Annie2gud: Bebe...Biblically its wrong.a woman has no right to wear the clothing of a Man into the house of God.forget the razzmataz of these new competitive new generation churchs.i use to wear trouser to church...even witout coverin my hair..but my husband opened my eyes to those tins i mentioned.sorry abt ur xpirience.

IT IS A SIN FOR A WOMAN TO PUT ON TROUSERS TO CHURCH
This is also another prevailing issue in Africa don't know about elsewhere for now. Most of them who has this belief, sees a woman going to church putting on a trouser is an unbeliever. They use the scripture below to justify their action
" A woman shall not wear
anything that pertains to a man, no shall a man put on a woman's garment, for all who do so are abomination to the Lord your God" Deut 22:5

Now my question is, was style of the garment mentioned or was their trouser at the time when this law was proclaimed, weren't they all putting on the same style of garment ? For this reason the bible told us to study to show thyself approved. The true meaning of this word is that men shouldn't put on a garment that belongs to a woman, i.e a garment already worn by a woman should not be found on a man. The law was made because of the women monthly period, so that a man won't be defiled, because then women exercising their period are not to worship in the temple then. Moreover we don't live by the law anymore thank God for Christ.

since you guys love following instructions from texts written by ancient goat herders, here's how u should dress 4 church in order not to expose urself since y'all love to remain in the stone ages

Whether Trousers, Skirts or gown, the issue is dress modestly.

Some skirts and gowns girls wear these days are worse than leggings.

Originalsly: I see nothing wrong in wearing trousers. Whatever a woman wears should be relatively modest..... modest in terms of what is acceptable in the local community. The very holy ones should at all times be dressed like the Muslim women. They are so hypocritical and focused on the garment instead of the heart. I guess the dress code is enforced because the pastor's wife can't compete in the fashion parade if the rules are dropped. For the earrings and piercings....I suggest you tone it down since that is more like a display of vanity.

And you appointed yourself the judge who can judge and condemn them for being hypocritical and focussed on the garment instead of the heart! And the modest pastor's wife can't compete!
Easy my dear! Just an unsolicited advice! Be careful and don't condemn what God loves and justify what He hates!
Majority is NEVER right!
Peace

You all are hypocrites..where is it define in the bible that trousers is strictly for male folks? In that case it is a sin for women to also wear wrapper and blouse to church since urhobo men also tie the wrapper. What we should advocate is modesty.why should somebody wear trouser monday to saturday but not sunday?if you can't wear it to church dont wear it
other day . simple.

asco15:
Know this that anything that exposes ur cleavage, laps, armpit, navel, back etc or exposes ur inner wears, or exposes ur shape and size (both front and back size) is a sin, cos it is seductive 2 some men. A seducer (intentional or unintentional) is a sinner. Read mathew.18:6.
And be conscious of the sin of Lasciviousness as mentioned in Gal.5:19.
For makeup read my 2day article on religiön room "The truth hidden behind makeup".

also remember to read Deut. 21: 18-21 where your precious bible gives you sound parenting advice of stoning your children to death

18 If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, 19 his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. 20 They shall say to the elders, "This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a profligate and a drunkard." 21 Then all the men of his town shall stone him to death. You must purge the evil from among you. All Israel will hear of it and be afraid.

While I do not encourage ladies to put on trousers to the church or anywhere, I do not condemn them for doing same on religious ground. You may want to tell me the Bible says men should not put on women's wear, and women should not put on men's wear. May I state here that during the Biblical period, both women and men put on gown, though with some little differences. If we are to go by that portion of the Bible strictly, everybody today should be putting on gowns.
The people in the Middle East who started spreading christianity put on gowns. But when people from other parts of the world accepted the gospel, they never dropped their ways of dressing: they put on trousers and shirts that they were known for.
That we have become christians should not make us drop everything about our culture. Scottish men, as a form of their culture, still put on skirts and nothing wrong is seen about it. Why then should the Urhobo man be condemned for tying wrapper? Why then should the Kanuri woman that is a christian be condemned and be seen as encouraging islamic dressing for the mere fact that she wraps her head with a veil? Is it not part of her culture?

