Serious Pants/ Skirts Question... Not Trying to Debate... Thanks!

[Esther]

Originally Posted by BobDylan

Esther, what do you feel is the correct interpretation of Deut 22:5?

Since you said you do not wear pants, are there ever exceptions that you make personally? Say pajama pants? What about if you were to go snow skiing? Scuba diving? All women's gym?

Please understand, this is not to implicate you, in that I don't think Deut 22:5 is being interpreted entirely appropriately either... I do feel the pants skirts interpretation has merit, but I think there is more to it than simply that, there are deeper implications. And I also think there may be some exception to the pants/skirts interpretation (for those who tend to be more traditional) that do not violate the principle of Deut 22:5... for instance, ski-pants, pajama pants, workout pants, etc....

I think pants/skirts is a good interpretation, but it is not an absolute rule, that's all I am trying to say. That's what is going on in my mind anyway. Thanks!

Yes I will wear PJ's. I haven't been snow skiing in years, and have never worn the bibs, but IF I ever go again, I probably would. It is just more approirate for what you are doing.

I have given my interpretation already on Deut 22:5, which in a nutshell, is that that scripture is talking about gender changes. IF you will note it is to men AND women. Why? Because it is against gays, dressing as the opposite sex that they are. That is MY opinion.

But modesty is still the issue no matter what you wear, IMO.

[HeavenlyOne]

Originally Posted by BobDylan

"Modesty" IS a standard!!!!

Do you mind if I ask you a couple questions... you don't have to answer if you don't want to. Do you or your daughter ever trim or cut your hair? How do you feel about jewelry and makeup? Again, I know it's off the subject, but I am just wondering where you stand or your practices regarding these other "standards"... thanks!

Modesty isn't taught as a standard, except when tied in with 'you are modest only if you wear the following items' teaching.

I cut my hair and keep it about shoulder length. Medical reasons prevent me from growing it much longer, although I had hair to my bum most of my life until my brain surgery 3 1/2 years ago.

My daughter trims her hair, however, she deferred going to the salon when I last went in June. Two years ago, her hair was to her shoulders, but now it's almost to her waist.

Jewelry and makeup should be modest.....not just in how much, but also where it's placed. For instance, a pair of earrings is fine. One in the lip and one in the nose isn't. (NOTE: This is my opinion and how I live, not what I preach that others should do.)

There is a difference in make-up and made-up. Too much make-up = made-up!

These are my standards that I have set for my family.

[HeavenlyOne]

Originally Posted by Esther

Yes I will wear PJ's. I haven't been snow skiing in years, and have never worn the bibs, but IF I ever go again, I probably would. It is just more approrate for what you are doing.

I have given my interpretation already on Deut 22:5, which in a nutshell, is that that scripture is talking about gender changes. IF you will note it is to men AND women. Why? Because it is against gays, dressing as the opposite sex that they are. That is MY opinion.

But modesty is still the issue no matter what you wear, IMO.

Interesting to note, and PO did an extensive thread about this also, is that 'wear' in that verse isn't referring to the mere act of putting on, but rather the intent to become; to exist as. This makes a HUGE difference when you read the verse in that light compared to how it's taught in OP churches.

[Esther]

Originally Posted by HeavenlyOne

Interesting to note, and PO did an extensive thread about this also, is that 'wear' in that verse isn't referring to the mere act of putting on, but rather the intent to become; to exist as. This makes a HUGE difference when you read the verse in that light compared to how it's taught in OP churches.

Yes that is my take as well.

[Ferd]

Originally Posted by BobDylan

Is this something you see in my remarks? OP's have traditionally concluded pants/skirts because of our customs (traditionally) in western society. But there are many societies where pants/skirts have not always been the traditional dress. There are pacific islanders where men traditionally wear "skirts"... apostolic preachers preach in skirts etc. etc. etc. If we are going to interpret Deut 22:5 on the basis of social customs (as was done in the 1940's), then lets reexamine it within the backdrop of social customs of today.

You can't say socail custom is the basis for an interpretation, and then later on say it cannot be the basis for interpretation. Traditional OP's have used the social customs of the 1940's and prior to determine their interpretation of Deut 22:5.... but what if you take someone, say a denominational pastor here in the US, that has never heard a OP preacher, never heard an old-time holiness preacher, somewhere in a big city... and they are seeking God, stydying the bible, and see the oneness, see Jesus Name baptism, see the Holy Ghost and tongues, etc. etc. etc. but then when he gets to Deut 22:5, all he has ever known is woman-pants, and men-pants. Would he arbitrarily come to the skirts/pants interpretation of Deut 22:5? Or would he interpret it based on the society that is familiar to him? Now let's say this Holy Ghost filled Jesus name baptized pastor, leading his flock to the same truth, encounters a OP preacher.... they discuss Deut 22:5, and the baptist pastor leaves unconvinced that the 1940's interpretation of Deut 22:5 is applicable for his congregation today... is he not still a brother in the Lord? Has he rejected "truth" and we should have no fellowship with him? My point is, if someone interprets Deut 22:5 with respect to a 1940's social paradigm, that's great, but what if someone else interprets Deut 22:5 with a 2007 social paradigm? Will these two approaches within two entirely different societies destined to arbitrarily come to the same conclusion?

