Response to UPC Bible study on women wearing pants
Response to a Bible study written by Rev. M.G. Blankenship. Found at http://www.apostolic.edu/biblestudy/files/bwahprt2.htm.
Accessed 4/28/2007.
I am not going to reprint the entire study because it would take too much space. What I will do is show a piece from the Bible study and then respond to it. I do recommend that you read the entire Bible study and form your own conclusions.
Spelling and editing errors in the italicized errors are the mistake of the author of the Bible study that I am responding to. Spelling and editing errors in the rest of the article are my mistake.
Rev. Blankenship writes:
Deut 22:5 "The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a ma put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God."
One thing for sure: The "unisex" styles of our day are an abomination to God. It is a perverse hostility to God’s creation order! It is driven by spirits that wish to put humanity into rebellion.
My Response:
Rev. Blankenship starts his Bible study with a critical mistake: He assumes that Deu. 22:5 is talking about cross-dressing. Deuteronomy 22:5 could be talking about cross-dressing, but it is actually a very difficult verse to translate. Scholars are divided on the exact meaning. The careful reader will notice that Deu. 22:5 in the KJV says, "The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment." See the difference?
Literally in the Hebrew it says, "There shall not be the thing of a man on a woman, nor shall a man put on a woman’s garment" (LITV). To complicate matters, the Hebrew word used for "garment" actually means the outer cloak that women wore during the day1 and (if they were poor) used as a blanket at night. The word for "garment" can also mean "clothing" in a general sense, so scholars are divided on how it is meant to be used in this passage. They are also divided on what exactly "the thing of a man" refers to.
The Preacher’s Commentary lists the four dominant views on this passage, and I will cite them here. I have put the citations in numbered form for easier reading, but I have not changed the wording:
- "One explanation is that this practice was associated with the religion of Canaan….Apparently women appeared in male garments and men in women’s clothes when they worshiped their pagan deities. Yahweh wanted His people to be unique and to do nothing that was in any way connected with foreign religions.
- Another theory is that this verse could refer to war. A woman was not to put on the trappings of a soldier or dress like a man in order to try to gain admission into the army. Nor were men to attempt to avoid military obligation by dressing as women.
- Another explanation often given for this ban is that it obscured the distinction between the sexes and therefore violated an essential part of the created order of life (Gen. 1:27). The Hebrew phrase for “pertains to” is used elsewhere in referring to decorations or utensils used by the opposite sex. During the days of Moses, garments worn by men and women were very similar (robes); so this command was designed to keep a woman from appearing as a man for purposes of licentiousness. The major difference between male and female robes was their decoration or ornamentation. This passage does not teach against women’s wearing slacks, hats, shoes, gloves, or other items that are now worn by both sexes, but rather against the wearing of any item specifically intended for the opposite sex. The distinctives of each sex should be maintained and protected in regard to outward appearance. The New Testament instruction in Galatians 3:28 that “there is neither male or female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus” applied to status in God’s sight and not to dress. While we realize that we are one in Christ, recognition of the differences between the sexes is a principle worth safeguarding.
- Still another explanation is that this verse refers to the practice of transvestism, a deviant form of sexual behavior which is often characterized by cross-dressing. The verse says women should not wear things “pertaining to” the male. This phrase includes not only clothing, but also ornaments, weapons, and other items normally associated with men. In the second clause, women’s clothing is explicitly forbidden men2."
These four explanations, while lengthy, serve to illustrate the fact that the translation of Deuteronomy 22:5 is highly debatable. The mistake that Rev. Blankenship makes is that he assumes that it must be talking about cross-dressing (he doesn’t even acknowledge the possibility of any other interpretation), and then he leaps to the conclusion that anything that could be considered "unisex" is an "abomination."
Rev. Blankenship writes:
Men & Women are different: Both Physically & Emotionally by creation. And God has placed certain social methods into place to maintain this difference. To guard against homosexuality & the decline of the family. Today we have women that look masculine & men that look feminine.
I Cor 6:9 "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, "—> (webster’s: unsuitably womanish)
My Response:
First, I agree with Rev. Blankenship that acts of homosexuality are sin (cf. Rom. 1:26-27; 1 Tim. 1:10). Unfortunately, Rev. Blankenship makes two tremendous errors when he jumps from Deu. 22:5 to the subject of homosexuality. First, he is still assuming that Deu. 22:5 is talking about cross-dressing, when the meaning of the Scripture is debated. Second, he assumes that anyone who cross-dresses must be a homosexual! Anyone who has basic training in sexual deviancy knows that cross-dressing is not always (or even often) associated with homosexuality. I’m not an expert in this area, though, so I’ll quote the experts:
[Transvestitism is the] practice of wearing the clothes of the opposite sex (cross-dressing), generally to derive some kind of sexual pleasure. It is often mistakenly associated with homosexuality; in fact, however, transvestites may be either heterosexual or homosexual, and the practice of cross-dressing is sometimes even ridiculed among homosexuals. The transvestite must also be distinguished from the transsexual, who desires to become a functioning member of the opposite sex; most transvestites are men who comfortably fill male roles in society and are satisfied with their biological sex. Transsexuals, both male and female, are uncomfortable with their sex and are usually required to cross-dress for an extended period before they undergo surgery. That most transvestites are men is at least in part a result of the role of fashion in Western culture; in the mid-to-late 20th century Western women wearing trousers and other clothes once considered to be exclusively men’s clothes are not seen as deviant3.
So the mistake that Rev. Blankenship makes here is that he continues his line of faulty reasoning. He first claimed that Deu. 22:5 must be talking about cross-dressing, so his conclusion was that "the ‘unisex’ styles of our day are an abomination to God." He then goes on to assume that anyone who engages in cross-dressing is a homosexual. While I agree with Rev. Blankenship that cross-dressing for the purpose of deriving sexual pleasure is a sin, I find it ridiculous to assume that anyone who wears an article of unisex clothing (such a woman wearing slacks) is a homosexual. The very idea is absurd! If that’s the case then either men or women are being an abomination to God every time that they wear any of these articles of clothing:
- Jackets (don’t most coats and jackets look the same for men and women?)
- Shoes (do men and women need to have separate shoe styles so that they won’t be considered unisex?)
- Watches (many men’s dress watches look like women’s watches, and vice versa)
- Glasses (shouldn’t we have glasses that are designed specifically for men and women? I’d hate for someone to look at my shades and think that I was a transvestite)
- Isn’t this kind of absurd?
The point here is that the UPC has taken slacks and created a huge issue out of them, and left every other article of clothing on the sidelines. If the UPC would apply their rules consistently then I could respect their views, even though I disagree with them. But when I see UPC pastors preach against women wearing slacks from the pulpit, and then I go visit them in their homes and see their wives and daughters walking around in pajama pants, then I see hypocrisy, not holiness.
Rev. Blankenship writes:
[Rev. Blankenship spends the next few paragraphs in his study arguing that Deuteronomy is part of the moral law of God, not the ceremonial law. I am not going to discuss that here for two reasons: 1) As I have already said, the translation of Deu. 22:5 is debated, so until we know exactly what God was talking about then it's pointless to discuss whether the law was moral or ceremonial; and 2) If Deu. 22:5 is talking about transvestitism (cross-dressing for sexual pleasure or other deviant reasons) then I agree with him that it is against the moral law, however, that does not lead to the conclusion that it is wrong for women to wear slacks today. Even if Deu. 22:5 is talking about transvestitism, and even if it is a moral law that still applies to us today, I still do not think that slacks are "men's apparel." Also, we have to remember that the prohibition in Deu. 22:5 was against any article that could apply to a man, so if it is a moral law that still applies to us today then we have to create a whole list of things that women cannot wear (I.e., their husband's t-shirt, their husband's tools (those are traditionally men's items), etc.).]
Rev. Blankenship writes:
I Peter 3:5 "For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands:"
THE POINT: << HOLY WOMEN OF OLD LIVED BY DEUT 22:5>>
My Response:
1 Pet. 3:6 uses Sarah as an example of a "holy woman." She lived over 600 years before Deuteronomy 22:5 was written, so it is obvious that Peter’s point was not that "holy women of old lived by Deut 22:5." To see his point we must back up to 1 Pet. 3:1 and read the entire passage:
1Pe 3:1-6 NASB
(1) In the same way, you wives, be submissive to your own husbands so that even if [any of them] are disobedient to the word, they may be won without a word by the behavior of their wives,
(2) as they observe your chaste and respectful behavior.
(3) Your adornment must not be [merely] external–braiding the hair, and wearing gold jewelry, or putting on dresses;
(4) but [let it be] the hidden person of the heart, with the imperishable quality of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is precious in the sight of God.
(5) For in this way in former times the holy women also, who hoped in God, used to adorn themselves, being submissive to their own husbands;
(6) just as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord, and you have become her children if you do what is right without being frightened by any fear.
The focus in the above passage is on inward holiness, not outward appearance. If Peter is talking about outward appearance in this passage then he is saying that women cannot braid their hair or wear dresses. He is obviously not saying that–his point is clearly that a woman’s focus should be on inward holiness, not on impressing people with her outward appearance. (This applies to men as well.)
Rev. Blankenship writes:
NOW TO PRACTICAL APPLICATION
Part of our DAILY attire should be for gender distinction. Unmistakable, visual, identification of the sexes.
IN OUR CULTURE:—– (which is all we need to worry about)
Man’s attire: = pants, trousers, slacks
My Response:
Again, I agree with Rev. Blankenship that a person should not deliberately try to appear like they are of the opposite sex (cross-dressing). However, I strongly disagree with him that pants, trousers, and slacks are not women’s attire. Has he looked around lately? Pants on women are completely acceptable in Western culture. The fact is that styles and apparel change with time.
Rev. Blankenship writes:
EVEN THE PICTURES ON PUBLIC REST ROOMS TELLS THIS CULTURAL TRUTH. This could even change from culture to culture but Deut 22 covers ALL CULTURES! and all times.
My Response:
I’m not sure what point Rev. Blankenship is trying to make here. In the same paragraph he says that apparel can change from culture to culture and that Deu. 22:5 covers all cultures. If he is admitting that men and women’s apparel changes from culture to culture, then why does he have such a problem with women wearing slacks? 100 years ago women did not wear slacks, now they do. Big deal! Culture changed! If he admits that dress codes change over time and from culture to culture (which they obviously do) then I don’t see why he has such a problem with women wearing slacks.
Rev. Blankenship writes:
"Pertaineth to" = things traditionally associated with, or patterned after a man. (slacks have indeed been masculine in our culture)
My Response:
So have any number of other things. That’s what makes Deu. 22:5 so difficult to translate. No one alive today is sure exactly what Moses meant when he wrote that a woman should not put on that which "pertaineth to a man." My point is that we should not limit Deu. 22:5 to clothing. If we’re going to say that it is applicable today then we need to come up with a definitive list of things that "pertaineth to a man," and then we need to forbid Christian women to use those things.
Rev. Blankenship writes:
Historically: WWII factories were the first time slacks started being worn by women. At the same time: short hair, cigarettes, swearing became acceptable feminine behavior. Now that path has come to Abortion, Divorce, Single Parent homes, extreme feminism: You’ve come a long way baby??