This whole thing is like condemning people for putting earrings and bangles for the mere fact that it was the same thing the children of Israel used in making a golden calf which they worshipped. Yet these same people put on gold watches. If there were watches in the time of Aaron would the children of Israel not have used it to make the same golden calf? Yet our pastors, when joining newly wedded couples, watch them exchange gold rings.

kunad234: You all are hypocrites..where is it define in the bible that trousers is strictly for male folks? In that case it is a sin for women to also wear wrapper and blouse to church since urhobo men also tie the wrapper. What we should advocate is modesty.why should somebody wear trouser monday to saturday but not sunday?if you can't wear it to church dont wear it
other day . simple.

must u use harsh words and insults to make people see ur point forcefully? Dats bad, air ur own view without insults pls. Thank u

Well I just checked up ''trousers' on wikipedia. And I got to find that, "trousers is believed to have being worn by both sexes" during the early period of its existence. But women adopted it again in the 20th century.
So its history is not clear and it cant be concluded as being for Men alone.

make una nor just only remember the verse when dey oppressive to women o, make una no forget say anybody when work on sunday, we suppose kill am too o

For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day shall be your holy day, a Sabbath of rest to the LORD. Whoever does any work on it must be put to death. Exodus 35:2

nadia_SA: I was very late for church this morning so whlie waiting for transport I heard nice songs being sang by one church opposite my street I decided to go attend there for just this Sunday.

One brother ushered me inside (2nd row seat) ,when I just got in its like the whole congregation looked at me funny even the little kids sef. I knew I was lost

I was the only female wearing trousers ,earingson my numerous piercings and weave on felt like turning back but I just couldn't

To make matters worse when the pastor got in I think I changed his whole sermon cause I could feel like this sermon was dedicated to me.. Was like I'm the biggest sinner !!

I don't think I will go back there anytime soon coz I don't understand what's so wrong in females wearing trousers and looking good!..I couldn't even differentiate from the youth nd grannies cause they all were looking old

Can some1 help me understand! Abeggi

**happy Sunday

d spirit of God lead u deir, dn't ignore dt church if u love ur self.

Wearing trouser by ladies is not a sin but it should be descent that is all. Have u nt heard of how a lady confused a pastor on the pulpit with her skirt showing her lap and underware. Had it been that she is wearing trouser wud that happen d answer is obvious. What cloth did God made for the first man and woman in the garden of eden? What did jesus put on in his days? Can men put on ladies trousers and be comfortable in public? Is ladies trouser not different from men? What about ladies wearing boxers for exercise, is it a sin? All those saying trouser is a sin answer these questions first b4 i bombard u with more.

this is the same savage book that justified the white man to take you black goats as slaves as long as they treat you zombies properly

If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave survives a day or two, since the slave is his property Exodus 21:20-21

Oya everybody make una sharrap! Ahha, worris it sef? Trouser this, trouser that...Skirt this, skirt that!
Wear what you want to wear to the church you know that allows it, and save yourself from spiritual and religious embarassment. SIMPLE!

At the end of days, we will know whose idea was the right one, abi una dey fear hell fire?

Catholic, Anglican, Methodist, Presbyterian and priests of other othordox churches wear gowns (cassocks) to cover the bulge on their loins and as such keep their 'thing' away from prying eyes. But your pastors embarrass women with their own, both front and back. Are women dead woods without feelings? If women could hold their own in the face of such big embarrassment as the the bulge between our legs, what then is wrong with men controlling themselves at the sight of a woman's backside?

obyrich: Catholic, Anglican, Methodist, Presbyterian and priests of other othordox churches wear gowns (cassocks) to cover the bulge on their loins and as such keep their 'thing' away from prying eyes. But your pastors embarrass women with their own, both front and back. Are women dead woods without feelings? If women could hold their own in the face of such big embarrassment as the the bulge between our legs, what then is wrong with men controlling themselves at the sight of a woman's backside?

The truth is that some of the so called pastors dont even understand the Bible and it's history. So they preach without understanding to the gullible who will never bother to check or understand the context.

most times i laugh at this topic of female putting on trousers. pls can someone tell me were in the bible trouser was mention as an attire for men? i always wonder how people can be so brainwash wen dey have the manual(bible). our prophet of those days what type of attire do they wear was it not robe n both male n female wore this! let no body deceive u, the most important thing is to have a pure heart n evryoda tin will follow even ur dress sense will change u will not be told how to dress cos u know u re righteous n righteousness is at work in you...




but still this thing they call common sense is still not common to some cos they should know they re not suppose to dress half naked!!

asco15: I will advise u 2 continue in dat church if ur heart desire is to go to heaven after life on earth.
Wearing of Trousers by women in general is a sin, cos it exposes the entire shape and size of a woman. Infact, it only covers the colour of the skin while it leave the woman naked.
Remember dat a woman's body shape and back-size is seductive 2 most men, wic makes it a sin.
Same wit oda ornaments. Read 1peter3:3, prov.16:25.