No BD, I dont think ive seen anything from you referencing "American Corporate Morality". however that view has been espoused around here since before "here" was here....

As fo mixing cultural norms, let me see if I can be more clear.

Culture does have an impact on what is viewed as feminine and what is masculine. However, we cannot use cultural perspective when it comes to morality. Skirts/Pants have to be viewed from 2 perspectives. First, there is the cultural norm. Is a skirt womans clothes and are pants mens? It is very hard to in this society to justify the Pants on men only position because what a woman can wear and still be viewed as a modest and proper lady is allows that. However, from a modesty perspective, NO ONE outside the Church EVER gets a vote on what is modest. period. Culture doesnt dictate modesty. The Holy Ghost should..... all too often on this, I am afraid, we have collectivly told the Holy Ghost to shut up.

[Ferd]

Originally Posted by HeavenlyOne

Interesting to note, and PO did an extensive thread about this also, is that 'wear' in that verse isn't referring to the mere act of putting on, but rather the intent to become; to exist as. This makes a HUGE difference when you read the verse in that light compared to how it's taught in OP churches.

I agree with that and that is also why in 1940 when Apostolic Preachers were taking a stand against women wearing pants, they were 100% correct. Society proved that they were right. WE reep the whirlwind today because of the laxity of our society then.

Now however, when reviewing this, what I find is the vast majority of those that move away from "skirts only" move away from morality.

I still say it is best that we maintain these old time positions. there is value here that we are scoffing at and turning from.

[Subdued]

Originally Posted by HeavenlyOne

Addressing the bold part of your post, as I agree with the rest........well, I also agree with the bolded part, as there was a time when pants were considered men's apparell only, but that no longer applies today.

To those who think that clothing doesn't change from era to era and gender to gender, men, let me introduce you to the time when you wore stockings and high heels along with ruffled shirts and even lace.

See, there was once a time when those items were known as men's attire, but as we know.......today, that no longer applies (and all the men say PRAISE THE LORD!).

Originally Posted by Ferd

I agree with that and that is also why in 1940 when Apostolic Preachers were taking a stand against women wearing pants, they were 100% correct. Society proved that they were right. WE reep the whirlwind today because of the laxity of our society then.

Now however, when reviewing this, what I find is the vast majority of those that move away from "skirts only" move away from morality.

I still say it is best that we maintain these old time positions. there is value here that we are scoffing at and turning from.

I agree! Men should go back to wearing stockings, high heels, ruffles & lace; since men wore them originally. It's also my understanding that women began wearing pants before men did. (H1, correct me if I'm wrong - didn't you stumble across this info during your research of the subject?)

Could someone please tell me why, today, it's okay for WOMEN to wear stockings, high heels, ruffles & lace - and for MEN to wear pants? We're ALL "crossdressing," it seems.

[Ferd]

Originally Posted by Subdued

I agree! Men should go back to wearing stockings, high heels, ruffles & lace; since men wore them originally. It's also my understanding that women began wearing pants before men did. (H1, correct me if I'm wrong - didn't you stumble across this info during your research of the subject?)

Could someone please tell me why, today, it's okay for WOMEN to wear stockings, high heels, ruffles & lace - and for MEN to wear pants? We're ALL "crossdressing," it seems.

well, at least you possess the capasity to exercise hyperbole.

[Mischief Maker]

Originally Posted by Ferd

well, at least you possess the capasity to exercise hyperbole.

Does that take a lot of energy? Because I am tired already.

[HeavenlyOne]

Originally Posted by Ferd

I agree with that and that is also why in 1940 when Apostolic Preachers were taking a stand against women wearing pants, they were 100% correct. Society proved that they were right. WE reep the whirlwind today because of the laxity of our society then.

Now however, when reviewing this, what I find is the vast majority of those that move away from "skirts only" move away from morality.

I still say it is best that we maintain these old time positions. there is value here that we are scoffing at and turning from.

I agree that there are people who move away from morality and modesty, whether it's the majority or not, well, I'll leave that for each person to decide based on their own observations.

However, these 'old time positions' you refer to aren't that old time, considering how long humans have been on the earth. What if, back in 1940, they decided that the 'old time position' to take was how people dressed in 1880? Would you expect your wife to dress like that today, in that same attire? I would hope not.....especially when men aren't expected to dress in the attire from that era.

I'm sure you are thankful that the UPC wasn't formed in the 1700's. You might still be wearing stockings, high heels, and ruffled shirts with lace today!! LOL!

And let's also understand that while the attire itself hasn't changed much, we really don't dress like they did in 1940. According to that time and place, we dress a little more immodestly than they did, however, we don't think we are immodestly dressed today, right?

Ferd, consider that if modesty was preached about more than articles of clothing, perhaps we wouldn't find people going off the 'deep end' when they find out that articles of clothing aren't mentioned in the Bible as is claimed by many a pastor.

Great thoughts. I love reading your posts.