What’s the Dress Code?” Navigating a Common Question with Biblical Clarity and Historical Honesty

Handle this question wrong, and the chances that you will effectively reach your community and revitalize your church are slim to none.

I know this may seem like an unusual question to address, but it is an important one.

Why?

In years of ministry, I’ve noticed that one of the first questions women often ask before visiting a church is: ‘What’s the dress code?’ Why do you suppose that is a question that is uppermost in their minds? It may sound like a minor concern, but for many churches—especially those in revitalization—this issue can become a significant stumbling block.

Let’s be honest: every church cares about attire in some way. The difference lies in how much emphasis is placed on it and how that care is expressed. Today, there are even discussions about what a preacher should wear to church. We see pastors preaching in everything from skinny jeans and T-shirts to flip-flops and Hawaiian shirts, while others wear suits and ties—some three-piece, some tieless.

But the question at hand remains: what about women asking this question? Understanding the history, the biblical principles, and the cultural realities surrounding it is essential if a church wants to be both faithful to Scripture and welcoming to people.

Why Women Ask This Question

This question reveals much about the intersection of culture, church history, and personal expectation. Below is a summary of the most common reasons women ask about dress codes, along with a rough gauge of frequency:

Reason	Description	Relative Frequency
Fear of Judgment	Worrying they will be looked down on or excluded for wearing pants or “not dressing right.”	Very High
Testing the Waters	Asking, “What kind of church is this?”—conservative or casual, rules-heavy or grace-centered.	High
Cultural Shift	Few women wear dresses regularly anymore; many only own pants for daily life.	High
Personal Comfort	Practical concerns like children, weather, or health make pants easier.	Medium
Rebellion Against Tradition	Some reject dress standards as unnecessary legalism.	Low to Medium

At heart, the question is rarely about fashion. It is often about whether they will be criticized for not wearing a dress or whether a church’s philosophy of Christian living will place external standards above gospel priorities. These concerns are often sincere, reflecting both cultural and spiritual anxieties.

Historical Context

For most of modern history, women wearing dresses was not unique to Independent Baptists. Across Protestant denominations, it was considered proper for women to wear dresses or skirts to church, while men wore suits and ties. (1)

The shift toward pants for women unfolded gradually over the 19th and 20th centuries—but always against the backdrop of God’s original design in Eden, where He clothed both man and woman in distinct garments for modesty and order (Gen. 3:21).

1. Mid-19th Century – The Bloomer Movement.

   Activist Amelia Bloomer introduced loose trousers under skirts to promote health and mobility. While she faced ridicule, her “bloomers” marked an early challenge to the long-standing cultural expression of feminine modesty. (2)

2. Early 20th Century – Work and Recreation.

   As bicycles, sports, and factory work became more common, women adopted pants for practicality. Yet what began as a functional adjustment slowly blurred the visual distinction between men’s and women’s attire.

3. World Wars I & II – Necessity Reframed Norms.

   With men away at war, women in factories and on farms wore pants for safety and efficiency. Although understandable, this “temporary necessity” permanently weakened cultural resistance to women dressing like men. (3)

4. Hollywood Influence (1940s–50s).

   Stars such as Katharine Hepburn and Marlene Dietrich turned pants into symbols of glamour and sophistication. What had once been associated with necessity now became associated with desirability—further normalizing attire that Scripture cautions against when it blurs gender distinctions (Deut. 22:5). (4)

5. The Feminist Movement (1960s–70s).

   Pants became a banner of liberation, independence, and equality. For many, they were deliberately worn to reject traditional femininity, a philosophy in direct tension with God’s created order for men and women. (5)

6. Modern Acceptance.

   Today, pants are mainstream for women in nearly all Western settings. Yet in many conservative Christian communities, dresses and skirts remain the preferred expression of modesty and gender distinction—not because of nostalgia, but because they align more closely with God’s Eden principle of clothing as both covering and distinction.

