Revisiting the "PANTS" Issue

[AbundantGrace]

I got tickled when I read the title of this thread concerning the age-old Pants On Women Sin! lol...

After my wife and I came out of UPC a number of years ago and she began wearing pants, we were reminded of Deuteronomy 22:5. I had preached from that text myself in the past. Of course, that was prior to our coming to a much clearer revelation of the freedom from that Old Law which Jesus gave us through the power of the Cross and by the Grace of God. I'll never forget a dear lady who called me and gave me the reminder of the 22 & 5 Rule and asked how could I no longer preach that women should live according to that scripture?

Well, first of all, Christ set us free through the work of the Cross, which is made very clear to us in the New Testament. But even beyond that, how can we preach that WOMEN should obey Deuteronomy 22:5 and even go so far as to make it into a "MAN-MADE SALVATION ISSUE" and then neglect to live according to the rest of the chapter or the book for that matter.

For those who are preaching that women should live according to 22:5, please allow me to ask a couple of questions.

1) For those of you who farm or garden - Do you plant more than one kind of seed in your crop or in your garden? I certainly hope not, because Deuteronomy 22:9 says plainly, Don't Do It!!! If you do, your fruit will be defiled! There may be some getting under conviction even now!

2) For all of you fashion experts - Surely you've never worn any sort of a garment that was made out of a wool and linen blend of material? Again, I hope not, because Deuteronomy 22:11 again plainly says, Don't Do It!!! We may need to check our clothing tags. It may be time for some closet cleaning!

3) And of course, this could go on and on, but for time's sake, I'll simply utilize only one more example. Still going along the clothes line - I pray that all of your cloaks do have tassels on all four corners, because Deuteronomy 22:12 says that you must have tassels on all four corners of the cloaks that you wear.

Now, of course, I'm being a little sarcastic in my scenarios, but the point is correct nonetheless. If we are going to preach 22:5 TO WOMEN (they always seem to get the brunt of the man-made rules) and bind them to that one lone scripture and in MANY churches even make it a Heaven or Hell issue, then how can we just neglect all of the rest of the Chapter?

Can somebody please explain that? (And please don't say "Because it's in the UPCI Manual") Yes, I've actually heard that from quite a number of my UPC Preacher friends. And I've even heard from some non-UPC Preacher friends who believe that, that that's the way their parents did it, so...

Paul taught us to dress modesty, but he never preached Deuteronomy 22:5 as a dress code for women or men for that matter, at least not as far as we know. So why do some?

Just a few questions I have...

Thanks for the opportunity to share...

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

At some point we have to stop preaching it is not a salvational issue, but forcing it on people. I have a problem with that.

Originally Posted by CC1

PO,

Re-read your post. Did you leave out a word or put in one too many? Is this really what you meant to say?

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Well, I thought it made sense. Yes, I do mean that. It's confusing.

CC1,
It just occurred to me when I woke up this morning that you thought I wanted to preach this as "salvational".

That is not what I meant. In good conscience how could I even prove that and stand on it as Biblical? I would prefer to not address the issue at all and allow the Holy Ghost to bring it's own conviction.

On the Deut 22:5 - What I think is being overlooked in this passage is one really small word with a huge meaning. I've posted this before, but I'll do that again. The word "wear" in this particular passage is only used one time in the NT. It is not the normal usage of what we would term as wear - putting on articles of clothing.

It means "to become, "to exist, that is, be or become". It is certainly a gender distinction but it does not have to do as much with clothing as it does what is going on in the heart and mind. Much larger issue here, IMO.

Hope that clarifies.

[rgcraig]

Originally Posted by AbundantGrace

I got tickled when I read the title of this thread concerning the age-old Pants On Women Sin! lol...

After my wife and I came out of UPC a number of years ago and she began wearing pants, we were reminded of Deuteronomy 22:5. I had preached from that text myself in the past. Of course, that was prior to our coming to a much clearer revelation of the freedom from that Old Law which Jesus gave us through the power of the Cross and by the Grace of God. I'll never forget a dear lady who called me and gave me the reminder of the 22 & 5 Rule and asked how could I no longer preach that women should live according to that scripture?