My Response:
I don’t mean to be sarcastic, but I’m not sure I follow the connection between women wearing slacks and abortion, divorce, single parent homes, and extreme feminism. I’m not a sociologist, but I’d be willing to take a stab in the dark and guess that sociologists would identify more causes for these things than women wearing slacks.
Rev. Blankenship writes:
Two things should always govern your decisions:
GOOD TASTE & COMMON SENSE == R e m e m b e r i n g * w h o * y o u * a r e !
God visibly separated Israel: food /dress /farming /worship /Sabbath.. You could tell a Jew by his dress/Actions. The Jews survived 1,900 years without a home land. It’s the only existing ancient culture! GOD’S LAWS PRESERVED THEIR IDENTITY! God wants to preserve His church in this day in the same manner!
—->>> Outer actions bring a GREATER CHRISTIAN COMMITMENT in your life!
My Response:
There are several things that must be said about the comments that Rev. Blankenship made in the preceding paragraph.
First, God did visibly separate Israel in dress, farming, worship, and the Sabbath. It was called the Mosaic Law, and Jesus fulfilled it. When Rev. Blankenship says that "God wants to preserve His church in this day in the same manner" he is saying the exact opposite of what God wants to do! The whole point of Jesus coming was to set us free from slavery to sin (cf. Rom. 6) and to the Mosaic Law (cf. Gal. 4-5).
Second, the Jews are not the only ancient culture that is still around today. Take a look at Japan, India, Nepal, China, Sri Lanka, and almost any Middle Eastern nation for an example of an ancient culture that still exists.
Third, Rev. Blankenship’s statement that "Outer actions bring a GREATER CHRISTIAN COMMITMENT in your life" could not be farther from the truth! If anything, external rules and regulations push us farther away from God, not closer to Him! In the book of Galatians Paul is writing to a church that was starting to return to the Mosaic Law. One of the things that they were returning to was the practice of demanding that people be circumcised. Did Paul commend them, saying that "Outer actions bring a greater Christian commitment in [their] life"? Far from it! Paul actually told them, "You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by the law; you have fallen from grace" (Gal. 5:4).
Wow! That’s some pretty harsh language! It seems that a return to the Mosaic Law is the exact opposite of what God wants us to do! This does not mean that a Christian can just do whatever they want, of course, because Paul also wrote that we are set free from slavery to sin so that we can be slaves to righteousness (Rom. 6). The point is that we were set free from the Mosaic Law and that God "wrote His laws upon our heart" (cf. Heb. 8:10; 10:16). Now we are able to have direct communication with Him and directly know what is pleasing to Him and what is not. What a beautiful concept!
Rev. Blankenship writes:
Even Joan Rivers (on her syndicated talk show) stated "Everybody knows women wear dresses and men wear pants.".
If worldly people know it to be a simple truth, we does God’s church act so stubborn about it?
My Response:
I looked for the Joan Rivers quote but was unable to find it. If anyone can verify that she actually said that then please let me know. Even if she did say that it makes no difference. Joan Rivers is one of the last people that I would listen to when deciding what is pleasing to God and what is not.
Rev. Blankenship writes:
Let us remember who we are and be proud to carry his banner in these last days!
My Response:
I’m incredibly proud of who I am. I am a child of the King, and I want everyone to know it! That’s why I now wear a necklace with a cross on it! (I don’t wear dresses though, just in case anyone is wondering.)
References:
- John C. Maxwell and Lloyd J. Ogilvie, The Preacher’s Commentary Series, Volume 5 : Deuteronomy, The Preacher’s Commentary series (Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson Inc, 1987). 241. [↩]
- Ibid. [↩]
- "transvestism." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2007. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 28 Apr. 2007 [↩]
May 6th, 2008 at 9:46 am
I really object to that… sompe people believe that we should follow Jesus especially in dressing wearing robes,etc then no one should have moblie phones, drive cars, cut their hair(facial hairls), watch t.v.. etc because Jesus did none of those.
June 11th, 2008 at 11:35 pm
Duet. 22:5 is a verse a lot of people have trouble knowing what the verse really means. Some people are unsure if pants are women’s clothing. But what we do know for sure is a dress is a woman’s piece of clothing. Personally I wear a dress because God doesn’t want me to wear anything that relates to a man and I am for sure a dress is not for a man. I wouldn’t want to wear pants thinking it is okay when in the end I was wrong. I believe wearing a dress for a woman is being on the safe side.
June 28th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
Dear Sir:
I have written a book on pants on women I would like to send you, if you would send me your mailing address, please. I would like to be able to publish excepts from this book, but I have no website. You might be interested in using portions of my book, which are educational concerning the history surrounding the wearing of pants by women.
Denise
July 30th, 2008 at 12:40 pm
safe to say that neither male nor female in Biblical times wore pants – they all wore gowns. Who decided that either gender would wear pants (0r anything else, for that matter)? Man did. The original order of things was nudity…and then a fig leaf. Perhaps those who wish to resort to legalism in dress should become nudists (as in Eden) or – since that will get you arrested – walk around in fig leaves. Just for some perspective, there. At least pants don’t blow up in the wind and expose you to the world.
August 2nd, 2008 at 7:56 pm
Brother,
Have You ever looked up the word “wear” in Deut. 22:5?
The Hebrew translation leans toward theory #2.
September 15th, 2008 at 11:28 pm
I have preached in a UPC church for 13 years, now that my 30th birthday is “looming” lol, I find I have been lied to for just as long. Spiritually abused and brain washed the very second after I recieved the Holy Ghost with the evidence of speaking with other tounges.
Useing this life changing expeirence to futher ensare me and many others back into the Laws of Moses. In which further study has revealed that not only do they misinterpret these laws but now I relize we can not use the “law unlawfully”.
Acts 15:1-29 is now my new Acts 2:38. Because after repentance, baptism in Jesus name, and being filled with the Holy Ghost we must “lay no other burden upon them then these nessecary things”.
Having said all that I must ask, if a UPC preacher says “Obey me, I have the rule over you, and I watch for your soul” after demanding some strange man made tradition from a new convert. And this person consults the word of God and can find no such doctrine, promtly realizes that he or she have been lied to and forever leaves the Mercy of God due to this betrayle bt the man of God. Then who is responsible for this persons soul?
It is the man of God who must give the account for all the souls who have come through his doors. And many, I say MANY, UPC preachers and others will find that the day of judgment will not be with them on God’s side proclaiming who is fit and who is unfit for the kingdom of God, but rather these men will have to some how explain away the blood of men and women by the thousands who could not understand how a man could change the word of God.
September 16th, 2008 at 12:02 am
Also to Jen,
Sister I totally understand your point, and it is valid. But the time for not understanding scripture is gone. We have access to an infinite amount of information that we can study for ourselves. Try these..
http://www.actseighteen.com/articles/women-pants.htm
and
http://www.e-sword.net/
After downloading esword go straight Duet 22:5 and click on the word “man”. It uses the same Stongs Exaustive Concordance that your Pastor does.
I’ve heard your response before, and I must say I’ve preaced it on many accasions.
“Getting to heaven wearing a dress when you didn’t need to would just be No Harm No Foul.” But this is not true. If you are justified by even one Masaic law then refer to Romans 3:20 .
They say “Holiness without which no man shall see the Lord”. I say “No flesh shall glory in the preseance of the Lord”
Also remember Paul knew the law better then most men of time. He never quoted Deut 22:5 to anyone in any of his churches. These churches were gentile churches who’s garments veried as much as there customs did.
My wife’s revelation, who was born and raised UPC for 27 years, was this.
God, the soveirn creator of the universe, in His infinite wisdom, mercy, and grace, needed to cloth His most prised creation in Genisis 3:21.
And so He did. by makeing them both a coat. He made no distinction between these coats and in fact the word coat as used in this passeage means “long shirt”.
But ultimatly I understand that you don’t believe a “dress” is clothing for men.
But I totally disagree and so did Moses.
The same Bible, the same author, the same book, the same chapter of that book that we find deuteronomy 22:5 we can read deuteronomy 22:30 about a father wearing a skirt.
Read also Deuteronomy 22:11 and 12.
September 28th, 2008 at 9:38 pm
To simply put an end to the silliness of this matter-Men in the Bible days wore robes just like women. Colors were not the only distinction. The man’s robe had a divider through it. Just like a pair of pants would today. The woman’s robe did not.
Now, be Apostolic-and get busy winning the lost for Christ!!!!
October 6th, 2008 at 4:17 pm
I have looked on the web to see if I could verify Angel’s statement regarding the “divider” in a man’s robe but have not been able to find anything.
Angel (or anyone who may have this) – could you give your sources for this information?
This is the first time I have EVER heard any thing like this. Quite honestly, I question it’s validity but I certainly don’t know everything.
Thank you!
October 6th, 2008 at 5:28 pm
Kayla, I’ll go ahead and answer the question that you posed to Angel :)
EDIT: I have posted a new article that contains this information.
The Bible never says what the Israelites wore in the wilderness (with the exception of the priests) so we must look to history to find out how they dressed. When we look at history we find out that the Israelites in Moses’ day probably did not wear robes at all. They probably dressed like the Egyptians did. This makes sense, since they had just spent 400 years in Egypt.
Here is how the Egyptians of that era dressed. Again, we can presume that the Israelites dressed the same way. This information is taken from “Nelson’s new illustrated Bible manners & customs : How the people of the Bible really lived.” It is one of the best resources available on biblical customs.
——–
“Women during the Middle Kingdom [Joseph's time period] and Empire periods [the time of the Exodus] commonly wore a long, white close-fitting dress (a sheath) held up with wide shoulder straps and extending to the ankles. Sometimes they covered their breasts and
sometimes they did not. Surviving dresses show that the dresses were more baggy than the artists portray them. During the Empire the sheath dress became an undergarment. Over this, women wore a pleated, fringed
robe consisting of a single piece of cloth, gathered around the waist and with the two top corners pulled over the shoulders and knotted under the breasts. Within this generalization, individuality was achieved with distinctive lines, embroidery, lace, and other decoration.
Servant girls usually wore only a skirt or apron while working. Dancing girls, musicians, singers and young waitresses commonly wore nothing but some jewelry.”
Vos, H. F. (1999). Nelson’s new illustrated Bible manners & customs : How the people of the Bible really lived (66). Nashville, Tenn.: T. Nelson Publishers.
——–
I should point out that the above paragraph offends a lot of Westerners (I.e., people from the United States and Europe). They find it hard to believe that the ancient Israelites might have considered it modest for a woman to walk around with her breasts exposed. To the people who find it offensive, I suggest you assume that the Israelite women always covered their breasts. There’s no evidence to show that they did, and I don’t see why it matters, but if it makes you feel better then go for it :)
(When I say “you” I am referring to anyone reading the article. I’m not aiming anything at you, Kayla.)
On a more serious note, when discussing modesty it helps to remember that the way that Oneness, holiness, Apostolic women dress is considered highly immodest by many cultures. Many cultures view the way that Apostolic holiness women dress with the same disgust that Apostolic holiness women view the topless beaches of Europe.