Looking back over this history, it becomes clear that what began as an occasional necessity and cultural experimentation has grown into a wholesale redefinition of women’s attire. The issue is not nostalgia for an older style but faithfulness to God’s design: clothing was given in Eden as both a covering for modesty and a marker of distinction (see exegetical note below). As culture has blurred those lines, the church must ask how it will reflect God’s order with clarity and grace in the present age.

Exegetical Note: Genesis 3:21 tells us that God made “coats of skins” for both Adam and Eve. The emphasis here is on covering—their fig-leaf aprons were insufficient, so God Himself provided garments that truly addressed their shame. Thus, modesty is explicit in the Edenic design. Distinction, however, is not spelled out in detail at this point, but it is implied by the larger creation order of male and female (Gen. 1:27; 2:18, 23–24). Later revelation reinforces this distinction in clothing (Deut. 22:5; 1 Cor. 11:3–15). In other words, Eden gives us the principle of clothing as modest covering, while the rest of Scripture clarifies that such covering should also preserve God’s design of male and female distinction.

Thus, the Edenic design was not random. It embodied both modesty and (implicitly) distinction, setting the foundation for how God’s people throughout history would understand clothing—not merely as fabric, but as a visible testimony of truth and God's desire.

This history, which mixes spiritual/cultural/biblical components, explains why modern women may worry about entering churches that emphasize older dress norms. For some churches, pants on women still represent a compromise with worldliness. For others, refusing to accept them signals an outdated legalism.

Biblical Considerations - Let's outline these parameters here together. We begin with the one already referenced above.

1. The Eden Precedent

God clothed Adam and Eve after the Fall:

“Unto Adam also and to his wife did the Lord God make coats of skins, and clothed them.” (6)

When Adam and Eve sinned, they attempted to clothe themselves with fig leaves. But God Himself provided them with “coats of skins” (כֻּתֹּ֫נֶת, kuttonet; Gen. 3:21), a tunic-like garment that covered the body more substantially.

Were Adam and Eve Clothed the Same?

Genesis 3:21 tells us: “Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.” At first glance, this might suggest Adam and Eve wore the same garment. In truth, Scripture teaches us two key realities:

• The Same in Principle – Both were clothed in “coats of skins” (kĕthonet), long tunics that covered their nakedness. The Edenic design emphasized modesty equally for man and woman.

• Distinct in Application – While the garments were the same kind, they were divinely fashioned for different bodies. Adam’s was tailored for a man; Eve’s was fitted for a woman. From creation onward, God preserved distinction within modesty.

This principle carries forward through all of Scripture: men and women often wore the same types of garments (tunics, cloaks), yet ornamentation, styling, and role/function kept their identities clear. The law later forbade cross-dressing (Deut. 22:5), proving that even when garment forms overlapped, God required gender distinction to be honored.

In Eden, then, the very first clothing already held these two truths together: covering (modesty) and distinction (male and female).

2. Paul’s Instruction on Modesty

1 Timothy 2:9 instructs women to adorn themselves “in modest apparel (katastolē).” (7) The Greek katastolē combines kata (down, thoroughly) and stolē (long flowing garment), implying an orderly, properly covering garment that communicates dignity, modesty, and godliness.

This principle transcends cultural fashion, focusing on the heart and the witness, not merely on a particular style like skirts or dresses.

While this does not mandate a specific style (such as dresses only), it does set forth principles: coverage, modesty, and appropriateness (Modest = κόσμιος [kosmios] appropriate; modest. Mounce describes the word as decorous, respectable, well-ordered). (8)

What About Men and Katastolē?

In 1 Timothy 2:9, Paul uses the word katastolē—“modest apparel”—when addressing women. The word describes a long, well-ordered garment that reflects dignity and restraint. this is the only place this word is used in the New Testament.

But what about men? In the New Testament world, both men and women wore long garments (tunics, cloaks, and robes). The related word stolē (robe) is applied to men—scribes in long robes (Mark 12:38), angels in white robes (Mark 16:5), and the “best robe” given to the prodigal son (Luke 15:22). The distinction was not in length but in styling and form. Men’s garments were tailored to masculinity, women’s to femininity.