Well, first of all, Christ set us free through the work of the Cross, which is made very clear to us in the New Testament. But even beyond that, how can we preach that WOMEN should obey Deuteronomy 22:5 and even go so far as to make it into a "MAN-MADE SALVATION ISSUE" and then neglect to live according to the rest of the chapter or the book for that matter.

For those who are preaching that women should live according to 22:5, please allow me to ask a couple of questions.

1) For those of you who farm or garden - Do you plant more than one kind of seed in your crop or in your garden? I certainly hope not, because Deuteronomy 22:9 says plainly, Don't Do It!!! If you do, your fruit will be defiled! There may be some getting under conviction even now!

2) For all of you fashion experts - Surely you've never worn any sort of a garment that was made out of a wool and linen blend of material? Again, I hope not, because Deuteronomy 22:11 again plainly says, Don't Do It!!! We may need to check our clothing tags. It may be time for some closet cleaning!

3) And of course, this could go on and on, but for time's sake, I'll simply utilize only one more example. Still going along the clothes line - I pray that all of your cloaks do have tassels on all four corners, because Deuteronomy 22:12 says that you must have tassels on all four corners of the cloaks that you wear.

Now, of course, I'm being a little sarcastic in my scenarios, but the point is correct nonetheless. If we are going to preach 22:5 TO WOMEN (they always seem to get the brunt of the man-made rules) and bind them to that one lone scripture and in MANY churches even make it a Heaven or Hell issue, then how can we just neglect all of the rest of the Chapter?

Can somebody please explain that? (And please don't say "Because it's in the UPCI Manual") Yes, I've actually heard that from quite a number of my UPC Preacher friends. And I've even heard from some non-UPC Preacher friends who believe that, that that's the way their parents did it, so...

Paul taught us to dress modesty, but he never preached Deuteronomy 22:5 as a dress code for women or men for that matter, at least not as far as we know. So why do some?

Just a few questions I have...

Thanks for the opportunity to share...

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

CC1,
It just occurred to me when I woke up this morning that you thought I wanted to preach this as "salvational".

That is not what I meant. In good conscience how could I even prove that and stand on it as Biblical? I would prefer to not address the issue at all and allow the Holy Ghost to bring it's own conviction.

On the Deut 22:5 - What I think is being overlooked in this passage is one really small word with a huge meaning. I've posted this before, but I'll do that again. The word "wear" in this particular passage is only used one time in the NT. It is not the normal usage of what we would term as wear - putting on articles of clothing.

It means "to become, "to exist, that is, be or become". It is certainly a gender distinction but it does not have to do as much with clothing as it does what is going on in the heart and mind. Much larger issue here, IMO.

Hope that clarifies.

End of argument to me.

[Amos]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

CC1,
It just occurred to me when I woke up this morning that you thought I wanted to preach this as "salvational".

That is not what I meant. In good conscience how could I even prove that and stand on it as Biblical? I would prefer to not address the issue at all and allow the Holy Ghost to bring it's own conviction.

On the Deut 22:5 - What I think is being overlooked in this passage is one really small word with a huge meaning. I've posted this before, but I'll do that again. The word "wear" in this particular passage is only used one time in the NT. It is not the normal usage of what we would term as wear - putting on articles of clothing.

It means "to become, "to exist, that is, be or become". It is certainly a gender distinction but it does not have to do as much with clothing as it does what is going on in the heart and mind. Much larger issue here, IMO.

Hope that clarifies.

It is, however, undeniable that how we dress is a signifigant part of what we are, and what people see of us.

If you doubt that, look at every people group or sub-culture--all have their "signature look."

This is part of being human.

And as for the brilliant deductions about plowing with ox and ass, mixing fabrics, etc. I won't even bother to go through the difference between an abomination to the Lord, and what He said would be an abomination unto Israel.

[Cindy]

Originally Posted by Amos

It is, however, undeniable that how we dress is a signifigant part of what we are, and what people see of us.

If you doubt that, look at every people group or sub-culture--all have their "signature look."