In other words, we here in the United States often forget that a good portion of the world still thinks you’re a prostitute or adulteress if you show your ankle or remove your veil or even look a man in the eyes.
To be more specific, holiness Apostolic women need to remember that what they consider “holy” is suspiciously similar to the way that women dressed when the holiness Pentecostal movement started. 150 years ago it was considered modest for a women to wear a very low cut dress, but very immodest for her to show her ankles. Then, in the early 1900s, it was considered modest for a women to show her lower leg but not for her to show a lot of cleavage. Cultures change, and what is considered modest changes with them. I doubt God picked the way women dressed in the early 1900s and decided that was the only proper way to be holy. I find it much more likely that man picked a set of rules and declared them to be God’s rules.
Anyway, here’s another paragraph from Nelson’s new illustrated Bible manners & customs. This one talks about the way that the Israelite women dressed during the sojourn:
——–
“As to styles, all we know for certain is the clothing of the priests and the high priest, as described above. The rest of the people would have dressed much as they did while in Egypt. In fact, as noted, they came from Egypt in Egyptian garb. What appears on the subject in the
last chapter [the first paragraph that I cited] should be reviewed. Since it is very hot in the Sinai during the day, presumably men often wore only linen kilts and women full-length, light weight, loose-fitting dresses. But it gets cold in the Sinai at night and the people needed something to keep them warm. Therefore it may be assumed that men and women owned long cloaks to wear at night or in high altitudes or to use as a blanket. Cloaks served as blankets at night even in New Testament Palestine.”
Vos, H. F. (1999). Nelson’s new illustrated Bible manners & customs : How the people of the Bible really lived (103). Nashville, Tenn.: T. Nelson Publishers.
——–
So that is how the Israelites dressed when Deu. 22:5 was written. They did not begin to wear robes until later.
I am not sure where Angel got her information from, but it sounds like she is describing the way that men tied up their robes when they traveled. It was common (and still is) in cultures that wear robes for men to tie up their robes in the middle to make it easier to walk. Of course, the custom of tying up robes when you travel is in no way related or associated with the wearing of pants in Western culture.
October 7th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
Thank you Josh! This information I have seen and read before so it is actually not at all shocking to me. Although it is very difficult to “wrap my mind” around this because of the culture we have here today, I do understand the logic behind it.
Thank you for all that you do with this site. It is very informative.
October 7th, 2008 at 3:36 pm
Thanks, Kayla! If you’re the same Kayla that I think you are, then we’ve talked about this in other discussion boards, so I figured you were already familiar with what I was writing.
I’ll go ahead and add that I usually avoid the whole “breasts exposed” thing when talking about Deu. 22:5 because a lot of Western Christians just refuse to accept it. I’m not one to try to shock people just to shock them, but I decided to bring it up in my last comment because I wanted to make the point that the whole “men wear pants and women wear dresses” issue is not founded on biblical customs in any way, shape or form. Hopefully I made the point without being too shocking :)
October 8th, 2008 at 2:06 pm
I am one in the same! :)
October 18th, 2008 at 10:27 am
Woman shall not wear that which pertains to MAN. If we’d take just a moment to look up the word MAN in Deut 22:5 we would see it is translated from the hwebrew word “Geber”
Geber always refered to a warrior. man is the word we see in english when the hebrew words
Geber (warrior, valiant soldier)
Iyish ( man or a male person)
adam ( a human being, mannkind, not the 1st man Adam)
Zakar ( a male of man or animal as being the most notewotrhy)
Geber refered to WARRIOR of SOLDIERS
So now read it, DT 22:5 as it was intended, as a woman shall not wear that which pertaineth to a GEBER (Soldier)
The knowledge that some of the pagan nations around Isreal would, befrore going into battle, have idolatrous cermonies where the women would put on the armament of the departing soldiers and the soldiers wrap themselves in the discarded clothing of their women.
In doing this they hoped to appease the favor o their gods to keep them in battle.
This was absolute idolotry…
knowing this Dt 22:5 then makes sense to forbid this with the added admonition that it was idoltry to do so. Not even so much the fact they exchanged clothing for armament, but rather the worship of idols that went on in these sending off ceremoies.
Deut 22:5 was a warning to Israel not to imitate this idolatry.
Deut 22:5 WAS NEVER EVER intended in any form or fasssion to implt in our western society today of any time in the last 200 years that a woman was forbiiden to wear an articel of clothing that had similarity to that of what the men of the same society wore. i.e. pants
The shortly held “doctrine” of the UPC and other OP/ holiness/ legalistic groups is what it is my friend
It’s false doctirne, pure and simple, it’s just another of our HAIR-esy’s
December 1st, 2008 at 10:55 am
I’ve read your articles on women wearing pants, and just wanted to make one observation. You inferred that the stand against pants for women was hypocritical and not valid because Apostolic women wear pajama pants.
I think that is a weak argument for a couple of reasons.
#1 – a great majority of the Apostolic women that I know do *not* wear pajama pants, because they feel that pants ‘pertain to a man’ and so their convictions won’t allow them to wear pants at any time. So women in that situation would completely disregard your entire argument.
#2 – in all honesty, what you wear to bed, or inside the privacy of your own home is completely a separate issue than what you wear in public. Very few Apostolics hold themselves to the same standard of dress inside the privacy of their home. The ‘dress standard’ is about what you wear in public, at least in my experience.
So for the sake of having a strong argument, if I were you, I’d not rely on the ‘pajama pants’ issue. I’d stick with the other Biblical and historical facts concerning the wearing of pants for women. I felt that statement really weakened your argument.
Actseighteen.com has a good exegesis of the scriptures concerning ‘pertaining to a man’.
December 5th, 2008 at 10:06 pm
I don’t think that it being a standard is the real issue. The real issue involves a woman wearing that which pertain to a man being an ABOMINATION UNTO GOD, therefore even wearing it in your house still pertains as well as in public. An abomination is still an abomination whether in the home or out.
December 13th, 2008 at 12:40 pm
I feel your statement is right on track. If IT IS IN YOUR HEART the wearing of even pajama pants will convict you even in the privacy of your home. So one must ask themselves if this is truely from God or what one has determined was right. If the Lord puts it in our own heart as wrong so be it! You CANNOT ride the fence.
December 30th, 2008 at 12:21 am
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloomers_(clothing)
I lived a teenage life hating church because I didn’t want to look different then every one else. I wanted to be just like all the other girls and fit in. I couldn’t wear makeup, cut my hair, wear short sleeves, go to the movies, watch TV (it was called Satan’s Box), couldn’t hang around “WORLDLY” people, YOu didn’t have a prayer life unless you prayed for hours on your knees. Now 47 years old and reconciled with the Lord I realize and know deep in my heart that Jesus lives in me, with my pants, make up, short sleeves and my “wordly friends” are the ones I love and love me and those are the ones God has put in my path to be a light of who He is in me and be in there’s. What ever is a hinderance in your walk from God is what needs to be removed, and the only person who can tell you that is the Holy Spirit. (yes, my legalistic Friends, I am also HOLY SPIRIT FILLED). There are people out there who are looking for peace, joy and love in there life and if we take our focus away from these materialistic way of thinking, then we can actually allow God to help us see the need in a person and allow Him to help that person find Christ. I learned that I can’t waste my time on people who want to debate on what’s right and wrong. What your heart is clothes in is what really matters. Is it clothed in Judgement, hate, prejudice, war, lies or is it clothed in Jesus who loved even the farisees.
January 29th, 2009 at 7:43 pm
I think the thing about the pajama pant thing is that what we wear in the privacy of our bedroom, we would never wear in public. I am convicted about wearing a see-through shirt in public, but the sexy teddy that I wear in our bedroom to please my husband is our business. God “hates nakedness” in public, but I guess it’s okay for the privacy of my shower, evn if my husband joins me! If I feel convicted that pants are mens apparel in our society, its still okay when I’m on my own.
March 4th, 2009 at 6:47 pm
I have been in an abusive relationship with an apostolic pastor that dictated to me every thing I had one from the top of my head to my toes…I am on my own now..and questioning the last 4 years of my life…I want to search through the scriptures for my self to see what God has to say…I know God knows my heart…I love him and want only to live my life for him..not to feel like if I wear a pair of pants I am going to hell…the pants are not going with me…Did not God say it is what is inside of a person that defiles him/her…But I am not going to wear clothes so tight on me that I can’t breathe….did not God also say….moderation..We can get hung up on the things that would cause us to miss out on an opportunity to win a soul for Christ…arguing and debating over clothes that will rot in the grave when our spirits leave our earthly bodies…..
Forgive me if I am a bit forward…I am just trying to research and find God for myself..not because my controlling husband is telling me what to wear and what not to wear…
God Bless
March 13th, 2009 at 3:54 pm
To CHERYL, I HATE WHAT HAPPENED TO YOU WITH YOUR APOSTOLIC HUSBAND TELLING YOU HOW TO DRESS. I AM AN APOSTOLIC MINISTER AND I BELIEVE IN DRESSING HOLY ALSO. AT OUR CHURCH WE DON’T RUN AROUND TELLING PEOPLE TO DRESS A CERTAIN WAY. PEOPLE CAN’T DRESS FOR OTHERS, THEY HAVE TO DRESS FOR GOD. WE ONLY PREACH DRESS CODE WHEN THE ANOINTING FALLS. IF YOU TRULY ASK GOD HOW HE WANTS YOU TO DRESS HE’LL TELL YOU. AT OUR CHURCH WE LEAD BY EXAMPLE, THATS WHAT THE WORD TELLS US TO DO.
March 23rd, 2009 at 5:25 am
I say YES to holiness!!! God bless you more. Rev. Blankenship
March 30th, 2009 at 4:08 pm
Ruth,
I don’t believe there is a true Christian around who would disagree with “Holiness”; as the scriptures commands it. It is the legalistic, overly dogmatic viewpoint of the UPC’s definition of “holiness” that is being discussed here. Their definition of “holiness” is simply man made traditions elevated to level beyond what is biblical.
True Holiness CANNOT and NEVER will be captured in a set of do’s and don’ts. If it were so there would be NO NEED for the Holy Spirit to work in our lives. We would simply need a MANUAL – God Forbid!
Kayla
June 18th, 2009 at 5:28 pm
not every one in UPC thinks like this (what Rev. M.G. Blankenship wrote), I would have rather you (Josh) stay in UPC and challenge them (UPC leaders) we need more people like you.
July 2nd, 2009 at 8:20 pm
Bobby, thanks for your comment! My entire immediate family is holiness / Oneness Pentecostal, so believe me when I say that I know not everyone agrees with the views of Rev. Blankenship. I have immediate family members who would find many of his statements ridiculous. However, many people do hear that sort of teaching constantly, so I felt the need to challenge it openly and show people that what sounds good on a Sunday night “under the anointing” does not always look so good when compared to Scripture!
