Apparel, Slacks, Hosiery, Black Stockings
From: Survivor Rites ~UNBROKEN: Evolution of Rules for Women in the 2×2 Workers’ Church with Cherie Kropp and Crystal Stiles Mandt, June 10, 2026
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gOiVZby-o1I
My name is Cherie (Berry) Kropp. I was born and raised in the 2×2 Church, third generation. I inherited my beliefs from my parents without question and professed at age 13. I grew up on the Jackson, Mississippi convention grounds and attended meetings in California, Mississippi, Texas and Oklahoma until I left in 1990. I’m married to Ex-2×2 Chester Ehrig and we currently live in North Texas.
My purpose in giving these interviews is to enable listeners to better understand the difference between the Commandments of God and the Traditions of Men. Commandments are doctrine; traditions are human rules.
In Part 1, I talked about the traditions surrounding makeup and jewelry for women. In this Part 2 of 3, I’ll focus on 2×2 rules for women’s apparel—especially when the taboo against women wearing slacks began, why it developed, and why I believe it is also a Tradition of Men. Also, I’ll talk about hosiery and black stockings; and next week, I’ll discuss hair.
We all understand what a Commandment of God is. However, in the 2×2 church, many rules have been presented as Commandments of God when they are not. They are Traditions of Men—many of them carried over from the Victorian Era.
Jesus condemned this when He said, Why do you transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? … In vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men (Matthew 15:3–9)
By Traditions of Men, I mean nonessential practices the Bible does not explicitly command, endorse, or forbid. They are man-made, extra-biblical rules—preferences presented as doctrine—and have no eternal consequence.
Traditions of Men are also often called legalism. Legalism is the belief that salvation comes through Jesus’ sacrifice plus human effort—such as following specific rules, traditions, or behaviors originated by men and enforced as though they were divine commands. Legalism replaces the guidance of the Holy Spirit with the rules of men. In that sense, the 2×2 church is legalistic: its leaders have legislated many manmade rules that are not God’s commandments.
1. Crystal: What were the dress styles of worldly women when William Irvine started this church?
Cherie [Background]: The church was formed during the Victorian era. Queen Victoria became Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland at age 18. She reigned for 64 years, from 1837 until 1901, and died at age 81. That period is known as the Victorian Era, and the people of that time are often referred to as Victorians.
In the United Kingdom, the reigning monarch strongly influences fashion and etiquette. Victorian women copied their queen’s preferences in clothing. For respectable women, daytime dress meant being fully covered except for the face: high necklines, long sleeves, floor-length dresses, and black stockings. Bare arms during the day were considered improper. Modesty ruled.
It’s important to note that this was daytime public attire. In the Victorian Era, women’s dress codes depended heavily on the time of day. Contrary to their daytime ensembles, women’s evening attire was vastly different.
For formal evening events throughout the Victorian era—galas, operas, and dinner parties—women wore ballgowns with low-cut bodices, very short sleeves, or even off-the-shoulder sleeves. Evening etiquette required women to cover their arms with long white gloves, often called opera gloves. Exposed shoulders and cleavage were acceptable in a ballroom, but not on the street or during the daytime.
Rules about how much of the human body may properly be displayed—often called Rules of Propriety or Laws of Decency—vary by culture and custom. Countries, states, schools, religions, churches, and social groups all develop their own standards of modesty.
2. Crystal: What are the 2×2 dress standards for females?
Cherie: Brother Worker Ken Paginton summarized the worker church dress standard this way: Fashions change and hardly ever last longer than some years. There is no change of standard in God’s kingdom. Our standard is modesty and moderation.
Those are the two words most commonly used to describe 2×2 women’s dress standards: modestand moderate. Their usual scriptural basis is this:
Women are to adorn themselves in modest apparel (1 Tim. 2:9), and to let your moderation be known unto all men (Phil. 4:5). Note: the Philippians verse does not refer to clothing.
Many friends and workers view compliance with 2×2 dress standards as a measure of godliness—a litmus test for virtue, an index of character, and a sign of submission to both the workers and God.
3. Crystal: Tell us more about what those two words mean.
Cherie: Looking closely into Scripture, we find that the word modest appears only once in the New Testament, in Paul’s instruction to women. Other Bible translations render it as appropriate, respectable, sensible, proper, decent, suitable, or seemly. I prefer the word appropriate. Paul’s instruction could be paraphrased: Let the women wear appropriate clothing.