This is part of being human.

And as for the brilliant deductions about plowing with ox and ass, mixing fabrics, etc. I won't even bother to go through the difference between an abomination to the Lord, and what He said would be an abomination unto Israel.

I decided I don't want to take the chance to be considered an abomination to the Lord.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Amos

It is, however, undeniable that how we dress is a signifigant part of what we are, and what people see of us.

If you doubt that, look at every people group or sub-culture--all have their "signature look."

This is part of being human.

And as for the brilliant deductions about plowing with ox and ass, mixing fabrics, etc. I won't even bother to go through the difference between an abomination to the Lord, and what He said would be an abomination unto Israel.

That is true, if not taken in extreme to make a point.

Because of my past experience in coming into the church, I will always view this another way. I was forced to comply in a little home mission church in the worst way. No one ever allowed the Lord to work in me.

I think it would be much more powerful to sit back and watch God do the changes. We wouldn't have confusion then.

Don't get me wrong, I think we dress, for the most part, in a more excellent way than most in society.

I think my only contention would be preaching it is not salvational, but making it a requirement or you are viewed as backslid. That doesn't make sense to me and leaves us looking weak on what we really believe the Bible is telling us.

I think basically any church, AOG for example, that lose their consecration and commitment are going to be lacking in the gifts and a move of God. I don't think it started with their clothing issues, JMO.

And if we are having splits, which we have, I don't think it started with t.v.'s, dress standards. I remember when we used to fellowship and have singings, ladies prayer meetings, family prayer. Many churches still do this, but many don't - not like they used to. So, it didn't begin with clothing issues, but a heart issue.

[Amos]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

That is true, if not taken in extreme to make a point.

Because of my past experience in coming into the church, I will always view this another way. I was forced to comply in a little home mission church in the worst way. No one ever allowed the Lord to work in me.

I think it would be much more powerful to sit back and watch God do the changes. We wouldn't have confusion then.

Don't get me wrong, I think we dress, for the most part, in a more excellent way than most in society.

I think my only contention would be preaching it is not salvational, but making it a requirement or you are viewed as backslid. That doesn't make sense to me and leaves us looking weak on what we really believe the Bible is telling us.

I think basically any church, AOG for example, that lose their consecration and commitment are going to be lacking in the gifts and a move of God. I don't think it started with their clothing issues, JMO.

And if we are having splits, which we have, I don't think it started with t.v.'s, dress standards. I remember when we used to fellowship and have singings, ladies prayer meetings, family prayer. Many churches still do this, but many don't - not like they used to. So, it didn't begin with clothing issues, but a heart issue.

Everything begins as a heart issue--everything.

But it always winds up working its way to the outside.

The problem is that we can't see one another's hearts; all we can look at is those indicators that are visible.

By the time it gets to the point that we can see it, things are usually pretty far gone. Thus the need for discernment.

[Amos]

Originally Posted by cneasttx

I decided I don't want to take the chance to be considered an abomination to the Lord.

There are some who want to fall on the safe side of the line; others don't mind taking chances.

Like you, I am one of the cautious ones.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Amos

Everything begins as a heart issue--everything.

But it always winds up working its way to the outside.

The problem is that we can't see one another's hearts; all we can look at is those indicators that are visible.

By the time it gets to the point that we can see it, things are usually pretty far gone. Thus the need for discernment.

Right, always begins in the heart, although I'm not sure that everything becomes apparent in all things. Some things remain hidden. So, yes, discernment would be valuable.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Amos

There are some who want to fall on the safe side of the line; others don't mind taking chances.

Like you, I am one of the cautious ones.

I appreciate the being cautious.

There are concrete things that I can stand on. I do know who He is because He tells me this (Isaiah 9) and, IMO, Acts 2:38 is the message. I can depend on that. I can also depend on modesty, but adding things to the modesty is taking steps which belong to God and the individual person.

Do you think it is a bit confusing to preach that standards are not salvational, but we must do them? If you can't be lost by not doing them, then why preach it?

Understand that I'm not changing anything in my life, just trying to understand this element.