Split: Your Views... Women Wearing Pants

[LadyKay]

 

I think my issue with this is that it is a "man" telling me a "women" what they can and can not do. If your a women,and you think that you should only wear dresses, then fine, I am okay with that. But for a "man" to tell me that I am sinning because I am wearing pants. Well I take issue with that. Now I am dieing to see what you think about hair cuts.

Do you have equal outrage that women in the group "Concerned Women For America" are attacking men in skirts?  If you are interested, there is a web-site called "A Christian Home," and you will find a woman telling women they shouldn't wear pants and giving links to places they can find conservative dresses.  There was a Catholic lady that was running a web-site standing against women in pants.  I am not sure if it is still active?  I know a Baptist preacher whose wife is stronger against women in pants than he is.  He was open to letting their daughter wear pants to school, and it was his wife that wouldn't allow it. 

 

If you want to know my view on hair cuts, read 1 Corinthians.  I hold to the Biblical view that it is a shame for men to have long hair, and for women to have short hair.  That is what the Bible says, so that is what I believe. 

 

http://www.achristianhome.org

 

 

I do not know who the "Concerned Women For America" are. But if this is the way they think,it seems to me they need to be minding their own business. As for the mother who won't let her daughter wear pants to school, well she is her mother after all; and who am I to tell her how to raise her kid? But really, I just don't have the time to go around and tell other people how they should be dressing. It is more important to be showing the love of Christ to people then telling them they are going to hell for how they dress and how they wear their hair.

 

Let me tell you a story. When I was a kid my grandma who was from the south went to a Baptist church.They had a rule that all females had to wear dresses to their church.  I would visit with my grandma in the summer. I would purposely forget to pack a dress in my suitcase because I did not want to go to church.  All I would have to say was "opps , I forgot my dress" and I would get out of going. Later on the church changed that rule because they realized it was more important to get people to come into the church and hear the word of the Lord then to shun them away because of what they are wearing.

Edited August 30, 2013 by LadyKay

[LadyKay]

 

Personally, I don't believe in drinking blood.  That practice is forbidden.

 It would also make you a vampire.

[nebula]

As for the Mennonite girl, I am not sure that is typical of what they usually wear?  Just because you saw one woman with a head covering like Mennonite women traditionally wear, that doesn't necessarily mean she was Mennonite.  There are a lot of groups where the women wear head coverings.  I travel through Mennonite country a lot, in Indiana and Ohio, and can't recall ever seeing a true Mennonite lady dressed like that?  They all wear home made dresses.  If not for the head covering, that sounds typical of how some Independent Baptist ladies in my area might dress?  It may have been a Beachy Amish woman, as they are actually a cross between Baptist and Mennonite? 

 

Mennonites come in different "flavors" if you will. Some are stricter, some are more liberal (lenient). That is, some are very similar to the Amish with strict attire and technology practices, others wear modern (though conservative) clothes, many are somewhere in between.

 

I went to a Christian college in Pennsylvania not far from Lancaster county, so I was exposed to the Mennonite culture this way. So I can say with fair certainty she was a Mennonite.

 

The point being, she was wearing a Mennonite head covering and a skirt because "pants pertaineth to a man," but it was OK for her to wear a t-shirt.

 

Why are pants alone regarded as some sort of sacred male garment?

[TsukinoRei]

 

 

 

I have already addressed some of this.  It is all rather simple.  The law of Moses was comprised of three types of laws.  1  Laws of separation  2  Laws Concerning the order Of The Levitical Priesthood  3  Moral Laws. 

 

 

The mixed fabric law was one to show separation between Israel and the idol worshipping gentile nations, so it doesn't apply to us.  We were those gentiles but we are no longer unclean. 

 

The vision of Peter was not just about food.  I am glad you noticed that.  The reason why Israel was to abstain from certain foods was as a sign of separation.  Now that the gentiles were made clean by the blood of Jesus, they are no longer separate, but there is one body.  We are engrafted into the same spiritual tree with Israel, so the symbolism has changed.  Now all foods are clean.  That is why we are free to eat pork.

 

Circumcision was another sign of separation given to the Jews.  How do I know this?  This is rather simple too.  Have you ever noticed how many sins are mentioned in the NT, and it is said that those who commit them shall not inherit the Kingdom of Heaven?  These are actually laws.  If the law was done away with, we could do anything we want and inherit God's Kingdom, because scripture says, "Where there is no law, there is no transgression."  The laws that apply today are those pertaining to God's standard of holiness.  It is not so much that part of the law was done away with, but some parts were only to take us to the cross.  We don't have the Levitical Priesthood in place anymore, as Christ's one time death paid the penalty for any sin we can commit.  Instead of sacrificing an animal, we simply confess our sins, and the blood of Jesus washes us clean. 