I considered staying in the UPC and working to reform the movement from the inside. I seriously prayed about that for several months. The conclusion that I came to after much prayer and fasting was that I would be living a lie if I stayed in the UPC. If I were to teach or preach at all then it would be under the assumption that I agreed with the teachings of the UPC. If I privately did not agree with the teachings, then I would be lying through my actions every time that I stood behind a pulpit.
I know that there are people like yourself who see the need for reform, and they have chosen to stay in the movement. I find no fault with those people. Their decision is between them and God. God has a place for everyone in His Kingdom. However, I felt that my primary mission in life was not to reform the UPC or other Oneness organizations :). I felt that I could better serve God by aligning myself with a church that is already on a solid foundation and is working to spread the gospel of Christ to the nations :)
Thank you again for your comment,
In Christ,
~ Josh S.
July 24th, 2009 at 11:42 pm
Josh, thanks for your extensive research on these topics. I am a oneness Apostolic woman and I have found your site very educating. I was not raised up in church and did not find the Lord until I was 17. He changed my life. God blessed me with a wonderful church to attend. When I first started going to church I looked like the world and the members of the church showed me love and did not judge me. No one ever told me to wear a skirt or not to cut my hair, that came from conviction.
I will take a few moments to share my testimony. I was working at Sonic one night as a car hop and some members of the church pulled up and I had to take an order out to them. As I walked out to their vehicle I found myself trying to hide from them as if I was ashamed of what I was wearing. Then in a moment I heard a voice and that voice spoke to me and said look at yourself you are wearing your Sonic hat and your Sonic pants because you are representing Sonic, now represent me in holiness. I was completly taken by this and didn’t really understand what God was trying to tell me. I went to a youth rally at a fellowshiping church a few nights later and towards the end of church I prayed at my seat and told God that if it means wearing a skirt or not cutting my hair to make it to heaven than that is what I will do, but I want to hear it from you. That is the night that God filled me with the Holy Ghost! It was when I said yes to God and no to the world that he conforted me with his spirit.
I was a senior in high school when this happened. The first day that I wore a skirt to school was the first time in my life that I felt like a lady. I grew up without a father and when I was a teenager I looked to guys to fill the void that I had in my life. I dressed in a way that I would attract them to me because the only value that I placed on my self was on my appearance. What teen girl don’t want to feel attractive or wanted? The problem was I attracted the wrong kind of attention. To make a long story short I did not put on a skirt or put up the scissors because a preacher told me to, but I made this change because of the convictions that God placed in my life.
Again, thanks for the work that you have put into your website. I do think that some preachers misinterpret the scriptures and create what is essentially man-made doctrine, as Christians we have to study for ourselves but most importantly pray and allow God to guide us to the truth.
Marie
October 10th, 2009 at 11:00 am
Marie’s testimony is beautiful! I was saved in the UPC twenty years ago, and I believe that the LORD led me back to the church at this time in my life. I have remained in Apostolic denominations over the years. I want to glorify God in my life, both inwardly and outwardly to reveal to the world that I love Him! I believe that the Holy Spirit speaks to me and prompts me to treat people kindly and with love, just like He speaks to me to tell me what is appropriate in my dress. All things are lawful, but not all things are expedient. I am not under the law, but under grace. I minister to men and women when what I wear glorifies God. I find that people respond with smile when they see me beautifully but modestly dressed. It is a good witness for young women who have grown up in an increasingly casual and immodest culture. We must remember that satan is the god of this world. Does he not have an influence on fashion and dress styles? We should always ask ourselves, ” Am I glorifying God be my BEHAVIOR? By my dress? By my attitude?…”
We find it appropriate to dress in certain ways for different circumstances in the world’s system. We dress in suits for job interviews, wear formal attire for balls and weddings, yet, we fell that we don’t have to represent our Father well. I am His ambassador to a dying world. I believe that He will give each of us direction about what to wear, say or do if we ask Him. He tells us not to worry about these things, but with thanksgiving, seek Him and He will guide us. God will do His transformative work in us HIMSELF!
Just another note, my pastor and his wife have never told me what to put on or take off. They and their family just live a holy life before me and the church. God’s people must be vigilant. The enemy is like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour. He takes standards of right and wrong down one gradual step at a time. Our clothing is just one such way that holiness is being toppled. We must focus on getting God’s message out to a dying world. The Holy Spirit will convict us and lead us to true holiness.
October 19th, 2009 at 12:14 am
Since I was raised in the church and have attended Baptist, COGIC, UPC, and other denominational an non-denominational churches, I know all about the stereotypes. I have even found myself believing some of them falsely. But, I know for a fact that the Lord uses women who wear makeup, wear pants and jewelry, and cut their hair just as powerfully as He does women who choose not to do those things. My mother is one of them.
My mother is a nondenominational pastor who is Holy-Ghost filled and is one of the most powerful and prolific women of God I have ever known. She has a prayer life out of this world. SHE is my immediate example. She wears pants. She wears makeup. She wears jewelry. She is the one that taught me that true holiness is about how one lives; not merely about how one dresses. The Lord taught her that lesson when she had to take off her dress/skirt (which is all she EVER wore for the first 12 years of my life) and minister to people who were LOST in a auto-parts plant. She desperately wanted to wear her skirts on the job, but because of the nature of the work, it was a safety hazard to do so. So, for the first time in over 10 years, she HAD to implement pants into her wardrobe. But in her blue jeans and army fatigues, I believe that the Lord worked through her to preach the gospel to many of those that were lost on her job. THAT, my friends, is the REAL work of Christ. That is His TRUE desire. For us not to be so heavenly holy that we are no earthly good. I thank God for her every day because she has modeled nothing but a holy and separated lifestyle in front of me my entire life. I know nothing else. And she did it wearing pants, jewelry, and a short haircut. So, I refuse to believe that our salvation is predicated upon what we wear. And I do not believe that women wearing only skirts, no jewelry and not cutting their hair is the only way to live a holy and separated life in this world. People’s impressions of us are contingent upon how we look on the outside. In the end, I care less about what PEOPLE think and more about what GOD thinks.
I am a saved, sanctified, Holy-Ghost filled, and fire (and water) baptized child of the King. I wear pants. I wear make-up (moderately and on occasion). I wear jewelry. Am I less of a Christian? No. Do I strive to be more like Christ daily? Yes. I want God to lead me and guide me in everything I say, wear, or do.
I am a true believer that we must allow the spirit of God to work in us and through us at ALL times, including what we wear, say, do, and in our attitudes. The Word of the Lord says that it’s what’s inside of a man that defiles him. Some folks need to stop worrying so much about what OTHER people are doing and mind what GOD is telling them to do. Then, and only then, can we be true witnesses for Christ.
Like I said, I was not raised UPC. I came up in the COGIC church, which was pretty much the same thing with the exception of the baptism debate. I do, however, choose to attend UPC churches. I have NEVER had any of the horrible experiences that I have been told or have heard or read, but I believe that they happen. I believe that they happen in EVERY denomination.
I started attending a UPC church two years ago while in college, and the love that I experienced within the body of Christ was unlike anything I have ever experienced. I knew that without a doubt, these people were sweetly saved. These people treated me like a member of their own families…praying for me, fellowshipping with me, and worshipping with me, without so much as even a look of condemnation or judgement when I showed up looking different from them. No one ever put me in the the pits of hell for wearing my make-up, pants, or jewelry ANYTIME I attended this church. I am inclined to believe that these people understood intimately what ministry is all about. That’s the reason why I stayed.
I wanted to share this testimony because I don’t believe every UPC church is the same, legalistic “cult-like” organization that people claim it to be. I was warned by both friends and close family that I would end up hurt and bewildered with the church should I continue to attend. But, I must say that I have yet to be scorned or made to feel inferior.
This is the day and age when we must concentrate less on splitting hairs and things that cause division among us and get to the work that was set out for us to do ever since Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection. Frankly, as the body of Christ, we have much bigger fish to fry than to figure out who’s wearing what wrongly. We have a much bigger responsibility before us: To tell others about Him. Not only that, but to LIVE holy. Putting on certain clothes doesn’t make me holy. My spirit man has to be quickened through the Holy Ghost and I must make a conscious effort to serve God everyday. That’s holy living. The Word says: “Be ye holy; for I am Holy.”
I hope these testimonies bless people. I have matured greatly in my walk with Christ and will continue to mature daily as He sees fit.
God Bless,
Courtney
November 2nd, 2009 at 2:08 pm
I was not raised in church and did not get saved until my husband and I were invited to a pentecostal holiness church when we older, so I had no previous indoctrination by any denomination. I know pentecostal holiness and UPC churches have some difference in belief, but the holiness standards of both churches are much the same, and this discussion is focused on the dress standards, rather than the other beliefs.
Being a new convert, I was confused by the dress codes and standards concerning jewelry, hair and makeup. We left the church we were saved in after I was told I could not play the piano at morning service because I wore pants outside of church, when other women who cut their hair were permitted to sing up on the platform. This was hurtful to me, because I felt that if I was violating the standards by wearing pants, they were also violating them by cutting their hair, and had no more business up there than I did. After 6 months at the next church we attended, also very staunch on standards, we were hit with the “double marriage” issue, as my husband and I had each been married and divorced once prior to our marriage and giving our hearts to the Lord, and were told we were living in adultery, so we left that church and started attending yet another pentecostal holiness church. Each church had a different interpretation of the Bible as to their reasoning for adherence to standards, which continued to be a source of struggle and confusion, mostly for me. Since the standards are not nearly as strict for men, my husband didn’t have as much problem conforming as I did.
We’ve attended five different churches in the past ten years, and each has a different reason for adherence to the standards. The reason for dress standards given by one pastor’s wife is that we are supposed to be “different” from worldly people, and our dress makes us different. The scripture she used to back this up is the reference to God’s people being a “peculiar” people. They take this as meaning “strange”, however, the Strong’s Concordance gives the definition as meaning “special”. If women of today are “different” because of their dresses and long hair, how were Christian women in the 1800′s and early 1900′s to be differentiated from sinner women, when the style of that era was long dresses and long hair? If everybody else was dressing that way at that time, what made you different back then? How do you tell a Christian man from a sinner man nowadays, since long sleeves (according to some churches) are a personal conviction? Go to any business district on a regular work day and you will see men walking the streets at the lunch hour wearing their long slacks and dress shirts. Are we to assume that all of them are Christians because of their dress? One church said that dresses are more modest than pants, and used the modesty issue as their reasoning rather than the scripture in Deuteronomy. Any garment, whether pants, skirt or dress, can be immodest if worn too tight, too short, etc.
I have prayed about this issue for years, and even at one point got rid of my pants and only wore skirts after the pastor at one church said the reason I was unable to get any closer to God despite much prayer was because of my dress. I quickly found out that wearing skirts did not help me get any closer to God, however, I did develop a judgmental and condemning spirit when I would be out in public and would see women wearing pants or men or women wearing shorts (obviously, they either were sinners or weren’t as spiritually enlightened as I was, or attended the “wrong” church). I hated this spirit and knew it was wrong and started to see myself as being like the scribes and pharisees that Jesus condemned. I have read about the dress styles through the ages, and if pants worn by a woman is considered “that which pertaineth unto a man”, then we need to be just as concerned with the garments she wears on the upper body as well, which doesn’t seem to be focused on or preached on nearly as much as what is worn on the lower body. Many holiness women wear t-shirts and baseball caps to outdoor activities. T-shirts were originally a european military garment, and baseball caps have traditionally been a male accessory, which would make women wearing them wrong. Look back through history at men’s garments, and at one point, men wore tights. Were the men of that era wearing women’s garments, or are the women of today wearing a man’s garment when they put on pantyhose or tights? The Scottish men wear kilts. Is a kilt a woman’s garment because it’s a type of skirt, or would a woman in Scotland be viewed as masculine if she wore a kilt?
