Quote:
Originally Posted by Aquila
I know what it's like. The church I spent my first years in was a hellfire and brimstone church where nearly anything and everything would send you to Hell. When it came to pants, pants on women were an "abomination" and to die without having repented of wearing them was certain damnation. Beards, jewelry, hair, television, etc. were all heaven/hell issues. He ran a tight ship. And he truly believed what he preached.
I've come to a different understanding. I believe that pants are a modesty issue. Most pants are immodest unless one wears a top long enough to cover their hips and bottom. In our fellowship we encourage dresses and skirts, but we do not condemn women who are not ready for that level of modesty. Perhaps if we viewed pants on a woman as being an abomination, we'd be more strict on it. But we don't. So, we don't disfellowship or shun women over pants, hair, makeup, jewelry, or the like. We believe that as one matures in Christ they will grow in modesty and holiness.
We have a process in which if a person is engaged in continued sin the elders talk with the person and try to determine if it is due to a lack of understanding, a different interpretation, a circumstantial issue, or willful rebellion. If it is determined that a person is actually in willful rebellion we move to disfellowship. We're a house church, so when we disfellowship we inform the person that while we love them and desire to worship with them, they are no longer welcome in our gatherings until they can demonstrate that they have repented of the sin.
Many people call us "liberal" but in truth, we're actually moderates.
|
Aquila
I question even this reasoning. From my studies I believe that what others are calling pants were in fact underclothes, that when
Deut. 22:5 was written both men and women wore robes without anything under them in the way of breeches. That God instructed Moses to make breeches for the priest for the purpose he directed in
Exo 28:42 And thou shalt make them linen breeches to cover their nakedness; from the loins even unto the thighs they shall reach:
Exo 28:43 And they shall be upon Aaron, and upon his sons, when they come in unto the tabernacle of the congregation, or when they come near unto the altar to minister in the holy place; that they bear not iniquity, and die: it shall be a statute for ever unto him and his seed after him.
In
Exodus 20 God is instruction his people on offering a sacrifice on an alter, and commands that they are not to go up steps when offering a sacrifice, that their nakedness be not discovered. The point being that everyone wore robes without underwear if you please.
The question I ask is if God had the priest wear underwear to cover their nakedness at certain times, why is it wrong for a women. Follow that with men have taken off their robes and now walk around in long underwear, albeit we now call them pants. But if it is ok for a man to wear underwear as common attire why do we not give a women the same latitude?
We say it is immodest, if it is immodest than so is a man walking around in a pair of pants instead of a robe!