In many situations, slacks actually safeguard a woman’s modesty. Forbidding slacks can make a woman immodestly dressed for the activity or environment she is in. Sometimes it is most INappropriate for a woman not to wear slacks.
The word moderation also appears only once in the New Testament. Some workers have defined moderation as not dressing to get attention. But in Vine’s Dictionary of Greek Words (Strong’s No. 1933), it is defined as reasonable. It does not apply specifically to women’s dress or to the idea of always staying in the middle of the road.
Aside from those two verses, there are no biblical directives governing women’s outer appearance. Scripture repeatedly points us to what’s inside–in the heart. As Samuel wrote, For man looks on the outward appearance, but the Lord looks on the heart (1 Sam. 16:7).
Two common 2×2 expressions are: If you are right on the inside, it will show on the outside, and A woman’s appearance is an outward sign of an inward choice. But outward appearance does not automatically reveal the inner condition. A woman with long hair can be filled with pride, anger, or envy, while a woman wearing slacks can be manifesting the fruit of the Spirit.
Consider the industrious virtuous woman in Proverbs 31. Only two things are said about her apparel: first, the fabric and color—fine linen and purple—and second, that strength and honor are her clothing. You can’t get much more virtuous than that. Whatever she wore while doing all those virtuous activities was apparently appropriate—and not particularly unusual.
One way to tell whether a requirement is a Commandment of God or a Tradition of Men is to ask, What is the scripture for this practice? If there is a sound scriptural basis, it will most likely be given. But if there is no scriptural basis, the answer often becomes evasive—diversions, appeals to authority, and even attacks on the questioner’s character.
Key Point: There are no rightly interpreted scriptural rules for women’s apparel. Therefore, workers’ rules and standards for women’s apparel are Traditions of Men, based on Workers’ redefinitions of the words modesty and moderation.
4. Crystal: Some girls and women have been taught to dress so they would not tempt men. Is there a Scripture for this?
Cherie [Tempting Men]: This fear-based idea has been infused into the workers’ definition of modesty from 1 Timothy 2:9, where women are told to adorn themselves in modest apparel. Some have taught that it is a female’s duty to dress in such a way that prevents male temptation, especially for brother workers. Modesty teaching often begins with very young girls being told to keep their dresses down so their bloomers don’t show; at puberty, the focus shifts to covering their chests. The focus becomes: conceal, do not reveal.
As a result, some women and girls have been taught to dress ultra-modestly in order to avoid appearing alluring or causing men to stumble. However, a girl or woman simply existing in their body is not the same thing as intentionally placing a stumbling block before someone. An example from Tommy Gamble, Overseer of Ireland: I thought of the fashion of Heaven…modest apparel. That means that the women would hide themselves in their clothing and not display too much of the flesh.
Rather than holding men accountable for themselves, some girls and women are taught that they are responsible for men’s thoughts, desires, actions, and even salvation. That perspective can oversexualize young girls and may lead them to believe their bodies are dangerous. The emphasis on downplaying girls’ and women’s appearance has left many with negatives, including low self-esteem, lack of confidence, and arrested sexual development.
This hypervigilance has become embedded in the workers’ definition of modesty. In turn, women’s clothing choices are restricted by fear—fear of causing a male to sin. Personal preference, practicality, and comfort often become secondary to that fear-based standard.
Women and girls are conditioned to submit to male leaders who claim authority over them. Therefore, men are the ultimate definers of modesty, the judges of compliance, and the ones who dispense correction when their definition is violated. This framework also gives men a ready excuse when they sin: blame the female. This is part of what is commonly called purity culture.
The standard of dress for women is often mentioned at Conventions. Brother workers suggest that 2×2 women should emulate the sister workers in their appearance; that they are models and examples of appropriate women’s appearance. This suggestion is received by some women with eye rolls and is viewed as ludicrous and not many closely follow it. Some naturally attractive sister workers have sacrificed their natural beauty to conform to this 2×2 notion of modesty.
A sister worker once said it was up to women and girls to look and dress in a way that keeps the Brother Workers on the straight and narrow. That is an expression of fear, not faith—as though restricting women’s clothing is what keeps men from being distracted. By interpreting Scripture through fear, they miss the opportunity to trust the Holy Spirit to help men govern their own thoughts and actions.