What will you say about ladies in skette that open their legs when in church, no dressing will take u to heaven. The Bible says in Joel 2 Vs 13 "And rend your heart, and not your garments and turn unto the Lord your God; for He is gracious and merciful , slow to anger ,and of great kindness and repent him of the evil "

alex1612:
What will you say about ladies in skirt that open their legs when in church, no dressing will take u to heaven. The Bible says in Joel 2 Vs 13 "And rend your heart, and not your garments and turn unto the Lord your God; for He is gracious and merciful , slow to anger ,and of great kindness and repent him of the evil "

I love ur comment

Nothing as long as you dont look like those prostitutes on Sanusi Fafunwa

Prehistory
There is some evidence, from figurative art, of trousers being worn in the Upper Paleolithic. An example are the figurines found at the Siberian sites of Mal'ta and Buret'.[4]

Antiquity

Scythian archer. Interior from an Ancient Greek Attic red-figure plate, ca. 520–500 BC, from Vulci. British Museum, London.

Germanic trousers of the 4th century found in the Thorsberg moor, Germany
Trousers first enter recorded history in the 6th century BCE, with the appearance of horse-riding Iranian peoples in Greek ethnography. At this time, not only the Persians, but also allied Eastern and Central Asian peoples such as the Bactrians, Armenians, Tigraxauda Scythians and Xiongnu Hunnu, are known to have worn them.[5][6] Trousers are believed to have been worn by both sexes among these early users.[7]

The ancient Greeks used the term "ἀναξυρίδες" (anaxyrides) for the trousers worn by Eastern nations[8] and "σαράβαρα" (sarabara) for the loose trousers worn by the Scythians.[9] However, they did not wear trousers since they thought them ridiculous,[10][11] using the word "θύλακοι" (thulakoi), pl. of "θύλακος" (thulakos), "sack", as a slang term for the loose trousers of Persians and other orientals.[12]

Republican Rome viewed the draped clothing of Greek and Minoan (Cretan) culture as an emblem of civilization and disdained trousers as the mark of barbarians.[13] As the Empire expanded beyond the Mediterranean basin, however, the greater warmth provided by trousers led to their adoption.[14] Two types of trousers eventually saw widespread use in Rome: the Feminalia, which fit snugly and usually fell to knee or mid-calf length,[15] and the Braccae, a loose-fitting trouser that was closed at the ankles.[16] Both garments were adopted originally from the Celts of Europe, although later familiarity with the Persian Near East and the Teutons increased acceptance. Feminalia and Braccae both began use as military garments, spreading to civilian dress later, and were eventually made in a variety of materials including leather, wool, cotton and silk.[17]

Medieval Europe
Trousers of various design were worn throughout the Middles Ages in Europe, especially by males. Loose-fitting trousers were worn in Byzantium under long tunics,[18] and were worn by many of the tribes, such as the Germanic tribes that migrated to Western Roman Empire in the Late Antiquity and Early Middle Ages, as evidenced by both artistic sources and such relics as the 4th-century costumes recovered from the Thorsberg bog (see illustration).[19] Trousers in this period, generally called brais, varied in length and were often closed at the cuff or even had attached foot coverings, although open-legged pants were also seen.[20]

By the 8th century there is evidence of the wearing in Europe of two layers of trousers, especially among upper-class males.[21] This under layer is today referred to by costume historians as “drawers,” although that usage did not emerge until the late 16th century. Over the drawers were worn trousers of wool or linen, which in the 10th century began to be referred to as breeches in many places. Tightness of fit and length of leg varied by period, class, and geography. (Open legged trousers can be seen on the Norman soldiers of the Bayeux Tapestry.)[22]

Although Charlemagne (742–814) is recorded to have habitually worn his trousers, donning the Byzantine tunic only for ceremonial occasions,[23][24] the influence of the Roman past and the example of Byzantium led to the increasing use of long tunics by men, hiding most of the trousers from view and eventually rendering them an undergarment for many. As undergarments, these trousers became briefer or longer as the length of the various medieval outer-garments changed and were met by, and usually attached to, another garment variously called hose or stockings.

