union with
Christ, even in the channel of the gospel. Ye will serve in newness of
spirit, in faith and love. The frowns of a merciful Father will be a terror
to you to frighten you from sin; love and gratitude will prompt you to
obedience. The grieving of the Spirit of a Saviour will be a spring of
sorrow to you; and his atoning blood and perfect righteousness will be the
spring-head of all your comfort before the Lord; your good works but streams
thereof, as they evidence your saving interest in these, are accepted
through them, and glorify God your Saviour.[26]
It may be helpful to remember, as we endeavour to live as believers
set apart from the ways of this world, that Christians of the 21st
century are not the only ones who have had to dress differently from those
around them. John
Owen (1616-1683), the great British theologian, wrote
at a time when the confusion of the attire of men and women was rare, yet he
did see worldliness in dress as a serious problem in his age:
The
habits and attire of the world are the things wherein the world doth design
to show itself what it is. Men may read what the world is by evident
characters, in the habits and attire that it wears. They are blind that
cannot read vanity, folly, uncleanness, luxury, in the attire the world
putteth upon itself. The declension of professors [i.e., those who profess to believe] in imitating the ways of the
world in their habits and garb [i.e.,
styles of clothing], makes a season perilous: it is a mixture wherein we
learn their manners; and the judgments of God will ensue upon it. – In
this, likewise, we are grown like the world, that upon all occasions we are
as regardless of the sins of the world, and as little troubled with them, as
others are. Lot
lived
in
Sodom, but
‘his righteous soul was vexed with their ungodly deeds and speeches.’
Live we where we will, when are our souls vexed, [so] that we do not pass
through the things of the world, the greatest abominations, with the frame
of spirit that the world itself doth? Not to speak of voluptuousness of
living, and other things that attend this woeful mixture with the world that
professors have made in the days wherein we live, – corrupt communication,
gaiety of attire, senselessness of the sins and abominations of the world
round about us, are almost as much upon professors as upon the world. We
have mixed ourselves with the people, and have learned their manners.
But,
– 2. Such a season is
dangerous, because the sins of professors in it lie directly contrary to the
whole design of the mediation of Christ in this world. Christ gave himself
for us, that he might purge us from dead works, and purify us unto himself a
peculiar people, Titus 2:14. ‘Ye are a royal nation, a peculiar people.’
Christ hath brought the hatred of the devil and all the world upon him and
against him, for taking a people out of the world, and making them a
peculiar people to himself; and their throwing themselves upon the world
again is the greatest contempt that can be put upon Jesus Christ. He gave
his life and shed his blood to recover us from the world, and we throw
ourselves in again. How easy were it to show that this is an inlet to all
other sins and abominations, and that for which I verily think the
indignation and displeasure of God will soonest discover itself against
professors and churches in this day! If we will not be differenced from the
world in our ways, we shall not long be differenced from them in our
privileges. If we are the same in our walkings, we shall be so in our
worship, or have none at all.[27]
He speaks elsewhere of the sins polluting his own nation in the 17th
century, including gluttony, drunkenness and immodest dress and behaviour:
Thus
the sin of this nation hath been always esteemed sensuality of life, in
an excess of eating and drinking, with the consequents thereof. Hereunto
of late have been added vanity in apparel, with foolish, light, lascivious
modes and dressings therein, and an immodest boldness in conversation among
men and women. These are corruptions, which, being borrowed from the
neighbour nation, and grafted on crab-stocks of our own, have brought forth
the fruit of vanity and pride in abundance. And it is the most manifest
evidence of a degenerate people, when they are prone to naturalize the
vices of other nations among them, but care not to imitate their
virtues, if in any kind they do excel.[28]
Naturalisation of degenerate styles of clothing is very common
today, and the influence of the feminist revolution on female costume is now
seen almost worldwide, not least in our own land.[29]
Cultural revolutionaries throughout the West have, in the 20th
century, conducted a long, vindictive campaign for “equality” with men
in the dress, behaviour and work of women, as part of an attempt to usurp
authority over the man.[30]
Despite
the rarity of cross-dressing in past ages, signs of such confusion were
observable from time to time. John Calvin warned his congregation concerning
scandals that are immeasurably more prevalent in our day:
But
what? women are nowadays more out of square, than ever they were: especially
if a man go to these great courts, hardly shall he be able to find any
difference betwixt men and women. Indeed men for their part do also abuse
themselves in this behalf. For they clothe themselves in women's apparel,
and women in men's, so that there is an horrible confusion amongst them, as
if the world had conspired to turn the order of nature upside-down: and
beside this, there is a certain gorgeous bravery [i.e.,
showiness] amongst
them which they lust after. And why so? Surely to
be as it were an ale pole. Men use not to hang out a sign at a tavern,
unless they meant men should come in who list [i.e.,
desire]. And while women deck and trim themselves after this sort, to draw
men's eyes to them, and to have men stand gazing at them, what is this else
but a spreading out of their nets? . . . And if this affection and perverse
desire were well purged, no doubt women would deck themselves modestly, and
we should see no more of these disguisings .
. .
There
is moreover, and besides this, ambition and pride. For women may apparel
themselves as harlots, and yet not very sumptuously neither.
A woman may have a gown that shall not be very costly, she may have no gold
nor precious stones about her, and yet it is not to be said that she is not
excessive, and wanting measure or superfluous. And why so? because her
fashion may be unchaste, whorish, and enticing. And this is the first fault.