We are supposed to be dressed modestly, meaning our clothing should be worn in a manner that would not cause the opposite sex to lust. I’ve seen holiness girls participating in church activities that exposed their underwear when they either fell or were on a swing or trampoline. This is not modest.
Exodus 28 describes Aaron’s priestly garment. In verse 42, it describes his “breeches” as being “from the loins, even unto the thighs they shall reach”. It doesn’t describe them as extending unto the ankles, so Aaron was wearing a short pair of pants, nowadays known as shorts, under his outer garment. Preachers have used the scriptures describing the priestly garments as the basis for the standard that pants are a man’s garment. However, according to the standards, men and women are not to wear shorts. This sounds contradictory. Although they were under the outer garment, Aaron’s legs would have been visible when he was standing above his congregation, thereby making him “immodest” according to the standards.
I am no closer to coming to an acceptance or understanding of the standards of dress than I was at the first, because of some of the reasoning and research I’ve mentioned above, as well as other studies and observances that would be too lengthy to go into here.
It is difficult enough in daily life for most Christians to just attempt to keep Godly thoughts and actions. Add the confusion of standards that are different depending on which church you attend, and which seem to be hypocritical (the t-shirt and baseball cap example are two), and you’ve got a mixed up Christian. In the past, I’ve heard testimonies in church from holiness people that invited their friends to come visit, and the response from their friends was that our church members had a holier than thou attitude, and they chose not to come. This focus on standards can become a stumbling block, with not enough focus on the heart, where becoming Christ-like takes place.
For me, personally, I am focusing my prayer more on my inward man and having a right heart and right spirit, as I know I cannot see the Lord if I have anything in my heart that is not pleasing to Him. I do not dress immodestly, but I also do not dress per the standard of the church. Non-conformance to the standards opens the door for gossip among some church people. Some of the same ones who hold so strictly to the standards will be the first to get on the “holiness hotline” (the phone) and talk about others behind their backs. I say this because I have personally experienced it. Backbiting and gossip will no more take you to heaven than any other sin.
We are to be a light to the world. We are to show love and compassion for lost souls so they can be drawn to Christ. We are to have a meek and quiet spirit, and love our brothers and sisters in Christ. We are all in this race together, and must all strive to finish and not fall away. We are all still in the growing process as long as we live. I hope that one day I will grow into what Christ would have me to be and be that light to others that will help draw them to Him, not by my strict adherence to a set of standards, but by the spirit within.
November 2nd, 2009 at 2:40 pm
Jean, I very rarely comment on the comments, because I try to adopt a hands-off approach and let people just present their views. In your case, though, I wanted to thank you for posting such an excellent comment. The various points that you made cut right to the heart of the holiness issue.
One of the things that you wrote touched on a topic that is on my list of articles to write–and that is the issue of being a “peculiar people.” If being a “peculiar people” refers to a person’s clothing then that means that holiness men need to find a way to look different just like holiness women do!
I think that your post will give people much to think on, regardless of their views on holiness standards. Thank you for taking the time to write, and for writing with such a humble and prayerful attitude.
In Christ,
Josh S.
November 16th, 2009 at 10:15 am
I see what the Bible says herein 1 Peter 3:1-3 Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;
2While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear.
3Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel.
See that word OUTWARD, the outside does matter, if it did not, then let’s all walk around naked. Women are less attractive and less provocative in a loose dress then pants or shorts where men can see the outline of the body and start undressing them. Men are arroused by sight. So when the Bible says not to wear eachother’s clothes, we should obey. We have accepted “womens pants” but never have accepted a “mans dress” If a man has a dress on, we think he is gay. The Bible says that without Holiness, no man will see the Lord. We are to be seperate from the world. I would rather to too much and make it to Heaven, than do too little and go to hell.
December 12th, 2009 at 10:23 pm
David Young,
We are justified by faith in Christ Jesus. His death on the cross was sufficient for us. Santification is a life long process, but as long as we run the race and do not lose our faith, we shall be with the Lord for all eternity.
A woman wearing pants is not a sin. Pants have been unisex for more than half a century in the American culture. Since pants are no longer male only, their is no sin. The only sin would be if the woman’s pant’s were immodest (some men wear immodest pants, also). If it is a modesty issue rather than a male only issue, than maybe both men and women should wear the coats like the ones God gave Adam and Eve in Genesis 3, for they went from the neck down to the heels.
January 26th, 2010 at 2:26 am
I think that long haired men , women with pants . And christian rock stars will enter heaven long before the fundies will
March 9th, 2010 at 10:52 am
I am 28 years old and have attended a UPC church for the past 14 years. About 3 years ago I began to study scriptures concerning “standards” for MYSELF. What I found was scriptures that were twisted and didn’t really apply. I told my husband, who at the time was a youth pastor, how I felt. I was literally on the verge of a nervous breakdown from so much pressure about the skirt issue. He said we would have to tell our pastor. So our pastor came to our house, I told him how I felt and ask me if I had fasted and prayed about this and I told him yes. He told me that he would reveal it to the ladies at church and let them know that my husband did not agree and that I would be pulled from every area of leadership (Platform singer, sunday school involvement, youth class, everything). Then he went on to tell me that he would warn other who became to close to me to not hang around me because of my pants. Believe me, he sure did that!
Once everyone found out I was wearing pants I was pretty much an outcast. My husband was still youth leader and I was not allowed to even sit in the youth class! I was told that if anyone asked me about my pants not to answer them…basically they didn’t wont me to reveal how I studied out modesty! I guess afraid others would study it out for themselves too…
I am still at the same church. I basically am a “pew warmer”…because I can’t be used in any area, well besides clean toilets! They’ll put me on the cleaning schedule! I am only at that church because my husband goes. I know if I say anything about leaving he would go crazy..and I want to keep peace in my home…
Out of all the people at church, there is one lady who has shown unconditional love toward me! I have been out in public, in my pants, and seen folks from church and they would turn the other way or act like they dont see me. My own pastors wife ignored me at the store…
I don’t believe God is going to judge me because of what I am wearing. Duet. 22:5 is so brainwashing! It is a means of control! Every UPC article is always directed toward women, hardly ever men. It is such a double standard. You can be decked out holiness from the top of your head with your “pentecostal hair-do” to the soles of your feet and be so hollow inside! I have become less judge mental toward people, my nose is not so far up in the air, and I have shed my holy than thou attitude toward others…
My relationship with Jesus has changed. I am so much more closer to God without all the unnecessary weights on me in order to live for him. The bible says “come as you are”. Not go put on your skirt and come to me!
I brought up the fact to the pastor about tights originally designed for men and women wearing them today. His response was “tights or pantyhose are an undergarment”. My response “It’s no longer an UNDERgarment when you were a knee length skirt and your UNDERgarment is exposed.” His response “We are not here to talk about pantyhose, but your pants”.
Give me a break! My heart goes out to all these women and men being bound by mans tradition, rather than the word of God!
March 14th, 2010 at 11:04 pm
(About the artIcle on bein SHUNNED in the Church.)
Paul 2Thessalonian’s 3:6-7,(Now we command you Brethren in the name of our Lord Jesus ,that ye (with draw’
yourselve’s from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.) If after escapeing the pollution’s of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled there in, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness than,after they have nown it, to turn from the Holy Commandment, delivered unto them. But it has happened, unto them according to the true Proverb , the Dog has turned to his own vomit again: and the Sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.
I don” desire the slack”s that I thought that i could never give up. God said that his people would be a” Peculier Peoplle” there are different deffinition”s about the word Peculier,here are 3 that I found in an old Webster’s dictionary, 1 Particular, 2 Unusual, 3 Odd. I am so happy about being one of God’s ; Particuliar, Unusual, Odd, People.
I n one of these Articile’s it mentioned of being a mixed up Christian. I for one am not a mixed up Christian.
Another A rticle, Holiness standard’s being a stumbling block. They are no stumbling block to me. I am proud of my Holiness Standard’s..
There are no twisted Scripture’s in the Bible. It is the Men and Women who twist the Scripture’s
One of these Article’s stated that, (Every UPC Article is alway’s directed toward’s Women,) hardly ever men. (Ithink that is because (UPC) men have not changed their outward appearance the way that the women jhave. (God BLESS THEM.) One Article states “come as you are” true. But we become a new creature in Jesus Christ with the filling of thh “HOLY GHOST/HOLY SPIRIT,Old thing’s are passed away ALL THING’S BECOME NEW, 2 Corinthian’s 5:17.) I don’t think that hhe HOLY SPIRIT WOULD LEAD ME TO GO TO church with a chunk of my hair dyed pink or any other color. Self expression will take us to HELL if It is not of GOD. TATOOE’S and PIERCE’ING”S in the body will take one to HELL .It is the work of Satan.
I agree that our Culture and as the Article state’s” sadly most Churche’s acceptance of cross-dressing” has resulted largely from the influence of Television, I havn’t had Television in my home for almost 2 year’s now, and the placement of women in thh workforce,and the pressure’s of Twentienth Century Feminism.
Jeremiah 17:9 The heart is deceitful above all thing’s, and deseperately :who can know it.
I hold to my dress standard’s inside my home as well as out side my home. When I cut grass, rake leave’s,paint,clean window’s, or whatever,.i wear my long skirt’s.Several year’s a go I bought 3 pair of Pajama’s, I wore them several time’s.I havn’t had them on since.Ihave some clothe’s that I am going to get rId of soon and they will be gone.I felt condemned wearing them. Any one can come to my home day or night,and I won’t have on pant’s or pajama’s. I read that a lady said that she no longer felt her conviction’s.So sad, sad, sad.
When you are filled with the “Holy Ghost/Holy Spirit “the old person inside is gone. You no longer belong to the world, you belong to Jesus Christ. You don’t go to the Wordly Place’s that you use to go, you don’t keep the Wordly friend’s tha t you had, you don’t go to worldly Sport’s game’s that you used to go to,you don’t go to the theater’s ,you don’t go to other event’s that are not Christain or in the Church. Most people that would read this would say that I am crazy. Yes I am crazy for my Lord JESU that live’s inside me. And oh yes i forgot , get rid of the Television.
