Yes it's good to see HO back.But I sure can't read the French in her profile.
__________________
People who are always looking for fault,can find it easily all they have to do,is look into their mirror.
There they can find plenty of fault.
I don't speak the queen's english too good , so you know I can't read foriegn languages.
__________________
People who are always looking for fault,can find it easily all they have to do,is look into their mirror.
There they can find plenty of fault.
Bob, I stayed out of this pretty much. But after this weekend, some of the things I saw and some of the reflections I have from it, I guess as time permits, I have a few things to say.
I am sure that Newman and others will weigh in on how stupid I am but that is fine.
First, let me say that by an large, with the exception of those wonderful men who have held an old standard, the genie is out of the bottle and as the old saying goes, you cant push water up a hill.
My thoughts are that those who have left skirts for pants have done so mainly because they no longer believe that Deu. 22:5 applies. I think that may be a valid argument on some level. to a 15 year old girl today, there was never a time when men wore pants and women wore skirts. The older ones have some memory but the younger ones dont...except those in old time Apostolic churches.
Bro. Ferd, I thank you for the thoughts on this subject. This is exactly the kind of response I am looking for. Consider this, there are a couple of points regarding Deut 22:5 to consider... 1.) Does the OT law of Deut 22:5 indeed apply in a direct sense to the NT era? and 2.) if it does indeed apply, does it necessarily mean pants/skirts, or could it mean something else? In other words, could the principle of Deut 22:5 be applied today without it directly necessitating a pants/skirts stand?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ferd
Having said that, my wife doesnt wear pants and while we dont have a daughter yet, there isnt going to be a day when my money buys her pants, nor a day when my roof shelters a pair of pants in her closet.
What I see is that OP women didnt leave skirts, they left modesty. (go ahead ladies take your best shot). Maybe some of the older ones have maintained some degree of modesty, but they arent teaching their daughters. Makes me nuts.
Modesty means something and this leaving the skirts behind has crossed a bridge in the heart that has led many here to suggest that Modesty as defined BY THE WORLD is all that is needed. what a crock. I see OP girls in pants that look like they were painted on. I dont care what the church kids think, I care that they are no different than the world and we are STILL CALLED TO BE SEPERATE
Did you mean to say here that you see OP girls in "skirts" that look like they were painted on? Consider this, and I know the argument has been made before, that some pants are much more modest on girls that alot of the skirts you see on OP girls today... How does that fact affect the pants/skirts interpretation of Deut 22:5? Could the pants/skirts interpretation be bypassed by OP's and yet still uphold the intergrity of the principle of Deut 22:5?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ferd
yea, Im yelling. Im angry. we have lost something much more important than skirts.
I appreciate your passion Bro. Ferd. Thanks again for the thougtful comments.
Ferd, I do not believe we have interpreted Deut 22:5 correctly. However, I still do not wear pants.
I modesty is possible in pants as in a skirt, but wearing either painted on it NOT modest.
As to being separate, unfortunately, I believe we have missed that as well. In my opinion that was NEVER about dress, but attitude and how you treat others.
We take the easy way out and just dress differently, or at least the women do, and a few men. But so do the Amish and so do Catholic preist and some nuns.
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!
IMHO at one point Deu 22 was very much about pants and women. now not so much. But on point, the shift away from dresses, has led very much to a slipping in the "modesty standard" and yes, I agree a woman can be modest in pants. All too often, I am afraid, while it is possible, it isnt happening.
One can be just as immodest (if not more so) in a skirt. That is why I said we didnt leave skirts, we left modesty.
Esther, Seperation from the world is about EVERYTHING. It is about how we treat people. it is also about where we go, what we do, what we see, how we dresss, what we eat, what we drink, where we play.
Seperation from the world is important but we have traded it for comfort. and it IS absolutly about dress, just as it is absolutly about so many other things too.
Sadly I see in this thread some really profane idea that the standard we should use is the one the world uses, or something called the "corporate world" or something like that.
I am rambling but I am right, in many ways we have lost our way.
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?
Ferd, I totally agree with your assessment of the situation, as I have often seen the same thing happen. It appears that often times when someone leaves a belief they once held, they tend to go quite the opposite.