The Holy Spirit has been promised to guide believers—men and women—who are wholly subject to God. Both are responsible for acting honorably in every situation. Women are not responsible for men’s actions. When a man sins, it is his responsibility. No exceptions. No Yes, but… No Adam-like excuse: The woman, she… Men have no one to blame but themselves.
For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to what he has done, whether it be good or bad. (2 Cor 5:10)
Jesus’ solution for a man lusting after a woman was not to regulate the woman’s clothing. He said, If your right eye [or hand] causes you to sin, pluck it out [cut it off] and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell (Matthew 5:28–30).
5. Crystal: World War I brought about massive lifestyle shifts. What were some that affected the workers’ church and women?
Cherie [Slacks]: During World War I—and again during World War II— one significant change was that many women many began working outside the home in order to support their families. They filled jobs traditionally done by men who had gone to war, working in factories, on farms, as postal carriers, and in other fields. As they did, many began wearing slacks to work. In this presentation, I use the term slacks which are also known as pants, trousers, britches, jeans, shorts, capris, pedal pushers, clam diggers, etc.
Until then, in the United Kingdom, it was generally considered vulgar for a woman to wear slacks, except in certain activities like horseback riding, where ankle-length split skirts were acceptable.
With women’s new roles, dress codes relaxed. Women needed practical, flexible, looser work clothing. Some jobs required uniforms with slacks. They also abandoned tight corsets, especially as wartime shortages affected the metal used in them. The first brassiere was patented in the United States in 1914. Skirts became shorter, with hemlines rising to about eight inches above the ground and revealing ankles and stockings—something that had previously been considered scandalous.
Fabric rationing also influenced women’s fashion: slimmer skirts, fewer frills, and more practical clothing. The shirtwaist ensemble became a staple for many working women. A shirtwaist is a blouse tailored like a men’s dress shirt, buttoned in front and tucked into the waist of a skirt or slacks. That style is still worn today.
6. Crystal: When hemlines went up, that made the women’s black stockings visible. Photos from the early days show 2×2 women wearing them. What can you tell us about that?
Cherie [Black Stockings]: When the 2×2 church began, black lisle cotton stockings were the most common and practical daytime legwear for respectable women. Under long skirts, they were usually not visible. And these stockings were thick—more like leggings today, not like sheer black nylons. Nylon had not yet been invented.
Segue to 2×2 women: In the early days, 2×2 women did not stand out as peculiar in hosiery, hemlines, or shoes. When the first sister workers came to North America and other English-speaking countries in the early 1900s, they wore black stockings, no makeup, and upswept hair. They instructed female converts to copy their hair and dress styles. In that way, Victorian styles were carried abroad by early sister workers.
Then, during World War I, as hemlines rose above the ankle and women’s legs and stockings became visible, many worldly women began wearing flesh-colored or gray stockings. However, the workers in some areas instructed 2×2 women to continue wearing black stockings as usual—to avoid adopting worldly fashions and to not do as the world does.
Eastern U.S. overseer George Walker favored black stockings. His reason was that black was furthermost from the flesh color that many of us believed was unbecoming to ‘women professing godliness.’ He also claimed that wearing black stockings was not a condition of fellowship. Nevertheless, many 2×2 women believed they were.
Jack Carroll, Overseer of Western U.S. remarked, We don’t like to see any wearing stockings so closely like having no stockings on at all.
Black Stocking Abuse: The tradition of 2×2 women wearing black stockings continued long after flesh-colored hosiery had become the accepted norm for women almost everywhere. Eventually, 2×2 women wearing black stockings stood out as bizarre or eccentric. Some called them crows. The church was nicknamed the Black Stocking Gang, the Black Stocking Religion, and even the Black Sock Church. The FBI investigated the Black Stockings twice during WW II, in 1942 and 1943.
My late mother, Dot Berry, was born in 1923. She, her mother, and her three sisters were victims of Black Stocking Abuse. She told me that women who were willing to wear black stockings were considered to be more spiritually mature. And those who did not wear them were viewed as without understanding.
Excerpt from my Mother’s memories of the Black Stocking Era:
When I professed a few months before my 15th birthday, I knew I’d have to conform to the outward standards and ‘suffer for His sake.’ Getting to Heaven and Black Stockings were a package deal. As a young teenager [mid 1930s], I thought that this was required for my salvation.