Since I have been reading these Articles,about the Hair, the Jewlrt, the Make-up, and the Pant’s I am Amazed, Dumb-founded. Shocked, Horified about “You Women” in the(UPC) who say that you are “FILLED” with the “HOLY GHOST”,And you say that you can’t give up these “WORDLY THING’S. I DON’T KNOW WHAT TO SAY, I, AM SPEECHLESSS, EXCEPT TO SAY THAT(OUR LORD JESUS WAS BEATEN, MOCKED, SPIT UPON ,A CROWN OF THORN;S PLACED UPON HIS HEAD, CARRIED HIS OWN CROSS UNTIL HE COULD NOT CARRY IT ANY MORE ,AND THEN HE WAS NAILED TO THAT CROSS HIS SIDE WAS PICERED, GIVEN VINEGAR TO DRINK.
I CAN NEVER GIV HIM ENOUGH PRAISE AND HONOR FOR GOING TO THAT CROSS AND DYING FOR ME AND KNOWING THAT WHEN I LEAVE THIS WORLDTHAT I AM GOING HOME TO BE WITH HIM FOREVER.
March 15th, 2010 at 10:43 pm
ABOUT BEING SHUNNED
Timothy 4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter time’s some will depart from the Faith, giving heed to Seducing Spirit’s, and doctrine’s of Devil’s.
2 Thesslonian’s 3:14 And if any man obey not our word by this Epistle , note that man , and have no company with him,that he might be ashamed’.
1 Corinthian”s 1:17 Now I Beseech you Brethren, mark them which cause division”s and offence’s contrary to the Doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.
2 Corinthian’s 6:14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbeliever’s. What hath righteousness, with unrighteousness, what commucion hath light with darkness.
2 Peter 2:2 And many shall follow their perniciopus ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of.
2 Timmothy 4:3For the time will come when they will not endure sound; Doctrine.
*******************
Getting Back To The P ant’s Issue
God gave directions as to how to make the Breeche’s that Aaron wore and the other Priest’s. He did not give direction’s on making Breeche”s for the woman.
God did not give direction.FOR MAKING Breeche” for the Woman.
March 16th, 2010 at 9:15 am
hello. stop freaking out.
the only way the Bible (which we all believe is the inspired word of God) tells us we will know if someone is Christian is by our love.
If Jesus is Lord (and He is) then he justifies- not me.
READ Romans- really read it. It says that nothing I do can help me. It is ALL IN HIM. Jesus loves me long hair/short hair/ pants/ skirts/. Doesn’t matter. HE LOVES ME. HE LOVES ME. HE LOVES ME.
don’t you think its curious that there are some who really enjoy the scriptures on shunning and enjoy Paul SO MUCH (except of course Romans) but have trouble with some of the words about loving our neighbor from God manifest in the flesh?????
Either he is Lord or He is not.
Either He has all power or he doesnt.
Either it is grace or it is NOT.
the clothing issue causes division– but no one wants to cast it out!
March 17th, 2010 at 1:52 am
I praise the Lord Jesus for the Scripture’s on SHUNNING that I put in an above article.Those Scripture’s tell me that I have the right to “jUDGE” and “SHUN” people who say that they are Christian but who walk “DISORDERLY.”
Roman’s” Salvation needed by all, Salvation provided for all, Salvation free for all. In Roman,s nearly every great doctrine of the Christian Faith is touched upon. Chapter 8 a new work wiithin means a new walk with out. Where sinful flesh was seen,now a new likeness prevail’s. By the grace of the Spirit we walk well pleasing unto God.
Neighbour, Luke 10:29-37. Close neighbour’s,If any of them came and knocked on my door and needed help, I would help them in any way that I could. That does not mean that I have to keep company with them.
I love everyone, even sinner’s. That does not mean that I have to love their sin.
I am a Holy Spirit filled Christian. What ever the clothing that I put on my body, it is for the Lord Jesus Chirst. It won’ be pant”s or other worldly atire.
March 17th, 2010 at 1:56 am
I don”t dress for the Divil,of this world.
March 25th, 2010 at 9:02 pm
My heart goes out to Brandi. I am in almost an identical situation. My husband agrees with and supports the standards at our Apostolic Church and I am made to feel like the devil. I go to keep the peace. We have two children and one more on the way. Be strong sister….one thing is that I am learning that I MUST lean on Jesus for everything. He alone is my rock and my fortress.
As far as Blanche Colgate///Toby Toby above using the term “peculiar”… it’s always bothered me to hear that word in particular brought out in defense of the standards. According to the concordance, which we must use when looking at scripture, not the websters dictionary of our language peculiar means – 1) that which is one’s own, belonging to one’s possessions
a) a people selected by God from the other nations for his own possession
or in another place –
1) possession, property
a) valued property, peculiar treasure
b) treasure
We are peculiar because we are His people and zealous for His works. Furthermore, as previously stated, Jesus said we would be known for our love one to another…. not by whether or not we cut our hair, wear skirts, or jewelry.
I personally believe that God commands us to be modest but didn’t He give us His Spirit to lead and guide us to ALL truths? or was it just some and then we need to get the rest of that from the pastor??
I love God and openly admit I am the farthest person from His perfection. But my prayer is that He will teach me how to love like He does, to see everyone through His eyes, and in doing so I will continue to learn how to please Him and live for Him.
March 29th, 2010 at 8:52 pm
To Kate
You picked concordance as to the definition of peculier. I still stick to my own definition in Websters Dictionary. I have put in other Articles on this site pertaining to JEWLRY MAKE-UP CUTTING HAIR and A WOMAN WEARING PANTS. I retract nothing that I have said. Your condorance reads of God picking out a people to be his.True.You said that your concordance also reads about another place,possession,property a.valued property, peculiar treasure b.treasure.
My understanding is that God is speaking mostly about his chosen people. Duteonomy 14:2,and the Lord hath chosen the to be a peculiar people unto himself,above all the nations that are upon the earth. Titus 2:14 again talking about people, Who gave himself for us,that he might redeem us from all inquity,and purify unto himself a peculiar people,zealous of good works, 1 Peter 2:9 a peculiar people. To me that means ,1.Actions,the places I won’t go,the way that I talk,the company that I don’t keep, my outward appearance. You asked , didn’t he give us His Holy Spirit to lead and to guide us into all truths?He most certianly did.John 16;13. Romans 1:18 who hold the truth in unrightteous. So many people who say that they are Christians will not accept the truth.
I can’t give God enough Praise for taking me to be a child of his and changing me to become changed on the inside as well as on the outside. And yes I use the word particular in the defence of standards. I n one of my Articles up above I gave Scriptures on the Church having the right to shun a Christian who is going back to worldliness.
I n belonging to God we are his own possession, property,valued property,a peculiar treasure.
Blanche Colgate///Toby Toby
April 29th, 2010 at 9:43 am
First off I’d like to state that I agree 100% with Valerie, Marie, Karen, David, blanche, etc. This is not to judge or condemn anyone [as God is just that], but rather to simply state the truth of God’s Word. The Bible teaches us to abound in love, not just knowledge. It’s not the fact of proving anyone wrong to say that we are right…it’s just showing them the truth in the Word of God out of love for a fellow brother/sister and concern for their soul.
Having said that, I’d like to put this question out there. Simply looking at history, what over the last, let’s say, 100 years has caused this outbreak of make-up and ear/body peircings and cross-dressing and total immodesty? Was it a move of the Holy Spirit? Or was it a movement of society and the world and man…an adoption of fads/fashion/Hollywood? Did God Almighty change so that now we can alter our body/physical outward appearance so as to look like the rest of the world, yet still be a peculiar people, Holy and Acceptable unto God? Nope. Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever. I’m sorry but, His moral laws, His commands, His guidelines, His way of righteousness, His Word, will never change.
Understand that I’m just focusing on these things which alter our physical outward appearance (make-up, peircings, clothes, etc.), and nothing else. We are all taught that our bodies are the temple of the Holy Ghost [1 Corinthians 6:19-20]. Well, do you think God would tell you to punch a hole, scar, or ‘cover-up’ His temple? To hide the blemishes His temple has? To make His temple more beautiful? I don’t think so. See, if we believe that God is the Creator of everything and that we are made in His image, why would we need to add to or modify His handiwork? God shaped our looks in the womb and yet we feel that we need to help God when it comes to our appearance by augmenting our bodies with big/shiny/gaudy jewelry, tattoos, and make-up.
And yes, I completely agree that God looks on your heart, but man cannot see your heart. All they see with their eyes is your outward appearance. So then how are we go be a light to this lost and dying world if we look/dress like them? Our clothing of the heart [of humility and righteouness] and our outward clothing should speak the same language.
Furthermore, in regards to your view on the Holy Ghost and it’s interpretation/evidence…that’s a whole nother topic in and of itself, but man, I pray for all those who believe that Speaking in Tongues is not the evidence of the Holy Ghost. Like Waylon said, that is a lie straight from the pit of Hell and having actually experienced this before, just goes to show the power of satan’s deception in these last days.
I believe without a shadow of a doubt that it is Satan’s plan to make the saved, Bible believing Christians to act/look more like the world…to lower their standards of righteousness. People can say that “oh, I only put a little eye liner on, or just a little cover-up to hide my impurities”, but Galatians 5:9 says, “A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.” I would not want to do the same thing that the harlots did. See, when people have an agenda, they will use their own notions, their own emotions and feelings, and believe it or not the devil will use actual scripture(s) to twist your thoughts around to alter the truth of God’s Word and justify how you live. I’ve seen it happen with my own very eyes in my church…to good people…to my best friends and family. Things that they have believed and stood up for, for so many years, are now gone and considered foolish and not important to God anymore. It’s a sad, sad day we live in, but all we can do is pray and portray our love to everyone around us [whether friend or enemy], and try and show them the real truth in God’s Word.
This is not a matter of what if, or being better than anyone else, or being more safe than sorry, or a ‘just in case’ act…it’s a matter of God’s Word and what He said in His book. The bottom line is this, when God saves you He changes your heart inwardly…and when He does this and you continue to serve God sincerely with all your heart, you will WANT to change your outward appearance, being led by the Holy Spirit. You will no longer want to look like the rest of the world, but be a light, a peculiar people, and a silent testimony of what Almighty God has done to you inside.
Finally, if you want to hear a message that will change your life…listen to this sermon. It is mostly about clothing, but it applies to your entire physical outward appearance.
http://www.biblepreaching.com/davisclothing_mp3.html
Remember, it’s easy to stand with the crowd, but it takes courage to stand alone. Count it an honor to stand alone for your reward is layed up in Heaven.
I pray that I have shown that God has spoken very definitely on this subject, and shouldn’t be taken lightly as many have suggested. For the children of God who wishes to walk in His total will and enjoy unbroken and complete fellowship with the Lord, there can only be one answer; “I will obey His Word at any cost.” It will not be easy for some people who have been caught up in this modern ‘liberal’ church world to break away from conformity with the practice of their friends/family/society. Like I said before, this will take courage. But praise God we can be assured that God will provide this courage if we simply ask Him. Remember God has spoken and His Word is final and authoritative…His “Word Is forever settled In Heaven.” (Psalms 119:89)
God Bless,
Martin
June 12th, 2010 at 4:28 am
“Praise the Lord everybody”.
It such a profound subject being elaborated on here. I would just like to put a perspective on something.