 

It would be like this.  I write a bill, and in this bill, there are temporary measures in place to get things started.  The bill passes, and is not repealed, but when a certain date rolls around, parts no longer apply, because there are long term things in place to keep the law going.  That is how this works. 

 

 

I'm sorry Butero.  I tried to give the thread a thorough read before I responded.  If I missed your answers to some of the above then it was not my intention to ask you to repeat yourself.

 

   So, your answer to the question: Given Deut 1-12 is all one list of laws, how do you decide which laws are applicable today and which ones are not?  Your answer is that if it is mentioned in the New Testament than it remains under the New Covenant, if I understand you correctly.   

 

What do you think it means when Paul writes that ALL THINGS are permissible?  

What does it mean when Titus says.

 

"pay no attention to Jewish myths or to the merely human commands of those who reject the truth. To the pure, all things are pure, but to those who are corrupted and do not believe, nothing is pure."

 

 

Why did he say ALL THINGS here again, rather than specify just circumcision here?  Why do you think is there no concise list in the New Testament of what laws still apply under the New Covenant?

 

Do you also believe that a woman should not speak in Church, and that a woman should not be permitted to teach?  Most Churches have mostly female Sunday School Teachers.  A growing number of Churches have female pastors and female worship leaders.  Most Churches have female board members.  Are all of these Churches failing in holiness standards by your conviction?

 

 

"...the women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says. If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church." 1 Corinthians 14:34-35

"Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. I permit no woman to teach or have authority over men; she is to keep silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet woman will be saved through bearing children, if she continues in faith and love and holiness, with modesty." 1 Timothy 2:11-15

 

 

 

Is slavery the ideal in the Godly home?  Was it wrong to abolish slavery in America?

 

 

 

"Wives, be subject to your husband, as is fitting in the Lord. Husbands, love your wives, and do not be harsh with them. Children, obey your parents in everything, for this pleases the Lord. Fathers, do not provoke your children, lest they become discouraged. Slaves, obey in everything those who are your earthly masters, not with eyeservice, as men-pleasers, but in singleness of heart, fearing the Lord." Colossians 3:18-22

 

My position is not that something has to be repeated in the NT to be valid.  I spent a great deal of time in the law, taking note of what types of laws there are, and why we are said to be no longer under law, but grace, but at the same time, we are told some sins will keep us out of God's Kingdom.  I saw patterns.  If you take the time, you can see the difference between a moral law and one that shows a separation between Israel and other nations.  They have no other logical reason for being there. 

 

You can actually do anything you wish, but there are consequences.  If Paul meant that literally, all things are ok in the sight of God, I could commit murder and be ok.  Thou Shalt Not Kill is part of the law of Moses.  We are capable of doing anything, but all things are not profitable.  Some things will do harm to us in this life, and some in the next life. 

 

We are not talking about human commands or Jewish myths.  We are talking about a command of God, and how it applies to us today?  It is interpreting God's laws, not making up new ones.

 

I am not saying that we only keep laws repeated in the NT.  You have to examine the individual laws to determine what is a moral law and what is a law of separation.  In the case of Deuteronomy 22:5 I do have the scripture in 1 Corinthians 6:9 dealing with an effeminate man, so that does add some weight but even without it, I can still clearly see this is a moral law, not a law of separation.

 

As to women teachers, this is a bit more complicated.  In the first passage you cited, it isn't speaking of women being quiet in the sense of putting tape on their mouth before entering the church.  We can see the meaning by the comment that if they have any questions, they should ask their husbands at home.  This is speaking of women who were being disruptive in church asking questions while someone was giving a message or teaching.  In context, it has nothing to do with women preachers or teachers.  Your other scripture pertains to the authority in the home.  In other words, the woman is not to presume to dominate her husband by usurping his authority in the home, or to tell him how he is to do things.  She is not to teach him.  This isn't really speaking of preachers either in context.  There is no Biblical reason why a woman cannot be a teacher or preacher, but she is not allowed to be a Deacon or Bishop, as she can't meet the Biblical requirements for either office.  If the Pastor's job requires that person to act as a Bishop, a woman is not qualified.  She is not the "husband of one wife." 