My sisters and I believed by wearing Black Stockings we were pleasing God—although we HATED what we had to do to please Him. We took comfort in the fact that we knew we would be saved and there would be a pay-off someday.
I can’t begin to explain how much I dreaded changing over to those hideous Black Stockings. I waited until AFTER I graduated from high school when I was 17, to don the color Black. It was a very black day for me.
My sisters and I were totally unprepared to face the remarks, the rejection, the questions, the slights, snubs, etc. we received from ‘those of the world.’ Most young girls enjoy going shopping–not US. We HATED it. Shopping took a lot of courage because we were often questioned and usually were gawked at as though we were some sort of freaks. Some turned around to stare at us. Others snickered as we passed them on the street. Sometimes, I was so overcome with embarrassment that I would have liked for the floor to open and swallow me up.
We were even treated differently by clerks in the stores; they would sometimes wait on others before us–even when we were there first. We were often ignored and prejudiced against in the same way some ethnic groups were; considered sub-standard human beings-–beneath others.
7. Crystal: What was the catalyst? Why did workers finally stop requiring Black Stockings?
Cherie: I don’t know for sure. One report credits Sister Worker May Carroll with helping end the Black Stockings Era in the Western US. She was the sister of two overseers, Bill Carroll in Victoria, Australia, and Jack Carroll in the Western US. In a 1931 photo, May is not wearing black stockings, while her cousin Minnie Christie is. So sometime before 1931, May apparently told her brothers she was no longer going to wear black stockings. What could they do? Others followed her example in Australia and the Western U.S.
In the Eastern US, my mother was known to say, It took World War II to bring the Black Stocking Era to an end. Servicemen and their wives who were not wearing Black Stockings were sent to states where women were wearing them. And some wives who were wearing them were sent to states where 2×2 women did not wear them. My mother’s oldest sister, Louise Montgomery, went to California wearing Black Stockings and reported back to the family in Mississippi that women there did not wear them—so she happily stopped wearing them.
Naturally, this caused shock, discontent, and cognitive dissonance in the East. Gradually, women quit wearing them. My mother and her younger sister Virginia Ott were the first women in Mississippi to change to gunmetal gray stockings. What rebels they were! You can see where I got it from.
FINALLY, in the Eastern US, George Walker backed off. He set the women free. News went viral! This victorious transition period was called The Change.
My mother wrote: I NEVER got used to wearing Black Stockings in public. I hated them right up until the day I took them off for good and threw them away. I remember the day I changed over.
The first day I didn’t wear Black Stockings to work, I happily walked down the sidewalk looking at my reflection in the store windows. I was awed by my own legs! They weren’t black! I stared at them for several blocks to and from the bus stop, as though it were a dream come true. The nightmare was finally over.
All that suffering was unnecessary and uncalled for—manufactured suffering created by men’s traditions. A wise woman once said: God is glorified through suffering brought upon us because of our faithfulness to Christ, not by what we bring upon ourselves through our attempts to prove our faithfulness.
The Black Stocking Abuse is similar to the ongoing hardship and suffering some women are enduring from workers outlandishly long prohibition on women wearing slacks.
After World War II, with the invention of nylon in 1939, the manufacturers slacked off making black cotton stockings—the supply ran out. 2×2 women were forced to change—except for a few die-hards who dyed flesh color hose black and continued wearing them until they died.
A search on the Expressions website (https://Ex2x2.info)of “Black Stockings” will bring up three memoirs by people who experienced the Black Stocking Abuse Era, including a more detailed account by my mother.
Truly, Black Stockings were a Tradition of Men—with absolutely no biblical support. Some workers said they were more modest, a way to be a vessel set apart, different or peculiar, a way to suffer persecution, or a way to die to self. Brother workers manufactured suffering for women and then told them they were fortunate to suffer that way—that it would go to their heavenly credit. But the main reason was stubborn attachment to precedent: This is how it was done from the beginning. Their women wore Black Stockings at their start. Queen Victoria did it. It had always been done that way.
Some workers have admitted that requiring women to wear Black Stockings long after styles changed was a mistake. A mistake? It was a hard-hearted abuse by men who were guilty of binding heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and laying them on women’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers (Mat. 23:4).
Unfortunately, it appears the workers did not learn from that mistake. Now history is repeating itself when women are required to wear skirts only and slacks are treated as off-limits. How is that different from requiring women to wear Black Stockings?