In the 14th century it became common among the men of the noble and knightly classes to connect the hose directly to their pourpoints[25] (the padded under jacket worn with armored breastplates that would later evolve into the double

then change

Prehistory
There is some evidence, from figurative art, of trousers being worn in the Upper Paleolithic. An example are the figurines found at the Siberian sites of Mal'ta and Buret'.[4]

Antiquity

Scythian archer. Interior from an Ancient Greek Attic red-figure plate, ca. 520–500 BC, from Vulci. British Museum, London.

Germanic trousers of the 4th century found in the Thorsberg moor, Germany
Trousers first enter recorded history in the 6th century BCE, with the appearance of horse-riding Iranian peoples in Greek ethnography. At this time, not only the Persians, but also allied Eastern and Central Asian peoples such as the Bactrians, Armenians, Tigraxauda Scythians and Xiongnu Hunnu, are known to have worn them.[5][6] Trousers are believed to have been worn by both sexes among these early users.[7]

The ancient Greeks used the term "ἀναξυρίδες" (anaxyrides) for the trousers worn by Eastern nations[8] and "σαράβαρα" (sarabara) for the loose trousers worn by the Scythians.[9] However, they did not wear trousers since they thought them ridiculous,[10][11] using the word "θύλακοι" (thulakoi), pl. of "θύλακος" (thulakos), "sack", as a slang term for the loose trousers of Persians and other orientals.[12]

Republican Rome viewed the draped clothing of Greek and Minoan (Cretan) culture as an emblem of civilization and disdained trousers as the mark of barbarians.[13] As the Empire expanded beyond the Mediterranean basin, however, the greater warmth provided by trousers led to their adoption.[14] Two types of trousers eventually saw widespread use in Rome: the Feminalia, which fit snugly and usually fell to knee or mid-calf length,[15] and the Braccae, a loose-fitting trouser that was closed at the ankles.[16] Both garments were adopted originally from the Celts of Europe, although later familiarity with the Persian Near East and the Teutons increased acceptance. Feminalia and Braccae both began use as military garments, spreading to civilian dress later, and were eventually made in a variety of materials including leather, wool, cotton and silk.[17]

Medieval Europe
Trousers of various design were worn throughout the Middles Ages in Europe, especially by males. Loose-fitting trousers were worn in Byzantium under long tunics,[18] and were worn by many of the tribes, such as the Germanic tribes that migrated to Western Roman Empire in the Late Antiquity and Early Middle Ages, as evidenced by both artistic sources and such relics as the 4th-century costumes recovered from the Thorsberg bog (see illustration).[19] Trousers in this period, generally called brais, varied in length and were often closed at the cuff or even had attached foot coverings, although open-legged pants were also seen.[20]

By the 8th century there is evidence of the wearing in Europe of two layers of trousers, especially among upper-class males.[21] This under layer is today referred to by costume historians as “drawers,” although that usage did not emerge until the late 16th century. Over the drawers were worn trousers of wool or linen, which in the 10th century began to be referred to as breeches in many places. Tightness of fit and length of leg varied by period, class, and geography. (Open legged trousers can be seen on the Norman soldiers of the Bayeux Tapestry.)[22]

Although Charlemagne (742–814) is recorded to have habitually worn his trousers, donning the Byzantine tunic only for ceremonial occasions,[23][24] the influence of the Roman past and the example of Byzantium led to the increasing use of long tunics by men, hiding most of the trousers from view and eventually rendering them an undergarment for many. As undergarments, these trousers became briefer or longer as the length of the various medieval outer-garments changed and were met by, and usually attached to, another garment variously called hose or stockings.

In the 14th century it became common among the men of the noble and knightly classes to connect the hose directly to their pourpoints[25] (the padded under jacket worn with armored breastplates that would later evolve into the doublet) rather than to their drawers. In the 15th century, rising hemlines led to ever briefer drawers[26] until they were dispensed with altogether by the most fashionable elites who joined their skin-tight hose back into trousers.[27] These trousers, which we would today call tights but which were still called hose or sometimes joined hose at the time, emerged late in the 15th Century and were conspicuous by their open crotch which was covered by an independently fastening front panel, the codpiece. The exposure of the hose to the waist was consistent with 15th-century trends, which also brought pourpoint/doublet and the shirt, previous undergarments, into view,[28] but the most revealing of these fashions were only ever adopted at court and not by the general population.