Are we aware, that the wearing of make up is so “detrimental to your skin”. The chemical concoction in a simple base to hide blemishes, etc will cause your skin to age at a rate that is unreal. The chemical soups created to make the world a better place is such a temporal solution. Now for the “kicker”. The temple of the Holy Ghost is literally poisoned by this application, but because we are taught that it is unchristian to smoke, we don’t realize that putting on topical applications is just as hazadous.
How about a “can of coke and a can of beer”? Which one can be proved to be the beneficial one, made from a yeast, etc? Which one dissolves a baby’s tooth in just 2 days. Which one can bring out the sparkle on a rusty substance? – don’t drink alchohol, but I use it my mouthwash, or in my aftershave.
Well, the Temple is affected ultimately, and our lack of knowledge will destroy us. I have looked into our pentecostal lives, and am amazed at the rate at which are afflicted with disease, particularly as a perculiar people. We must be examples in all areas. Jesus says, its not what goes in that defiles a man, but what comes out of mouth, as it does proceeed from the heart. We need a heart change, and a life transformation for the holiness to be a convicttion, otherwise it is just a work of the human mind.
Our prayer is to be a part of the church of the living God, and not to be ashamed at Him on that great day, for a chutch their will be, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Dion
June 18th, 2010 at 2:42 pm
Grace
I go to a church where we don’t wear pants in church. But when I was growing up I always wore pants in school and everywhere else!. But now that I am 20 years old, I feel pressured to give up pants. But you know what? I realised that it is indeed a question of MODESTY. period. Even a blind person will know that as a woman, you are more likely to look immodest in pants, than in a skirt. Especially if you are on the ‘heavy’ side! So, every woman should know if she can wear pants and still look modest. At the end of the day, if people truly sought to please God, this whole pants thing wont even be an issue!
I wear pants sometimes, like if I am going jogging or going somewhere informal, as I can wear the baggy jumpsuits. but my common sense alone showed me that when I wear pants, my bottom and thighs are on display. Considering men are stimulated with the eyes, I wouldn’t want to cause anyone to lust, or sin against God. If you love your fellow brothers, in Christ or in the world, you wouldn’t cause them to sin. So dont tempt them for your own self/ego boost, ladies…
PS. I put this comment up before and you deleted it. I wonder why? I didnt say anything wrong! I think the purpose of this site is to misleed people. Thats what you are doing. I suspect a sheep in woolfs clothing…You dont love God, you love the world. and evidently you like looking at womens bums! thats why you would go out of your way and create a site AGAINST women wearing skirts. what is your problem? it’s not like women wearing skirts is a bad thing! What is it then? do skirts not satisfy your lustfull eyes???
You have issues. Anti-Christ.
Grace, I did not delete your original comment. Your original comment was posted on 2010/06/07 at 8:38pm EST, but it was posted under the “What does the Bible say about women wearing pants?” article. Here is a direct link to your comment so you can check it out for yourself: http://www.whyileft.org/what-does-the-bible-say-about/what-does-the-bible-say-about-women-wearing-pants/comment-page-2/#comment-4388. As you can see, it’s still safe and sound :)
I very, very rarely delete comments. There are currently 617 comments on this site, and it has been running since late 2006. Since that time I do not think I have deleted even 10 comments. If I do delete a comment it is because someone is “trolling” (I.e., “stirring the pot” and causing trouble). I will not allow trollers at all, regardless of whether or not their views agree with mine.
I welcome your feedback just like I welcome the feedback from everyone else who visits this site :)
In Christ,
- Josh S.
June 26th, 2010 at 7:52 pm
DION THE SUN CAN CAUSE YOUR SKIN TO AGE TOO BUT DO WE PREACH AGAINST TAN BEDS? ITS AS HARMFUL AS SMOKING (EVER HEARD OF SKIN CANCER?) We can defile Gods temple by the greasy fatty foods we eat too but I see alot of fat unhealthy Chritians running around. Stop beating up the women here with dress and make up and get on other things like gluttony!
July 2nd, 2010 at 4:07 am
Hey to all,
I stumbled across this site tonight. I left the UPC 20 years ago and when I left this conversation was still going on. I remember my Mom speaking to my Dad and saying “‘John Doe’ if I get to heaven and see people with cut hair I am going to kill you dead”. She usually said this while attempting to wrestle a bushel of hair onto her head in a way that was she hoped looked somewhat attractive. When I look back at this I see this for what it is. It is evidence of a man’s world where women do what they are told and are told to do a lot.
When I was a kid I realized that being UPCI and a girl at the same time was terrible. Long hair, long sleeves, no makeup, no jewelry (with some odd exceptions), no pants, long skirts, no swimming in public (back in the day my Dad preached against “mixed bathing”, which my brother and I thought was so hilarious–imagine bathing in a pool ). If a girl in my dad’s church got in trouble for flirting it was her fault. If a guy flirted he was just being a guy. It was also ALWAYS the girl’s fault if she got pregnant (even as a kid I noticed that this did not make sense–Jezebel aside–it’s not a practical argument). Although the young man had sinned he had been carried away by an evil temptress and he was required to marry her immediately. Unless, the guy was the preacher’s kid. Then he got the devil cast out of him (by a highly regarded evangelist, no less), had a well timed prophecy uttered over him, and then was packed of to Gateway College of Evangelism to train for his upcoming (and very successful) career as a UPCI pastor. Some of this stuff you can’t even make up.
But I digress . I guess I thought you all might have loosened up a bit. Do you still believe that God is watching whether your wife or daughter trimmed their hair? So, God is so interested that Julio Doe was wearing peach colored lipstick last week while attending the church bake sale that he had her heaven privileges revoked? I certainly hope not.
In closing, my dad’s name is not John Doe, he still pastors in the UPCI and Julie Doe is his granddaughter and she wears peach lipstick. I don’t want to get her into trouble–or to get her kicked out of the choir .
July 2nd, 2010 at 7:43 am
Enjoyed the comment John!
November 30th, 2010 at 1:58 am
The word of God will stand everthing else will pass but HIS word will stand. Pray for the guidance from God if you not sure,
I go to a UPC church in South Africa, pants, earings,make up, short skirts, ,alcohol,cutting or dyeing of hair is something I don’t do because
I believe its not something God wants for me. When I walk on the street I want people to see Jesus in me
not attract people or the opposite sex based on what I wear. Furthermore the conviction I have is a
personal thing between God and me, I don’t think anybody should debate about the word of God.
UPC is an organization and will not take anyone to heaven some day, its gonna depend on you alone.
Seek the word of God, God knew all that would happen, way before it would happen. When I’m in church our pastor
Encourages the whole church to read the bible together so we are aware that scripture is not taken out of context. Have a blessed day.
December 9th, 2010 at 9:23 pm
I came across your web site totally by mistake while doing some research and decided to take a look at it; I am always interested in what the other people have to say about certain issues.
I must say that I debated on if I should write into this or not. I can see that this site is primarily to destroy the apostolic/pentecostal faith and in seeing this I did not want to waste my time.
I am sadden to see the bitterness that I have read. I am sadden to see the lack of understanding which I blame no one for except certain leadership that has not explained things fully. I am very sadden to see the position that this sites owner has taken. Mixed emotions have flooded my soul when I read this. Part of me was could not believe what I was reading, part of me was slightly angry, and part of me felt so sorry not only for the owner of this but some of those who have written in.
Being and Apostolic Minister, not associated with the UPC not that I have anything against them, I FULLY agree that there needs to be reform within the ranks of the pentecostals. I believe and teach in the principals of the disciplines of worship that includes our dress and appearance. These are biblical truths. However, at the same time, I do not agree with those who place their “standards” above God. This is not what God had in mind.
I too, have re-evaluated teachings of the church. There is nothing wrong with men with beards, if there is then why did Jesus keep one. there is no teaching anywhere where men could not wear beards. In addition, being an apostolic minister I believe in the wearing of wedding rings for it shows the seal of covenant between two people.
One of the main problems in Pentecost is that there is not a full understanding of the principals of worship. If we would stop preaching “standards” and start teaching Worship and enlightening minds in this rich and deep area the principal of worship in our dress would never be an issue.
On a different note, you have totally missed any principal to the aspect of salvation. If all you have is a lousy Acts 2:38 verse to establish salvation then you are certainly shallow. Salvation is about COVENANT period. If studied Judaism and the structure of covenant and how you attain covenant you would see the steps have not changed even in the new testament. the only difference is Jesus Christ. God created the principal of covenant and everything is established accordingly.
When we are judged before God all he is going to want to know is did we keep HIS covenant. This covenat includes being filled with His spirit speaking with tongues which is the seal of his covenant according to His word. Anyone who has been around and has studied out God’s word Knows that the book of Acts out pouring and Corinthians 12 tongues is two different animals. One is a sign of the infilling and one is part of the 9 gifts of the Spirit and is used to operate as God sees fit which reinforces what you said or at least what the Bible says in chapter 12 that not all speak with tongues because it is used for a specific purpose.
I could go on but I feel that I have said enough. Some have made up their minds concerning pentecost which I am truly sad for. Others I pray will reconsider. Just because you have had a bad experience doe not mean that the doctrine is faulty it means that there is a minister that is not focused properly and I know of a few.
Dont walk away.
December 9th, 2010 at 10:10 pm
Robert,
I appreciate your feedback.
Just one quick note: The purpose of this site is not to destroy the apostolic faith. I encourage you, as I encourage all people who are unsure of my motivations, to read the “About Me” page before making judgments about my intentions. I’ll go ahead and quote some of it here:
This site is a place for me to express the reasons why I left the Apostolic movement (I left in November 2006, when I was 26). I originally intended it to be for friends and family, but people who I have never met discovered the site before my family did. Please understand that my goal is not to persuade anyone to leave the movement. My only desire is to open the door for honest and sincere discussion for everyone who visits–regardless of their religious affiliation. It is my prayer that people will read my story and be challenged to examine their own beliefs, and to “get into the Word” to see if what they have been taught is correct!
The above statement was written in late 2006 / early 2007 when I first left the apostolic movement. The statement has not changed, and neither has the purpose of this site.
Also, this site is not anti-UPC. It is not founded in a bad experience that I had with the organization or the apostolic movement and, since I have a degree in theology, I feel comfortable saying that it is not founded on misunderstandings of apostolic doctrine. If you look at the home page then you will see a link to “An Important Note On Terms.” That page is not very long so I’ll go ahead and quote the entire thing here:
This site is written to, not at, Apostolic Pentecostals. For the purposes of this site I define Apostolic the way it is defined on the Apostolic Friends Forum:
Those that believe that every sinner must repent of their sins.
That Jesus name baptism is the only biblical mode of water baptism.
That the Holy Ghost is for today and is received by faith
with the initial evidence of speaking in tongues.
The saint will go on to strive to live a holy life, pleasing to God.
My personal background is not just apostolic, it is holiness Apostolic. I was raised in a combination of independent holiness apostolic, UPC, and ALJC churches. Because of my background I sometimes use the terms “UPC”, “apostolic”, and “Oneness Pentecostal” interchangeably. However, I would like to stress that this site is not related to the current split going on in the UPC. I do not identify with the Oneness Apostolic movement at all, so please do not mistake this for an anti-UPC site.