 

Slavery in itself is not wrong.  It was actually permitted and regulated in the law of Moses.  It isn't required that any nation allow or forbid people to own slaves.  I have advocated allowing slavery if someone desires to sell themselves into slavery as they did in the OT as a means of helping to reduce homelessness.  It should be regulated, and amount to servitude for room and board.  What we are talking about in the home is not exactly the same thing.  It is a situation where you have one person over another in authority, but that is not the same thing as slavery, anymore than children are slaves to their parents.  Even if you want to look at it as slavery, as I said, I don't believe all forms of slavery are wrong, and advocate it in some instances if someone chooses to put themselves into slavery. 

 

I don't think these questions were asked already, but I hope that helps you?  If you have more questions down the road, feel free to ask.

 

 

That's a very thorough reply Butero, thank you!  My reading of these verses in Titus are that Circumcision is referred to as a Jewish Myth, even though it had certainly been a command of God at one point he seems to be saying that because it no longer is, because we are under the new covenant, holding onto the old laws is the same as holding onto myths and that they are become human laws rather than Gods laws.  Is there Biblical support for the classification of the different laws?  Isn't there a danger, if we read through all the laws and decide for ourselves which are pertaining to morality and which are pertaining to holiness that our judgements will be wholly subjective?  There are indeed times when it has been decided by society that killing is acceptable. War is one of those times.  Self defence is another of those times.  Not going on a murderous rampage against my neighbours could be covered by the new covenant commandment to love my neighbour as myself.  The Bible gives us a definition of what love is.  Patient, kind, not boastful, etc.  There isn't a lot of elbow room left in that to allow for chopping up my neighbours children with an axe for trampling my flowerbeds!

 

Thank you also for clarifying your position as to whether the law being repeated in the NT is the test.  I had misunderstood you.  What would you say is the distinction between the duties of a pastor and the duties of a Bishop or Deacon?

[other one]

"when did mankind start wearing pants"

 

 

 

 

did a Google search on that phrase and got some very interesting reads.  I'll leave it up to you to decide how much you might want to read.  I spent the better part of an hour.

[LadyKay]

 

Why are pants alone regarded as some sort of sacred male garment?

 Thank you for pointing this out. I myself tend to buy male t-shirts because they fit me better. Female t-shirts fit too tightly on me and show all my fat bumps lol. But I have never heard anyone proclaim that it is a sin for a women to wear a t-shirt made for a man. Many of our modern clothing are basically unisex. Stuff like sweatshirts and some t-shirts are made for a man or a women. Years ago I worked at a factory job the required work boots. Try as I like I could not find a pair of women work boots. I ended up having to buy a pair of boys work boots. Nobody ever mistook me for being a man because of my boots. And that is the thing I want to point out. I personally think that what that verse means in the Bible about men's a women's clothing is more about men trying to look like women and women trying to look like men for the propose of fooling someone into  having sex. In today's world we do not look at a women in pants and mistake her for a man because she is wearing pants. Nor do we look at a man in a dress and mistake him for being a women. (though we may laugh a little) Dresses are wore by women only because out culture and society says so. So my point is is that it is culture and society that says what clothing is for a man and what is for a women. Jeans made for a women are woman's clothing. There for if you are buying women's jeans and you are a woman, you are wearing what is consider clothing belonging to a women. Every women knows that men jeans will not fit right on a women. Men jeans are made differently. So there is a difference between the two . As for women should look feminine and men masculine, well that is a matter of personal taste. For example someone talk about men in kilts. Some may look at a man in a kilt and think that they look feminine. I see a man in a kilt and think that they are the most masculine, sexy man ever! So it is all a matter of taste on what is and is not masculine. Like Robin Hood wearing tights.

[Guest Butero]

 

 

 

 

Butero,

 

You have my curiosity.

 

Do you believe women should not cut their hair?

 

Are you familiar with the UPC?

