More on Skirts

[jediwill83]

Originally Posted by ILG

Even the world knows when someone is dressing like a lesbian or in drag.

Lesbians aren't defined by dress, but by behavior...Kinda like Christians should be....

[ILG]

Originally Posted by jediwill83

Lesbians aren't defined by dress, but by behavior...Kinda like Christians should be....

I agree with you but some lesbians dress a certain way and that was the point of my comment.

[aegsm76]

Originally Posted by ILG

I agree with you but some lesbians dress a certain way and that was the point of my comment.

I asked how you would apply the scripture, today, and you jumped to lesbians and dressing in drag.
Not sure I understand your answer.

[jediwill83]

Originally Posted by ILG

I agree with you but some lesbians dress a certain way and that was the point of my comment.

We don't define characteristics of a entire group by the behavior of a subset. You're referring to a subtype of lesbians called "Bull Dyke".

[Aquila]

I'm Scottish. Do I get any say in this? LOL

[Scott Pitta]

I wonder if any scholarly work has been done on this aspect of Pentecostalism ? When did it first appear in American Pentecostal literature ? Is it exclusive to Pentecostalism ?

My Harry Morse biography is not a theological book, but I have yet to find any documentation about Dt. 22:5 connected with the man or his school in any way.

But, the main part of the book is dated prior to WW2. Did this doctrine become more promenade after the war ?

Not looking for a theological debate. Just thinking about the history of this doctrine in the USA.

[aegsm76]

Originally Posted by Scott Pitta

I wonder if any scholarly work has been done on this aspect of Pentecostalism ? When did it first appear in American Pentecostal literature ? Is it exclusive to Pentecostalism ?

My Harry Morse biography is not a theological book, but I have yet to find any documentation about Dt. 22:5 connected with the man or his school in any way.

But, the main part of the book is dated prior to WW2. Did this doctrine become more promenade after the war ?

Not looking for a theological debate. Just thinking about the history of this doctrine in the USA.

My grandfather, who was a preachers kid, used to say that they never had to preach against this. He said that no "good" women wore pants until WW2 started and many had to go to work. He was raised in a preachers home and started preaching himself around 1930 (I believe). His dad was an AOG preacher who saw the light very early.

[Amanah]

http://www.historyandwomen.com/2012/...and-pants.html


In the Western world, Historically, in that part of the world, women have worn dresses and skirt-like garments while men have worn pants (trousers). During the late 1800s, women started to wear pants for industrial work. During World War II, women wore their husband's pants while they took on jobs, and in the 1970s, pants became especially fashionable for women. Today, pants are worn far more often than skirts by women, and many women wear pants almost all the time.

Although trousers for women in western countries did not become fashion items until the later 20th century, women began wearing men's trousers (suitably altered) for outdoor work a hundred years earlier.

The Wigan pit brow girls scandalized Victorian society by wearing trousers for their dangerous work in the coal mines. They wore skirts over their trousers and rolled them up to their waist to keep them out of the way.

Women working the ranches of the 19th century American West also wore trousers for riding, and in the early 20th century aviatrices and other working women often wore trousers. Actresses Marlene Dietrich and Katharine Hepburn were often photographed in trousers from the 1930s and helped make trousers acceptable for women.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by ILG

(More on skirts: These write-ups are designed to illustrate circular logic and systemic teachings that are illogical. They are not meant to criticize or look down upon any choice a person may make on a personal level.)

Many church systems teach that women should wear skirts and not pants. This is the main scripture used to teach this doctrine: "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 thy God". Deut 22:5

When this is taught, it is said that it is not salvational but that women wear skirts or dresses because they are saved and not to get saved. This continues the circular logic. No one will actually come out and say the next statement, but what is being said, in effect, is that if you don't wear skirts, or eventually come to that understanding, you are not saved because you are an abomination to God by continuing to wear that which pertains to the opposite sex according to the definitions put forth by these churches and authorities.