I hope that clarifies my motivations and any terminologies that might be confusing!
God bless!
- Josh S.
December 28th, 2010 at 9:02 pm
Just in the last few months left the UPC and I have been a part of this organization for the past 32 years. Even tho I dont believe pants are a heaven or hell issue I still struggle with the things Ive been told thru the years. My pastor said “Ive been taught differently” and I said that doesnt make it right! I read this site regularly trying to get insight and strength from others who have left a legalist religion. The standards are not wrong to have but to exclude people who dont obey them from participating in church and becoming a member is wrong or to tell them God is displeased if they dont do these things is a way of making people conform( they want to be pleasing and they want to be apart of the church) so they conform or leave. I have always wanted to please and be accepted but have realized I have only been trying to please man and by pleasing man (the pastor) somehow I was pleasing God. I have had things pretty messed up! I now have a greater appreciation for the grace of God in my life and know that it is only thru HIM that I am saved and made holy! God bless anyone who is going thru these changes and may you find youre walk with the Lord grow deeper as we focus on the inward man and less on the outward. May I say, I am a very modest woman and always will be because it is in my heart so if its not in youre heart a woman can put on a skirt to be seductive! Its in the heart people!
January 17th, 2011 at 10:42 am
Had a very interesting conversation with a penticostal that follows the whole no pants for women rule. Funny, how Jesus never talked about clothing. Jesus followed the culture of man (Jews) how they dressed and wore their hair etc. When Jesus returns — will he come with a haircut and jeans? The Rev above is walking with blinders to think that the culture has not changed once again. Had he been born during the old testiment — the only difference between him and and wife clothing (robe) would have been the decor. The majority of everything in our society has been started for Men 1st then passed down to women. (shoes, hats, gloves, etc.). If trend is consistant — the 1st robes had to been worn by men and passed on to women too! I bet the Rev won’t wear PINK, PURPLE, pant or with the button on the opposite side Jeans —– why — because they are womens pants. As soon as he rejects them — he would have to admit that the pants offered were not his gender type. I think that man-made doctrine is very superficial — it conditions their group to immediate judge the outer appearance appearance. I think they should also consider Colosian 2 in their daily practice.
January 19th, 2011 at 7:53 pm
I think we all have varying opinions as to what we think scripture means. I had just told my daughter that when she reads scripture OR when a preacher is reading from the Bible, to read along with him! I also told her to pay close attention to when ‘standards and rules’ are lain down to make sure ONE scripture isn’t taken from a chapter and made into a totally different meaning. One scripture taken from a chapter to make a point totally different from what it is intended, is a form of taking away from the Word in my opinion. And yet, we see this done so many times.
Personally, on the dress issue, I feel that God intends His people to be set apart; a peculiar people if you will. God didn’t create man and woman to be equal no matter how much women want it that way- we are the weaker vessel. I think it is a form of submitting to the husband when we wear a dress- and I know it sounds a bit out there- BUT I think it just looks more like a man/woman role when the man is wearing the pants to symbolize the head of the house, and the woman is in a dress symbolizing femininity and grace. When men and women swap out the dress, what do people automatically think or assume?! Deuteronomy 22:5 says that ‘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 they God. I don’t have to have any reference book to tell me what ‘pertaineth to’ means. And the scripture is plain when it includes both male and female in not wearing garments that pertain to the other. God sees it as an abomination- He hates it. Man and woman are not equal, so it stands to reason that there should be distinctions between the two- having a dress code is really the only way that sets the two apart I think. Personally, I don’t think many churches today teach this doctrine- and for sake of making enemies here, – maybe it is because the people do not want their pastor telling them what to do or what the Word says- “Just tickle our ears and tell us what we want to hear or we won’t pay you mentality.”
UPC was not the only denomination that taught their women wear to dresses as a standard of holiness. I remember when the Assembly of God did so as well. Conforming or compromising to please people allows people to think that what they were taught before was perhaps wrong. I was not always in the UPC Organization. When I did become a member of the church, I had no problem with the dress code and I was just a teenager. I felt a change and changing my outward appearance was something I felt I needed to do too. The Bible is plain when it says “Thou shalt not wear that which pertaineth to…” In other words, anything that resembled what a man wore was not acceptable- such as a cap, a tie, or pants. In days of old, men and women wore robes as much as we know from history. Although there were robes, there were distinctions for the two to set the woman and man apart. As times changed, dress also did- BUT there was still that distinction. And if we stop and think about it, there are no dresses for men- putting the buttons on the other side or the zipper on the other side does not make that dress look anymore like a man than leaving it as it was originally. I do believe at the first in our generation, women wore dresses and men wore pants. It wasn’t until later years that women dared to put on pants and smoke cigarettes, etc. And I imagine there were no ‘women’s pants’ at that time since women didn’t yet wear them. Was it a coming out to make a statement or to be rebellious in a way- who knows? Again, as years went by, women got a little bolder, wanting equal rights in regards to the man. I do not think that was God’s intentions for the woman. But God pushes Himself off on no one and so people rebelled and went their own way. We live in a society where anything goes and people do not want others telling them what they can and cannot do. As a man thinketh in his heart, so is he, and what is inside manifests itself outwardly. And so judgement is reserved for all of us- we have to live by the choices we make and only God truly knows whether our hearts are right or not. If the UPC doctrine is wrong then no one is hurt- I do not think UPC members will be sent to hell because of their dress code. BUT if the UPC dress code is right…… Study to show thine own self approved is all any of us can do.
January 20th, 2011 at 3:09 pm
Deut. 22:5 is in the Old Testament, book of the Law, laws given to the children of Israel to live by. The christian church is in the New Testament, we live by God’s grace. Whatever laws from the O.T. that were meant for the church were repeated in the N.T.
I personally believe that ‘dress codes’ are going to keep us out of heaven
January 20th, 2011 at 7:12 pm
My previous comment, last line should read:
I personally believe that ‘dress codes’ will not keep us out of heaven
February 2nd, 2011 at 6:52 pm
I am a Pentecostal but I do cut my hair and my daughters wear pants to school for modesty issues. I have asked alot of questions lateley which no one seems to be able to answer. Why do we have to adhere to deut. 22:5, but the men do not have to wear tassels on their cloak, we do not observe the sabbath as the jews do, we do not eat kosher why do we mix linen and wool when it is commanded not to? How come a woman can take the vow of a Nazarite when at the end of the vow ,she has to shave her head? Yes, the scripture does say ” if a man OR WOMAN takes the vow of a nazarite “ect.
I don’t know, I have been taught my whole life against many things but when I ask some of these questions I get told, “that is for the jews”. Ok, then so is Deut 22:5. It can’t be one thing for the women and the men not have to follow some rules too. It is also in Lev about the man wearing the tassles but it’s always just for the jews.
I just pray to be saved and to please God. My girls wear pants to school because they feel more covered. When I first put them in them I asked “how do you feel? Do you feel wierd or like it is wrong? My 13 year old looked at me and said ” I feel more covered mom”. We then discussed being in prayer about it and if at any time felt conviction, then they would go back to all skirts. I have to look out for my family, my girls are very active and there are alot of teenage boys in our nieghborhood and they feel more covered knowing that there undergarmets will not be seen.
July 14th, 2011 at 7:53 pm
I think this is all ridiculous. Who cares what anyone wears at all? I really don’t think your god would. I thought jesus was supposed to love you for your merits, your repentance or whatever, and the fact that you accepted him as your savior…not if you wear pants or skirts (by the way…if women are supposed to wear dresses to demonstrate their modesty, where do you draw the line as to how long they are supposed to be? What about the material they are made of? The tightness of such skirts or dresses? Does it say anything about that in your book?) There are too many dumb rules that you all talk about instead of just accepting your god and jesus and doing the best you can to not sin. I’m sure your god won’t reject you because you misunderstood some weird translation about whether or not to wear pants.
August 8th, 2011 at 6:29 am
[...] http://www.whyileft.org/responses-to-the-upc/response-to-upc-bible-study-on-women-wearing-pants/ [...]
September 2nd, 2011 at 10:14 pm
Just wondering…Do UPCers insist that those from other countries whom they convert also uphold the “holiness standards” of dress? I mean, Do they insist that a man from a tribe in New Guinea now wear pants in the hot jungle? Or is this another “holiness standard” loophole where it shows the utter hypocrisy of the UPC?
September 13th, 2011 at 1:15 pm
Suzanne, a lot of that is left up to the individual missionary. I’ve talked to a lot of UPC missionaries and some of them encourage women and men to dress counter-culturally while others do not. My experience with all of missionaries, not just UPC ones, is that they tend to be more pragmatic and realistic than their leaders back in the States.
In Christ,
- Josh S.
October 17th, 2011 at 5:50 pm
How do people equate pant =man and skirt/dress = woman? I attend a UPC church and would like to invite a friend of mine who is indian to church. She goes to an Indian pentecostal church but she wear tradiaitonal Indian Shalwar kameez which is a long tunic with pants underneath. How can I explain to her that the US pentecostal church thinks women who were pants are an abomination?
The way I see it the shalwar kameez is waaay more modest than some of the tight skirts and blouses I see some girls at church wear.
Where in the Bible does it say that modesty = Western fashion? Only in European cultures is a dress/skirt = woman and pants = man. In India both men and women wear shalwar kameez. I don’t understand how the Bible says European/Western clothes are what is modest? Please explain?
November 17th, 2011 at 2:56 pm
I think the biggest point here in the wearing of male or female apparel is to keep the purity of our thoughts. wearing skirts/dresses for the sake of distinguishing yourself from a man would not make us anymore virtuous then someone who wears pants. However, the point of wearing skirts or dresses is to keep hidden what should be hidden, to help our fellow men as they are very visual creatures. anything clinging to the body,whether thats a dress skirt or pants, has the potential to create feelings of lust in his heart. If God created men to be visual it is up to the women to help them by dressing a bit more modestly. God is more interested in our hearts, and not everyone walking around in pants is purposely trying to get attention, but some people do purposely try to get attention in the attire they wear, pants or dresses. the point is again, to uphold the purity and integrity of our intentions before God.
I started wearing skirts from always wearing jeans but i know that it wont make me better than anyone wearing pants. i just know that when i do wear skirts now, they are loose and way past my knees,I know that my conscience feels safe before God. I may not get as many looks from men,and sometimes i get laughed at but It is better to care what God dthinks then Men. it would be a poor excuse for me to say to God, well i liked the way my body looked wearing pants, and it felt good knowing men looked at my rear end.
I am sure God would actually prefer long loose skirts/dresses vs pants b/c they hide the female body more,but he does not condem those who wear pants. Again, he looks at the heart and not everyone can go out and afford a new wardrobe.some people are poor.so when i see people wearing tight clothes or pants I do not condemn, b/c i remember i used to wear tight fitting clothes all the time, even in church, and i am a young woman. I am embarrassed at my ignorance as well as pride (for the times i knew i looked good) but i am greatful that God in his grace, opened my eyes and that no one condemed me or embarrassed me for wearing pants.if anything maybe they said a quiet prayer for me.