Yes, I am familiar with the UPC.  The Bible simply says the woman should have long hair and the hair is given to her has a covering.  It doesn't specify that they can never cut their hair.  My biggest issues with the UPC is their denial of the trinity, and their belief that you aren't saved until you are baptized in the name of Jesus and speak in tongues.  I am more of a traditional Trinitarian Pentecostal.  The closest church I can give you that is close to my beliefs is Paw Creek Church in Charlotte N.C., and I don't agree with all their positions.  I do however download sermons from their church and listen to them while traveling.  Pastor Chambers has the same view I do on pants and hair length, but he actually is stronger on the pants issue than I am.  He has said he doesn't believe women that wear pants will go in the rapture, and I am more cautious than making that kind of judgment.  He refers to women that wear pants as having a "Jezebel Spirit."  I would be more inclined to call it a rebellious spirit, because Jezebel was a God hater and Baal worshipper.  I agree with him in principle, but am more cautious about terminology like that.   He does agree with people like Nebula on entertainment.  He is very strict across the board, and if his church was closer, I would probably attend it?  It is more than 70 miles from my home.  I visited it one time, and have sent them money on occasion. 

 

http://www.pawcreek.org

 

 

I looked at the site and read the statement of faith.

 

I couldn't help but compare the rules with those of Orthodox Judaism/Chasidic in the same areas.

 

A few differences are:

 

Women must wear dresses: Orthodox Judaism, with sleeves, Paw Creek, no mention of sleeves.

 

Womens hair: Chasidic Judaism, the hair must be covered when out in public because it is sensual, Paw Creek, hair must be long.

   That one is interesting because exposed hair is considered sensual in Judaism, so must be covered, but there is no length requirement while Paw Creek has what is considered a most sensual requirement.

 

Two laws which appears to be absent from Christian churches is one that is repeated over and over, thru the OT and into the NT.

 

1. Not to consume blood (starts in the law given to Noah and is repeated in the Mosaic law, and again in the NT when Gentiles are told not to partake of blood, from the Jerusalem counsel) 

2. No graven or molten images, repeated throughout all scripture.

 

I see one major disagreement. When the Mosaic law was given by God, God did not divide the law into categories, like ceremonial, civil, moral, etc., so in my opinion these divisions or categories are all man made/mans opinions. Many laws cross these boundaries and fit in all of them,

 

Personally, I don't believe in drinking blood.  That practice is forbidden.  I don't believe in having graven or molten images either, but you have to realize why that requirement exists.  It is because people would worship those images.  I was bothered one time while at a Christmas play, and a man who was supposed to be Jesus came out, and people began praising the man.  They were actually looking at him as Jesus.  Nobody meant to do anything wrong, but it bothered me seeing that.  This happens with statues and images as well.

 

As far as hair goes, I am not concerned with what is considered sensual in Judaism.  There is nothing in the OT or NT that says a woman's hair is sensual.  In 1 Corinthians 11, we are simply told a woman's hair should be long, and it is given for a covering. 

 

The divisions of the law exist, whether you want to accept them or not?  If they didn't exist, you wouldn't have some laws being re-affirmed in the NT, while others are discarded.  For instance, we know we are not to kill or steal, which are both from the law of Moses, but at the same time, we don't sacrifice bulls to atone for sin.  As I said, it is not so much that part of the law was done away with, as some parts were not meant to continue forever.  The laws of the Levitical Priesthood were temporary till the cross, but they were not officially repealed.  They didn't have to be because they were never intended to continue forever.  The dietary laws were clearly given to show Israel was a separate people, and when the gentiles were made clean or cleansed by the blood of Jesus, the symbolism changed.  You are free to disagree, but I stand by that as rightly dividing the Word of truth. 

 

BTW, since you have been to the Paw Creek web-site, you might want to check out some of the sermons.  I was just listening to an excellent one about God making up his jewels.  Pastor Chambers brought out some things I hadn't considered before.  I have really enjoyed that feature on his web-site.  It will download by hitting "Save target as" and giving the file a name, or you can just listen to the sermons as they stream. 

 

 

It is mentioned in the OT that womens hair is covered. That is the covering.  

 

Since God doesn't divide the law into categories, I don't either. The categories are strictly mans opinion and not Gods. So if you think the divisions exist, that is your opinion, but not from scripture.

 

Do you realize that when an animal is slaughtered, if the blood is not properly drained, the blood will seep out of the vessels and into the meat? So, if you are not eating an animal which has been slaughtered in a fashion to drain the blood, which most slaughter houses do not do, you are eating blood. I don't know of anywhere in scripture where the law says it is wrong to drink blood but alright to eat blood. As you put it, this law is reaffirmed in the NT with no mention of drinking vs eating.  

 

You state about re-affirmation. But all scripture is given by God, and God gave all of the laws. How is it some pick and choose which laws they decide to obey, and ignore others. Jesus repeated many laws but as the NT says, only a small portion of what Jesus did and said is recorded, as there was simply too much to record. Jesus obeyed all of Gods laws as a violation of the law is sin, and Jesus didn't sin. Jesus was Jewish. And Gods law is recorded.