8. Crystal: What is the world history of women wearing slacks?
Cherie: For centuries in the Western world, women generally covered the lower half of their bodies with a garment that had one opening for both legs—a dress or skirt. Men wore bifurcated garments, meaning garments divided into two parts for the legs: slacks, pants, trousers, or britches.
During World War II, it became increasingly common for women working in factories or doing other forms of men’s work to wear slacks. Because of clothing rationing, many women wore their husbands’ or brothers’ civilian clothes, including trousers. These were practical work garments that helped women stretch limited clothing allowances. As those garments wore out, replacements were needed.
By the summer of 1944, sales of women’s slacks were reportedly five times higher than the previous year. After the war, slacks became acceptable for women at home and in public for practical activities such as gardening, fishing, camping, sports, and the beach—often because they preserved modesty better than skirts.
Then came the Pantsuit Revolution. In the 1960s, long slacks for women were introduced as a fashion item. In the 1970s, women’s pantsuits—slacks with a coordinating jacket—helped make slacks acceptable decorum for respectable women in public, at work and in dressier settings.
Like Queen Victoria in the United Kingdom, American First Ladies often set trends for respectability in the United States. Jackie Kennedy wore slacks for leisure in the early 1960s, though not for public appearances. In 1972, Pat Nixon became the first First Lady to wear slacks in public. In 1993, US Senator Carol Moseley Braun caused a stir by wearing an Armani pantsuit to work, and other women followed. Dress codes in legislative settings were later amended, and pantsuits became acceptable attire. In 2004, Hillary Clinton became the first First Lady to wear slacks in an official First Lady portrait. When America’s most visible, respectable women wore slacks in public, clearly, slacks were respectable.
By the Millennium, worldly women were wearing slacks and jeans far more than skirts and dresses.
9. Crystal: So what were 2×2 women doing during this time regarding slacks?
Cherie: During and after World War II, some 2×2 women wore slacks for certain activities where modesty or practicality required them—but not in public, not by personal choice for work, and certainly not to meeting. When worldly women began wearing slacks to office jobs in the early 1970s, the workers balked. Their women professing godliness were not to wear bifurcated garments in public—in other words, slacks.
Some workers said things like: We don’t believe it is godly for women to dress in pants, and Unisex fashion is contrary to God’s order. California overseer Eldon Tenniswood said that if an activity required slacks for modesty, then women should deny themselves that pleasure. Another worker said, As long as women’s restrooms are designated by a picture of a skirted woman, professing females are to continue to wear skirts.
My first serious disagreement with church rules happened before I professed. During the first week of seventh grade, when I was 12, I told my mother that I needed a pair of shorts for P.E.[Physical Education]. I had never worn shorts in my life.
That innocent statement became a turning point. It started me to question our beliefs. Little did I know I had just begun a collision course where I would often battle traditions and inconsistencies in the church—rules that had no Bible basis.
Brother worker Stanley March overheard me and said that if he had a daughter, she would certainly never put on a pair of shorts. But P.E. was required. I was mortified at the thought of being the only girl wearing a skirt. Teenagers desperately want to fit in and not stand out as odd. I agonized over it.
Salvation comes in unusual packages. Volunteers were needed to serve food in the school cafeteria, and cafeteria workers were exempt from P.E. I jumped at the chance and worked in the cafeteria from seventh through twelfth grade. I was fortunate.
I passed up going on our Senior Trip to the Gulf Coast, because I would have been the only girl who wasn’t wearing shorts on a beach. Ironically, I was allowed to wear a swimsuit in public. Although I knew some women in Louisiana who had to wear a skirt pinned together between their legs when they went swimming (in lakes—not worldly public pools).
Sadly, I have heard many humiliating stories from girls who were not as fortunate as I was—girls who suffered the shame and embarrassment of taking Physical Education (P.E.) in a dress. I’ve also heard from girls and women in frigid climates who had to wear pants under their dresses while walking to school, riding the bus, or going outdoors, and who had to stuff skirts into snow pants. Many felt ashamed and agonized over being treated as odd or strange.
Years later, my mother told me that if she could re-parent my childhood, she would do many things differently. That statement went a long way toward dissolving my bitterness. I heartily encourage parents who laid heavy burdens similar to these on their daughters to tell them that, to apologize. It is never too late.