Men's clothes in Hungary in the 15th century consisted of a shirt and trousers as underwear, and a dolman worn over them, as well as a short fur-lined or sheepskin coat. Hungarians generally wore simple trousers, only their colour being unusual; the dolman covered the greater part of the trousers.[29]

Europe before the 1900s
Around the turn of the 16th century it became conventional to separate hose into two pieces, one from the waist to the crotch which fastened around the top of the legs, called trunk hose, and the other running beneath it to the foot. The trunk hose soon reached down the thigh to fasten below the knee and were now usually called "breeches" to distinguish them from the lower-leg coverings still called hose or, sometimes stockings. By the end of the 16th century, the codpiece had also been incorporated into breeches which featured a fly or fall front opening.

In order to modernize, Tsar Peter the Great issued a decree in 1701 commanding every Russian, other than clergy and peasant farmers, to wear trousers.[30]

During the French Revolution, the male citizens of France adopted a working-class costume including ankle-length trousers, or pantaloons (from a Commedia dell'Arte character named Pantalone)[31] in place of the aristocratic knee-breeches. The new garment of the revolutionaries differed from that of the ancien regime upper classes in three ways: it was loose where the style for breeches had most recently been form-fitting, it was ankle length where breeches had generally been knee-length for more than two centuries, and they were open at the bottom while breeches were fastened. This style was introduced to England in the early 19th century, possibly[original research?] by Beau Brummell, and by mid-century had supplanted breeches as fashionable street wear.[32] At this point, even knee-length pants adopted the open bottoms of trousers (see shorts) and were worn by young boys, for sports, and in tropical climates. Breeches proper survived into the 20th century as court dress, and also in baggy mid-calf (or three-quarter length) versions known as plus-fours or knickers worn for active sports and by young school-boys. Types of breeches are still worn today by baseball and American football players.

Sailors may have played a role in the worldwide dissemination of trousers as a fashion. In the 17th and 18th centuries, sailors wore baggy trousers known as galligaskins. Sailors also pioneered the wearing of jeans, trousers made of denim.[citation needed] These became more popular in the late 19th century in the American West because of their ruggedness and durability.

Starting around the mid-19th century, Wigan pit brow girls scandalized Victorian society by wearing trousers for their work at the local coal mines. They wore skirts over their trousers and rolled them up to their waists to keep them out of the way. Although pit brow lasses worked above ground at the pit-head, their task of sorting and shovelling coal involved hard manual labour, so wearing the usual long skirts of the time would have greatly hindered their movements.

Medieval Korea
The Korean word for trousers baji (originally paji) first appears in recorded history around the turn of the 15th century, but pants may have been in use by Korean society for some time. From at least this time pants were worn by both sexes in Korea. Men wore trousers both outer garments or beneath skirts while it was unusual for adult women to wear their pants (termed sokgot) without a covering skirt. As in Europe, a wide variety of styles came to define regions and time periods and age and gender groups, from the unlined gouei to the padded sombaji.[33]

Women's trousers in the Western world after 1900
See also: Women wearing trousers in the Western world after 1900

Amazon wearing trousers and carrying a shield with an attached patterned cloth and a quiver. Ancient Greek Attic white-ground alabastron, ca. 470 BC, British Museum, London
Although women had been wearing trousers for outdoor work thousands of years earlier in the Western world, by the time of Christianization it had become taboo for women to wear trousers. It was Eastern culture that inspired French designer Paul Poiret (1879–1944) to become one of the first to design pants for women. In 1913 Poiret created loose-fitting, wide-leg trousers for women called harem pants, which were based on the costumes of the popular opera Sheherazade. (Written by Nikola Rimsky-Korsakov [1844–1908] in 1888, Sheherazade was based on a famous collection of legends from the Middle East called 1001 Arabian Nights.)[34] It was only in the 1960s that trousers became acceptable wear for Western women.[35]

In the early 20th century aviatrices and other working women often wore trousers. Frequent photographs from the 1930s of actresses Marlene Dietrich and Katharine Hepburn in trousers helped make trousers acceptable for women. During World War II, women working in factories and doing other forms of "men's work" on war service wore trousers when the work demanded it. In the post-war era, trousers became acceptable casual wear for gardening, the beach, and other leisurely pursuits.