 

That is an intereting point too.  First of all, regarding meat, when I cook steak or hamburger, I cook it so long, if there was any blood, it is long gone by the time I get to it.  I come close to burning the meat.  I can't stand under done food. 

 

As far as Jesus is concerned, he had to keep the entire law, as this was before Calvary, and he had to keep the entire law perfectly.  Some things changed after the cross. 

[Guest Butero]

 

 

I think my issue with this is that it is a "man" telling me a "women" what they can and can not do. If your a women,and you think that you should only wear dresses, then fine, I am okay with that. But for a "man" to tell me that I am sinning because I am wearing pants. Well I take issue with that. Now I am dieing to see what you think about hair cuts.

Do you have equal outrage that women in the group "Concerned Women For America" are attacking men in skirts?  If you are interested, there is a web-site called "A Christian Home," and you will find a woman telling women they shouldn't wear pants and giving links to places they can find conservative dresses.  There was a Catholic lady that was running a web-site standing against women in pants.  I am not sure if it is still active?  I know a Baptist preacher whose wife is stronger against women in pants than he is.  He was open to letting their daughter wear pants to school, and it was his wife that wouldn't allow it. 

 

If you want to know my view on hair cuts, read 1 Corinthians.  I hold to the Biblical view that it is a shame for men to have long hair, and for women to have short hair.  That is what the Bible says, so that is what I believe. 

 

http://www.achristianhome.org

 

 

I do not know who the "Concerned Women For America" are. But if this is the way they think,it seems to me they need to be minding their own business. As for the mother who won't let her daughter wear pants to school, well she is her mother after all; and who am I to tell her how to raise her kid? But really, I just don't have the time to go around and tell other people how they should be dressing. It is more important to be showing the love of Christ to people then telling them they are going to hell for how they dress and how they wear their hair.

 

Let me tell you a story. When I was a kid my grandma who was from the south went to a Baptist church.They had a rule that all females had to wear dresses to their church.  I would visit with my grandma in the summer. I would purposely forget to pack a dress in my suitcase because I did not want to go to church.  All I would have to say was "opps , I forgot my dress" and I would get out of going. Later on the church changed that rule because they realized it was more important to get people to come into the church and hear the word of the Lord then to shun them away because of what they are wearing.

 

Let me tell you a story.  I quit going to a church because they let down their standards and allowed women to not only wear pants to church, but lead the singing wearing pants.  In the case of the church I mentioned in Charlotte, it is a result of a split.  The Pastor was in the Church of God, and he left to start an independent church because they were letting down their standards regarding things like women in pants.  Most of the congregation left the Church of God with him. 

[Guest Butero]

 

As for the Mennonite girl, I am not sure that is typical of what they usually wear?  Just because you saw one woman with a head covering like Mennonite women traditionally wear, that doesn't necessarily mean she was Mennonite.  There are a lot of groups where the women wear head coverings.  I travel through Mennonite country a lot, in Indiana and Ohio, and can't recall ever seeing a true Mennonite lady dressed like that?  They all wear home made dresses.  If not for the head covering, that sounds typical of how some Independent Baptist ladies in my area might dress?  It may have been a Beachy Amish woman, as they are actually a cross between Baptist and Mennonite? 

 

Mennonites come in different "flavors" if you will. Some are stricter, some are more liberal (lenient). That is, some are very similar to the Amish with strict attire and technology practices, others wear modern (though conservative) clothes, many are somewhere in between.

 

I went to a Christian college in Pennsylvania not far from Lancaster county, so I was exposed to the Mennonite culture this way. So I can say with fair certainty she was a Mennonite.

 

The point being, she was wearing a Mennonite head covering and a skirt because "pants pertaineth to a man," but it was OK for her to wear a t-shirt.

 

Why are pants alone regarded as some sort of sacred male garment?

 

Why is a dress considered some sort of sacred female garment, especially since everyone used to wear robes? 

 

OK.  Sarcasm aside, I already answered that in another post.  Pants represent the authority in the home.  By wearing pants, women also had further blurred the lines between men and women, as some tried to when they protested by burning their bras.  I gave this as part of a much more indepth explaination that you are free to go back and read. 

[GoldenEagle]

Right because as Christians we are to be known for our high standards. That's a command Jesus gave right?