10. Crystal: Did Jesus say anything about women’s clothing?
Cherie: Jesus did not give any clothing rules for His followers. He did not imply, I must increase, and you must look hopelessly out of style. Neither Jesus nor Paul intended professing women to look peculiar or different from other respectable women in their culture. Even after Jesus became well known, He could still disappear into a crowd. That would not have been possible if He had dressed peculiarly or if His clothing and appearance had been unlike those of ordinary men.
What is acceptable and respectable in fashion is determined by culture, not by God. God did not command specific fashion styles for men and women. If He had, perhaps we would all still be dressing like Adam and Eve. We are not told that God made trousers for Adam and a skirt for Eve. If there was any distinction between their garments, it was so insignificant that Scripture does not mention it. Does God really care if a woman’s garment has one or two openings her legs?
The Bible says God is a Spirit and must be worshiped in spirit. How could a woman worship God more spiritually because of the way her clothing contains her legs—with one opening or two? That is majoring in the minors—magnifying a pinecone into a pine tree. To think God cares about such minutiae is to fall into the same trap as the Galatians, to whom Paul asked, Are you so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, are you now made perfect by the flesh? (Gal. 3:3).
11. Crystal: What did Jewish women wear when Jesus was on Earth?
Cherie [Tunic]: In American culture, dresses and skirts are generally considered women’s apparel. But in Jesus’ day, the tunic—very similar in shape to a dress—was worn by both men and women.
A tunic was a loose, versatile garment with one opening for the head, two openings for the arms, and one opening at the bottom for the legs. Lengths varied from above the knees to floor-length, and a tie-belt held it close to the body. People wore both inner and outer garments of similar shape; the outer garment was often called a mantle or robe.
Men’s and women’s tunics were very similar in style and had the same openings. However, women’s garments could be distinguished by embroidery, patterns, colors, fabrics, ornaments, shawls, and other details. They were personalized.
For the past 65 years in American and British culture, slacks have been acceptable and respectable attire for both women and men—much like the tunic was acceptable for both sexes in Bible days.
Key Point: So if it was acceptable for men and women to wear similarly constructed garments in Bible times, is it reasonable to declare it unacceptable for women to wear slacks today?
12. Crystal: Isn’t there a Bible verse about women wearing men’s clothes?
Cherie: Yes. Deuteronomy 22:5 says, 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.
California brother worker Dan Hilton’s used this verse as the reason women should not wear slacks: It’s abominable to the Lord when a woman dresses in men’s clothes.
But that Old Testament verse did not refer to clothing specifically manufactured to fit a female body. It addressed cross-dressing—wearing clothing in order to appear as the opposite sex. At that time, both men and women wore tunics, with a single opening for legs. Cross-dressing was also associated with certain heathen worship practices.
God made clear that such practices were not acceptable in worshiping Him. That law applied to specific people in a specific time and context. Interestingly, the word skirt appears in Scripture many times in reference to men, including Saul, Boaz, Aaron, priests, Ezekiel, and the Jews.
Workers claim to follow the teachings of the New Testament. Yet they take this one verse from a list of Old Testament laws for Jews, remove it from its context, and misapply it to women in the 20th and 21st centuries in order to support a Tradition of Men as though it were a universal Commandment of God.
At the same time, they ignore other commands in the same chapter, such as not wearing garments made of mixed fabrics, putting tassels on the four corners of a cloak, and not planting two kinds of seed in a vineyard.
When worldly women first began wearing slacks in public, we might assume the overseers searched their Bibles for guidance. They found only this one Old Testament verse and read into it what they wanted it to mean—a method called eisegesis. They propped up their preference with a misinterpreted verse taken out of context.
Other weak excuses have included: slacks are a worldly fad; women are to be different or peculiar; and women don’t sit ladylike when wearing pants.
The No-Slacks Rule is not a biblical command. It is Victorian. In the Victorian Era, it was scandalous for a woman to wear slacks in public. In 2x2ism, that Victorian idea has continued through the years as though it were doctrine.
Key Point: One of the Workers’ Golden Rules is to try to keep things the way they were in their beginning, and their beginning was in the Victorian Era around 1900.There is no women’s dress code in the New Testament.
13. Crystal: Do you think the workers will rescind the no slacks rule? Will The Change happen where slacks become OK–like it did for the Black Stockings?