This connects back to Eden. When God clothed Adam and Eve with coats of skins (Genesis 3:21), He established both modesty (covering nakedness) and distinction (different garments for man and woman). Thus, Paul’s instruction to women in 1 Timothy 2 reinforces an Edenic principle that applies to both sexes: God cares not only that we are covered, but that our clothing reflects both modesty and gender distinction.

3. Biblical Precedent and Cultural Application

Biblical modesty must be applied within cultural context. In Paul’s day, a katastolē expressed virtue and self-control. In our day, the specific garment may differ, but the principle stands: clothing should reflect humility, godliness, and distinction between male and female.

Let's Review - From Eden to the Church Age

The story of clothing began in Eden. When Adam and Eve sinned, God Himself provided garments of skins—covering their nakedness with modesty and giving them distinction as man and woman. Though the text does not suggest radically different garments, it does affirm that their coverings were fitted to their created roles and design. From the beginning, clothing has carried both the principle of modesty (covering shame) and distinction (honoring God’s created order).

Centuries later, the Apostle Paul used the term καταστολή (katastolē) to describe how Christian women should “adorn themselves in modest apparel” (1 Tim. 2:9). This word, rooted in στέλλω (stellō)—“to arrange, to restrain, to order”—speaks not only of fabric, but of spirit: clothing that is properly arranged, decent, restrained, and reflective of godly character. In Eden, the arrangement came directly from God’s hand; in the church, Paul called for an arrangement that reflects God’s holiness in both heart and appearance.

Thus, the biblical line runs unbroken:

• In Eden, God clothed humanity to cover shame and preserve distinction.

• In Israel, laws of dress reinforced holiness and gender identity.

• In Christ, women are called to modest apparel (katastolē), clothing that reflects restraint and order flowing from a godly heart (1 Tim. 2:9). Men, likewise, are called to demonstrate restraint in worship, lifting holy hands without wrath or doubting (1 Tim. 2:8). Though the expression differs—apparel for women, demeanor for men—the principle is the same: an outward order that reveals inward submission to God.

Modesty is not a cultural accessory but a creational principle reaffirmed throughout redemptive history. From Eden’s garments of skins to Paul’s call for katastolē, God’s design for clothing has remained constant: to cover shame, to preserve distinction, and to reflect His holiness. Clothing thus becomes more than fabric—it visibly demonstrates the inward reality of a heart ordered under Him.

Platform Expectations: Double Standard or Wise Practice?

Many churches today distinguish between general attendance attire and platform/service attire. For example, a church may welcome women in pants without judgment but require skirts or dresses for ladies (and collared shirts/ties for men) singing in the choir or serving on the platform.

Is this a double standard? Not necessarily. Scripture shows us that those who minister or lead in worship are often called to a higher standard of visible representation. The priests of the Old Testament wore special garments to mark their role (Exod. 28). Similarly, churches may set service guidelines without binding the conscience of every attender.

Problems arise only when such expectations are:

• Elevated to the level of salvation or sanctification (applied legalistically), or

• Applied inconsistently, creating confusion or hypocrisy.

• Implemented without biblical/practical explanation

Handled wisely, this approach allows freedom for attendees while preserving a visible standard for those who serve in leadership.

The Path Forward for Revitalizing Churches

For churches seeking revitalization, the dress code issue cannot be ignored. Women today are less concerned about theology than about whether they will be accepted or judged at the door. Mishandling this question has caused many to turn away from churches that otherwise could have ministered to them.

A few guiding principles may help:

1. Emphasize Heart over Hemline.

2. Set Expectations Graciously. If service attire differs from general attendance attire, explain the reasoning biblically, not legalistically.

3. Avoid Adding to the Gospel. Never let dress become a litmus test for spirituality.

4. Teach Both Genders. Modesty and propriety are for men and women alike.

5. Remember the Mission. Churches exist to reach sinners with the gospel, not to enforce cultural conformity from the 1950s.