Here are some examples of some illogical teachings:

In DK Bernard's Book Practical Holiness; A Second Look, page 180, he writes, as some have an objection to exclusively skirts on women: "There was little difference between male and female clothing in the Old Testament. In fact, men wore skirts." Then he answers the objection: "Deuteronomy 22:5 stands as evidence that there was a significant difference. Men and women wore different types of robes and headgear, and women wore veils. Among the Hebrews, neither sex was permitted by Mosaic law to wear the same form of clothing as was used by the other (Deut 22:5). A few articles of female clothing carried somewhat the same name and basic pattern, yet there was always sufficient difference in embossing, embroidery, and needlework so that in appearance the line of demarcation between men and women could be readily detected".

So, this is his argument to the objection. Let's look at pants for a moment. Do pants carry somewhat the same name and basic pattern but there is still sufficient difference to tell them apart? Yes. Is the cut of a woman's pants different than that of a mans? Yes. Are they often patterned with feminine styles? Yes. Is the line of demarcation clearly detected? Usually, yes. So, by his own definition, he answers the objection with an affirmation that pants can be women's apparel.

Another objection (pg 182) "Pants are made in women's styles today, so they do not violate Deut 22:5." He answers: "Even if we accepted this objection, it would not permit women to wear many things that they do, such as men's jeans and military fatigues. In our culture, pants have always been associated with men so that all forms of pants are still that which pertaineth to a man". Accepting women's pants would leave men without any style of clothing that is uniquely male. Furthermore, the ways in which women's pants are distinguished from men's are very minor. The first impression, the silhouette, the view from a distance, the overall picture is still the same."

Once again, he uses his opinions as a basis for all people in Western society. They probably make military fatigues for women now. If they don't, it's easy enough for women to go by their own conscience in this matter and wear pants that they find suitable and feminine enough for themselves. It is up to the individual to decide. It is not DK Bernard's job to decide this for all women. Pants were associated with men in our society but that idea is long since past. Do men need a style uniquely their own? Did they need a style uniquely their own in biblical times when both sexes wore robes? Once again, DK Bernard draws lines that are illogical. The view from a distance is the same for men and women in either robes or pants. He quotes that Genesis 24:64-65 is "proof" that the difference in robes were enough to tell from afar off. Here are the verses: "Rebekah also looked up and saw Isaac. She got down from her camel and asked the servant, “Who is that man in the field coming to meet us?” “He is my master,” the servant answered. So she took her veil and covered herself." He is truly grasping at straws here in order to hold onto his tradition and make it mandatory for all women. The sad part is that he, perhaps unwittingly, condemns all those who don't hold his view as being an abomination to God.

(Written by ILG for the Facebook Group: Breaking Out.)

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Scott Pitta

I wonder if any scholarly work has been done on this aspect of Pentecostalism ? When did it first appear in American Pentecostal literature ? Is it exclusive to Pentecostalism ?

My Harry Morse biography is not a theological book, but I have yet to find any documentation about Dt. 22:5 connected with the man or his school in any way.

But, the main part of the book is dated prior to WW2. Did this doctrine become more promenade after the war ?

Not looking for a theological debate. Just thinking about the history of this doctrine in the USA.

Pants on females started after WWII.

Hey I have full arm tattoos, and there are places in Japan where I wouldn't be allowed to enter. Not because of any religious prohibition but because criminals only got tattooed. There was a time when everyone would of been shocked to see pants on a woman. Now, we have bigger fish to fry. Sadly when we start posting about some UPC preacher's book, we aren't discussing Bible. But just looking back on yesteryear. When little Jimmy got beat up by the mean Ultra conservative Pentecostal kid for his Sheaves for Christ money. D. K. Bernard? Aren't we only preaching to a very small group, when we name him as his book? A group made up of people licking each other's Ecclesiastical wounds? All reminiscing about the old times when they were in their abusive Pentecostal cults? Hugging the their Epistles of David Wasmundt, and kissing their Icons of Thomas Fudge.

Maybe it's me?

If I left a movement I sure wouldn't be hanging around Social Media looking for someone to understand my pain. Especially if I supposedly moved on to some greater revelation concerning religion.

Whatever.