In Britain during the Second World War, because of the rationing of clothing, many women took to wearing their husbands' civilian clothes, including their trousers, to work while their husbands were away from home serving in the armed forces. This was partly because they were seen as practical garments of workwear and partly to allow women to keep their clothing allowance for other uses. As this practice of wearing trousers became more widespread and as the men's clothing wore out, replacements were needed. By the summer of 1944, it was reported that sales of women's trousers were five times more than they had been in the previous year.[36]

In the 1960s, André Courrèges introduced long trousers for women as a fashion item, leading to the era of the pantsuit and designer jeans and the gradual eroding of social prohibitions against girls and women wearing trousers in schools, the workplace and in fine restaurants.

In 1969 Rep. Charlotte Reid (R-Ill.) became the first woman to wear trousers in the U.S. Congress. [37]

In 1989 California state senator Rebecca Morgan became the first woman to wear trousers in a U.S. state senate.

Ignorance is like cancer.

Hebrews 6:1 Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God,

asco15: Lets say d truth, few centuries ago, who were knwn 4 wearing trousers? Men or women? Even d white women dn't wear trousers by den nt until freedom of everytin + lack of d fear of God dat made d white 2 start wearing trousers nd oda seductive cloths.
Is smoking good because its nt in d bible?
Be wise!

Not true, the first piece of clothing made to cover human's unclothedness was a piece of rag just like a wrapper, God did not made trouser for Adam.

Deuteronomy 22:5, did not forbid women from wearing pants? No, it doesn't.

It simply said "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."

That is a "A woman shall not wear anything that pertains to a man, nor shall a man put on a woman's garment, for all who do so are an abomination to the Lord your God."

Like many of the statutes, this law had to do with pagan customs of the time, and The Jamieson, Fausset and Brown Bible Commentary went in dept on this and also the culture and tradition at that time.


In fact, even men in the Middle East through the history of the Old and New Testaments did not wear pants; they wore a robelike garment, Jesus and his disciples inclusive.

There is an underlying principle that applies today. Men should dress in an appropriately masculine manner and women should dress in an appropriately feminine manner. Clothing manufacturers make pants designed for men and pants designed for women.

obyrich: From Genesis to revelation, the bible did not mention trousers at all. Trousers is a borrowed culture to Africans. In scotland, men wear skirts as their ceremonial attire. There are trousers MEANT for women as well as those for men. There are shoes for women as well as those for men. Trousers were not part of the jewish culture at the time Deut. 22 vs 5 was written. The bible abhors INDECENT dressing not trousers. Any man who gets an attention at the sight of a woman wearing trousers is a pervert and a psychopath. Trousers offer women more protection from rapists than skirts. I have been embarrassed severally at the sight of the undies and laps of women wearing skirts but hardly of those wearing trousers. African women abuse skirts more than their white counterparts despite their sanctimonious stance on dressing. British women cross their legs when they wear skirts but African women open their legs carelessly and expect you to look into the skies! Trousers reveal the bulges and shapes of the male s3x organ more than it does to the female. The bombom of women does not cause more arousal than their br3ast, yet no one cares to design a clothing that will perpetually put those succulent oranges away from the raving eyes of these uninformed hypocritical bigots. Ladies, if any guy thinks you should not wear trousers, please package it and give it to him as a gift. Ask him to wear it to church on sunday. Maybe that will make him understand that what you are wearing is TROUSERS MEANT for WOMEN!

U got it all wrong! De emphasis wuz on wearing it 2 church; bt u wia generalizn.We all know dt some trouzers're meant 4 ladies alone which dey kuld wear 4 either leisure or social 4ntionz but,d church (mind u,juxt few of dem're decent ones 2 wear).Dn't konfuse otherz bkux u're,rather find a way 2 get klarified 4 no matter hw hard it is 2 bleive,it'z morally wrong 2 wear dem trouzers 2 church.

runzlord: dat means every white woman would go to hell?

Will you lead many to hell due to your belief!

runzlord: dat means every white woman would go to hell?

As long as they did not keep to the Word of GOD! GOD respects nobody, no gender nor colour!
And secondly, you should have thought of it before going.
Thirdly, you must not because of that say you'll not go back to the Church because GOD intentionally brought you there for you to learn about your mode of dressing. Go back to the same church well dressed and see what will happen.
1 set of earrings, 1 wrist-watch, bangles is not a sin eitherut not too many, natural hair-do is ok.

Ladies are not suppose to put on trouser at all, neither to wear it to church. Because it belongs to male.