But yet there is another, and it is this, women may apparel themselves
modestly, without this shameless and impudent gorgeousness which I have
spoken of, and yet we may see a bravery and pomp in them
. . .[31]
Not only do we see at present the appropriation of men’s clothing
by women, but also the uncovering of women to an extent that has previously
been rare in all but the most degraded societies.[32]
Although John Calvin went further than some of the more recent Calvinistic
ministers in his insistence that women should always veil their hair in
public, his prediction of the result of any sort of slackness regarding
modesty should be noted, as it has evidently come to pass. In a sermon on I
Corinthians 11
he warned
that
when
it is permissible for the women to uncover their heads, one will say, 'Well,
what harm in uncovering the stomach also?' And then after that one will
plead [for] something else: 'Now if the women go bareheaded, why not also
[bare] this and [bare] that?' Then the men, for their part, will break loose
too. In short, there will be no decency left, unless people contain
themselves and respect what is proper and fitting, so as not to go headlong
overboard.[33]
Such indecencies have become prevailing vices in many countries. But
there is wisdom in many counsellors (Prov. 11:14), and
we may learn from the leaders of the Church in past eras that similar evils
have long existed (albeit in varying degrees), and that they may certainly
be overcome. Martin
Luther (1483-1546), the German champion of the Reformation, declares:
A
Christian can have clean and pure clothing, as the Jews do . . . Formerly
women walked about with neck bared all the way to the middle of the back.
This was immodest dress. Elsewhere half the breast is seen. They have
high-heeled shoes, etc., so that they can show off their bodies. Rather,
they ought to have clothes to conceal themselves, to cover the neck. Our
women walk about with their faces nearly veiled and everything covered very
neatly, with their furs, so that almost nothing of their limbs or skin is
seen. All this ought to be hidden in church in order that they may walk
modestly . . . Thus I praise long coats and furs highly. Also young
unmarried women ought not wear their locks braided but have a veil when they
participate in the Sacrament. I find no fault in our women.[34]
Published abroad with divine power, the same cure which vanquished
such evil in Luther’s
Germany
will
prove effective in our time. This remedy, offered freely to all (Isa. 55:1-3), is the grace of God in Jesus Christ, which cannot fail to save and
sanctify the sinner: “But
of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and
righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption” (I Cor. 1:30).
Hence those who show little sign of sanctification show little sign that
they are among the redeemed. John Bunyan, the penman of the
Pilgrim’s Progress and other works, says:
The
attire of a harlot is too frequently in our day the attire of professors; a
vile thing, and argueth much wantonness and vileness of affections. If those
that give way to a wanton eye, wanton words, and immodest apparel, be not
whores, &c., in their hearts, I know not what to say. Doth a wanton eye
argue shamefacedness? Doth wanton talk argue chastity? And doth immodest
apparel, with stretched-out necks, naked breasts, a made speech, and mincing
gaits, &c., argue mortification of lusts? . . .
My
friends, I am here treating of good works, and persuading you to fly those
things that are hindrances to them: wherefore bear with my plainness when I
speak against sin. I would strike it through with every word, because else
it will strike us through with many sorrows. I Tim. 6.9, 10. I do not treat
of good works as if the doing of them would save us, for we are justified by
his grace, according to the hope of eternal life; yet our sins and evil
works will lay us obnoxious to the judgments both of God and man. He that
walketh not uprightly, according to the truth of the gospel, is like to have
his peace assaulted often, both by the devil, the law, death, and hell; yea,
and is like to have God hide his face from him also, for the iniquity of his
covetousness. Isa. 57.17 . . .
It
is true, faith without works justifies us before God: Rom. 3.28; 4.5. yet
that faith that is alone, will be found to leave us sinners in the sight
both of God and man. James 2.18. And though thou addest nothing to that
which saveth thee by what thou canst do, yet thy righteousness may profit
the son of man; as also saith the text: but if thou shalt be so careless as
to say, What care I for being righteous to profit others? I tell thee, that
the love of God is not in thee. Job 35.8. I John 3.17. I Cor. 13.1-3. Walk
therefore in God’s ways, and do them, for this is your wisdom and your
understanding in the sight of the nations, which shall hear of all these
statutes, and say, ‘This great nation is
a wise and understanding people.’ Deut. 4.6.[35]
The tide of this world often flows strongly against this way of holiness,
and then the Christian is persecuted as a fool and a stranger; but Christ
Jesus says to His servant, “My grace is sufficient for thee: for my
strength is made perfect in weakness” (II Cor. 12:9, cf. Psalm 20:2).
Looking in faith to the crucified and risen Saviour a sinner will receive
free justification, and strength to live in that true holiness “without
which no man shall see the Lord” (Heb. 12:14). “And Jesus said unto
them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and
he that believeth on me shall never thirst” (John 6:35).
May it be that in studying God’s laws unbelievers will be stirred
by the Spirit to sorrow for sin and to saving faith in Jesus Christ, and
that believers will be moved to renewed repentance, and to flee again to the
blood of Christ to be cleansed of sin (I John 1:7; cf. Rev. 12:11). “Take
with you words, and turn to the LORD: say unto him, Take away all iniquity,
and receive us graciously: so will
we render the calves of our lips” (Hos. 14:2).
German-born Marlene Dietrich (1901-1992) was one of several Hollywood
actresses noted
for lasciviousness
– and lesbian perversion – who encouraged women to wear trousers in
the 1930s: “[Marlene] Dietrich's great popularity made her a
trendsetter; her adoption of trousers and other mannish clothes helped
launch an American fashion craze” (Encyclopaedia
Britannica, 2005). By this time “bobbed” hair and the
controversial “V-neck” top had already been introduced to Western
women.
“Back in Shakespeare's day, only upper-class people dressed
fashionably; the mass of the rural peasantry wore simple clothing that
hardly changed over many generations. Since the beginning of the 20th
century, however, fashions have changed rapidly” (Encarta Encyclopaedia, 2004).
John Calvin on I Tim. 2:9-11.
John Calvin on I Cor. 11:2-16.
Contents
|
Next
Section