6. Teach modesty as a matter of inner character, not external conformity.

Practical Responses to “What is the Dress Code?”

To help pastors and church members answer this question with clarity and grace, here are ready-to-use examples:

1. Grace-First Response

   “We don’t have a strict dress code. We encourage modest, respectful clothing that reflects your heart for God, but there’s no requirement for dresses or skirts. Most importantly, we want you to feel welcome and focus on worshiping the Lord with us.”

2. Practical & Specific

   “For regular Sunday services, you’re welcome to wear what is modest and comfortable. If you are serving on the platform, choir, or in leadership, we have specific attire guidelines that we can explain when you volunteer.”

3. Biblical Principle Focus

   “The Bible calls us to modesty and godly appearance (1 Tim. 2:9). How that looks can vary by culture and context. We encourage clothing that is respectful and modest, but we do not require dresses or skirts for regular attendance.”

4. Heart & Mission Emphasis

   “What matters most to us is your heart for Christ, not what you wear. We simply ask that clothing is modest and respectful. If you’re serving on the platform, we can give you specific guidance, but for coming to worship, you are free to dress in a way that is comfortable for you.”

5. Encouraging Newcomers

   “We want you to feel at home here. Modesty is the only standard we ask for, but your outfit isn’t a test of faith. Come as you are, and worship with us!”

6. Straightforward Clarity

   "My answer is simple:   I do not tell adults how to dress, but biblically we encourage common modesty.   Clothes that cover but that do not cling." 

7. Pastoral Assurance

   “Our focus is the gospel, not your outfit. Modesty is the goal, but we welcome anyone who comes to worship God sincerely. There is no specific/standard attire for regular services.”

8. Directive Answer -

My answer is "Dress to worship God.  We don't have a dress code per se, but we remind our ladies to dress in a way that pleases God, not mankind."

The question, “What’s the dress code?” reflects cultural shifts, historical baggage, and fear of judgment. Churches can answer with clarity, grace, and biblical fidelity. From Eden’s tunics to Paul’s teaching on katastolē, Scripture provides timeless guidance: clothing should reflect modesty, godliness, and gender distinction.

Handled wisely, churches can welcome modern women, maintain biblical principles, and remove barriers that hinder participation—all while keeping the gospel as the ultimate priority. No one needs to be hurt, demeaned, or marginalized over this issue.

___________________

1. William H. Brackney, A Genetic History of Baptist Thought: With Special Reference to Baptists in Britain and North America (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 2004), 212–213.

2. Amelia Bloomer, The Lily, 1851–1853; cited in “Amelia Bloomer Didn’t Mean to Start a Fashion Revolution, But Her Name Became Synonymous With Trousers,” Smithsonian Magazine, May 24, 2018, https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/amelia-bloomer-didnt-mean-start-fashion-revolution-her-name-became-synonymous-trousers-180969164/.

3. “Shorter Skirts and Shoulder Pads: How World War II Changed Women’s Fashion,” National Archives Prologue Magazine, September 8, 2014, https://prologue.blogs.archives.gov/2014/09/08/shorter-skirts-and-shoulder-pads-how-world-war-ii-changed-womens-fashion/.

4. Madge’s Hat Box. “Dietrich, Hepburn, Keaton – Actresses Who Made Menswear Chic.” Accessed August 22, 2025. https://madgeshatbox.com/dietrich-hepburn-keaton-actresses-who-made-menswear-chic/?srsltid=AfmBOorIfoiV0hgRoCUvemKLzjsr1YeEFPagL3zFehM_3bdD2bqn8Kj3

5. Nancy F. Cott, The Grounding of Modern Feminism (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1987), 155–160.

6. Genesis 3:21 (KJV).

7. 1 Timothy 2:9 (KJV).

8. William D. Mounce, Mounce’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old & New Testament Words (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2006), 1194.