Cherie: It would be to their credit if the workers apologized and publicly retracted the rule, as Hubert Childers did in Ohio regarding his cruel rule that 2×2 women should not wear wedding rings. But what are the chances?
History shows that many/most? authoritarian governments have collapsed when the ordinary people simply refused to comply any longer.
I believe the no-slacks rule will eventually disappear through noncompliance: when women refuse to follow it any longer; when they stop submitting to manmade rules of men who claim to be spirit-led.
When courageous women like my mother and aunt became the first in Mississippi to stop wearing black stockings, they helped start The Change in the Eastern US. Likewise, when courageous 2×2 women begin wearing slacks to meetings and conventions, the news will spread—and the rule will begin to disappear.
When women take a stand: Since there is no Scripture, there is no good reason for me not to wear slacks. Therefore, it is unreasonable to expect me to not wear them. From now on, I will allow the indwelling Holy Spirit to guide how I dress and behave. I will no longer submit to men’s unbiblical traditions.
Actually, The Change began a few years before and after the millennium, when many 2×2 females—especially younger ones—began disregarding the workers’ rules against slacks, jeans, shorts, and similar clothing. Since Covid and the increased awareness of CSA and SA, some 2×2 women have been courageous enough to wear slacks publicly: to meeting, to convention preparations, around workers, and to work, especially teachers and women in health professions.
Fast forward several years: perhaps the workers will look back and say, Our insistence that women not wear slacks was a mistake—just as some have said about requiring women to wear Black Stockings.
14. Crystal: What Last Words would you like to leave with our listeners?
Cherie: To the women and girls, I recommend:
Make it your business to know what you believe and why.
Ask the Holy Spirit to guide you into all truth (John 16:13) and to keep you from being deceived.
Study so you can discern essential doctrine from nonessential tradition.
Review and re-evaluate the rules—the Traditions of Men—that you have been following.
Take back your right and authority to choose what is right for you.
Jettison legalistic rules binding women when those rules are not Bible-based. They are all for nothing, as the verse says:
But in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men. (Matthew 15:9)
I highly recommend reading this short 61-page book.
Women’s Adornment: What Does the Bible Really Say?
by Ralph Woodrow. Very detailed and informative!
6 Chapters, one each for: slacks, jewelry, cosmetics, head coverings, cutting hair, modest apparel.
Available on Amazon: https://amzn.to/4dLQhcN
Go to Part 3 Long Hair and Body Hair
Go to Part 1 Makeup and Jewelry
RESOURCES
Rules for 2×2 Women
Traditions: The Unwritten Rules, Chapters 34-35 of my book:
Preserving the Truth (order book here:)Author website: http://cheriekroppehrig.com
History of 2×2 Traditions: The Unwritten Rules
The unabridged version is posted on TTT at:
https://tellingthetruth.info/history_articles/rules-history.php
(condensed version is in my book)
Book: Women’s Adornment: What Does the Bible Really Say?
By Ralph Woodrow. EXCELLENT! Very detailed and informative!
6 Chapters, one each for: slacks, jewelry, cosmetics, head coverings, cutting hair, apparel
Available on Amazon: https://amzn.to/4dLQhcN
Cherie Kropp’s Life Story
https://ex2x2.info/2020/11/08/kropp-cherie-berry/
Women Professing Godliness: Does God REALLY Care about Women’s Appearances?
https://ex2x2.info/2020/11/11/women-professing-godliness/
Expressions by Ex-2x2s Website: https://Ex2x2.info
Search Ex2x2.info for “Black Stockings” – read 3 memoirs
Black Stockings by Dot Berry
https://ex2x2.info/2020/11/11/black-stockings-by-dot-berry/
“On Holy Ground” by Dot Berry (life on Jackson, Mississippi Convention grounds)
https://ex2x2.info/2020/11/06/berry-dot/
Modern Millinery Etiquette (Delightful article!)
https://lady.co.uk/modern-millinery-etiquette
8 Rules of Interpretation
https://www.gcfchurch.net/resources/eight-rules-of-interpretation
Questions about Questioning:
Questioning: Is It Wrong to Question?
https://ex2x2.info/2020/11/12/is-it-wrong-to-question/
Questioning: Why You SHOULD Ask Questions
https://ex2x2.info/2020/11/12/why-you-should-ask-questions/
Before You Ask (how to recognize and confront fallacious reasoning)
https://ex2x2.info/before-you-ask/
Part 2_6-10-26.docx