Having said that, here is where I stand on the issue, having once believed it myself (only because I was taught it was in the Bible as it was taught to me).
Here is what I see going on in the church today......skirts are getting shorter and shirts are getting tighter. Immodesty is becoming rampant in the church but the church doesn't address it because.....well, they are wearing the uniform (and yes, I hate calling it that, but it's how I see it).
I see backs and tummies of even adult women, not just teenage girls. Sure, they have skirts on, but sometimes, barely. Even the 21 yr old daughter of my pastor fights her clothing to keep it on certain areas of her body, which often fails.
My daughter and I wear skirts to church but pants most everywhere else. I have been consistent in teaching her modesty in everything she wears, and believe me when I say that at the age of 14 (this Friday), she dresses appropriately at all times, even when swimming (she wears a colored T-shirt and long shorts).
I know that I'm not the norm in what you relate to in your post above, but be assured that there are people out there who, although they once believed the 'standard doctrine', they still believe in modesty in all manner of dress.
"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!
Bro. Ferd, I thank you for the thoughts on this subject. This is exactly the kind of response I am looking for. Consider this, there are a couple of points regarding Deut 22:5 to consider... 1.) Does the OT law of Deut 22:5 indeed apply in a direct sense to the NT era? and 2.) if it does indeed apply, does it necessarily mean pants/skirts, or could it mean something else? In other words, could the principle of Deut 22:5 be applied today without it directly necessitating a pants/skirts stand?
BobD, Deut 22 certainly applies to us today. It does because the principle here is also seen clearly in the NT. that is to say, there is clear distention between men and women and the rolls that we fulfill within what I like to call "God's Economy". This is what Deut 22 is really about. It IS about dress but it is beyond that. This represents an attitude of usurpation of rolls and responsibilities and it leads to extreme confusion in society. (Like what we see today in our society).
Where it is very difficult to make an argument that women should not wear pants because pants are men’s apparel, it is not difficult to suggest that we live in a society that has supplanted the Order God intended for a counterfeit order which has left us with girlie-men and manly-women!
But beyond that, for us the issue of women and pants HAS become a moral one. A question of modesty. (see below)
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobDylan
Did you mean to say here that you see OP girls in "skirts" that look like they were painted on? Consider this, and I know the argument has been made before, that some pants are much more modest on girls that alot of the skirts you see on OP girls today... How does that fact affect the pants/skirts interpretation of Deut 22:5? Could the pants/skirts interpretation be bypassed by OP's and yet still uphold the intergrity of the principle of Deut 22:5?
No, I was speaking of what I saw this weekend. OP Girl in pants. But the pants weren’t just pants, they were skin tight pants. What ever argument that might be made about pants being more modest than a skirt is just a boondoggle and we have lots of boondoggles going around on this subject. Modest skirts are more modest than modest pants. Period. The argument however has changed completely. What we left when we left “women in skirts” was IDENTIFICTION. Now what we are is what the rest of the world is. Modesty by and large is determined by the society around us. This is yet another boondoggle.
The argument that I have seen right here in this thread and further at large in these forums is that because Corporate America dictates what is modest for men, then it stands to reason that modesty in corporate America ought to be appropriate for judging what is modest for women. What BUNK!
The reality is, Corporate America doesn’t decide what is modest for men. It just happens that Men have not started stripping in public yet! What is modest for Apostolic men MUST be a matter of the church from the inside, NOT the outside and we should not care one iota what “Corporate America” says/does/thinks.
Beyond that, I work in corporate America, and if my wife bought what some of these “Corporate Ladies” wear, there would be war at home! Thank God my wife’s idea of Modest is even more modest than my own! (And mine is pretty conservative).
I don’t know that we can stand firm and say “the bible says no pants on women” but we can surely say that the Apostolic Church’s idea of Modesty is not governed by any part of society as a whole. WE ARE CALLED OUT PEOPLE. And we ought to LOVE being called out people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobDylan
I appreciate your passion Bro. Ferd. Thanks again for the thougtful comments.
I am sorry if my ranting has been over the top. I’m just tired of what I am seeing these days.
__________________ If I do something stupid blame the Lortab!
Linear Mode
