Deuteronomy 22:5 - Clothing and Gender-Identity in

[missourimary]

Originally Posted by Aquila

If you are truly interested, the beginnings of "women wearing pants" was seen in the WWII when, as a result of many American men being at war, women began working in factories. In these environments dresses, and skirts, were a danger because they could be caught in machinery. So women wore men's pants while working. Working for less money and benefits; and facing sexual harrasment on the job ignited the women's liberation movement which began with sufferage.

So one could argue that women working is the root cause of this "evil" (if you believe it to be so).

Originally Posted by Justin

Didn't women's lib start before WW2? More so around the teens and 20's of the 20th century?

The women's suffrage movement started at least as far back as 1848, though the right to vote was not won until 1920.

According to this article: http://teacher.scholastic.com/activi...ge/history.htm
"After the Civil War, agitation by women for the ballot became increasingly vociferous. In 1869, however, a rift developed among feminists over the proposed 15th Amendment, which gave the vote to black men. Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and others refused to endorse the amendment because it did not give women the ballot. Other suffragists, however, including Lucy Stone and Julia Ward Howe, argued that once the black man was enfranchised, women would achieve their goal. "

There were "feminists" and "women's libbers" long before there were women working in factories in pants. They were the main activists behind better schools, safer factories, child labor laws, and prohibition, among other things.

Many women and children lost their lives in factories for years prior to WWII in cotton mills and other types of factories, who selected them because they would work for smaller salaries and had better manual dexterity and smaller fingers to work in the equipment. There were dangers in wearing dresses in factories, but there were also dangers of working next to open fires in dresses. They still did it. In WWII, they entered the defense factories in larger numbers. They had already worn pants in some situations for years at that point, though. In the Depression, a poor family might hand down their sons' overalls to the little girls, just because that's what they had. Even before that, some women wore bloomers under dresses for both style and practicality. Some pioneer women wore what was most practical in their new homes on the plains. Factories didn't start women's lib, nor were they the start of women wearing pants. In reality, poverty and practicality played a much larger role.

[OilCityCajun]

Originally Posted by pelathais

I think that anyone who would project an attitude ...upon folks

I did not project upon anyone. I was not referring to any specific person or group of people, on these boards or elsewhere. I said, if anyone has that attitude. If anyone does not have that attitude, I wasnt talking about them and there is no need for such a hypersensitive reaction.

Originally Posted by jfrog

No preacher is going to tell me how to dress!

By the way, I think that any preacher with a "I'm going to tell people how to dress" attitude needs to do ALOT of soul searching.

I concur. The teaching/preaching of holiness standards should be a means to an end, not a major objective in and of itself.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by OilCityCajun

I did not project upon anyone. I was not referring to any specific person or group of people, on these boards or elsewhere. I said, if anyone has that attitude. If anyone does not have that attitude, I wasnt talking about them and there is no need for such a hypersensitive reaction.



I concur. The teaching/preaching of holiness standards should be a means to an end, not a major objective in and of itself.

A means to what end?

[OilCityCajun]

To reach the lost.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by OilCityCajun

To reach the lost.

Teaching/Preaching holiness standards is a means to help us reach the lost?????

Please elaborate cause I'm sooo not seeing how that works.

[OilCityCajun]

It isnt what's preached, but how it's preached. If you were hopeless, helpless, and looking for a new life, would you go to church with the Christian whose life is just like yours and tells you Christ can make your life different, or would you go to church with the one whose life used to be just like yours and tells you about the difference Christ made in him?

Holiness standards isnt supposed to be a hammer with which to beat sinners over the head. It isnt supposed to be a bunch of rules that the pastor sets and everyone except him and his family have to follow. Holiness standards are supposed to demonstrate a visible difference between life with God and life without God, and be offered as a better alternative to a sinful lifestyle, and are to be equally applicable those who preach them, as to those who hear that preaching.

[The Lemon]

Holiness...um..I get it, it's Bible for us to be Holy for He is Holy. Now, if I were a sinner and went to a church where the weekends were spent bar hopping, smoking, pill popping, and sleeping around while carrying all the attitudes and dispositions of the world I was in, then yes, that church would be a complete joke and a waste of time.

Having went on thet rant, let me preface that by saying that if I, the same sinner, went to a church where the Bible was preached, modesty was taught, principle was given, and the fruit of the Spirit was present, taught, and practiced, then THAT church would be a worthwhile endeavor indeed!

The problem is in the perception IMHO, if one feels (because of there particular disposition), that a true Christian Church not only practices what I outlined in the above paragraph, but also must have the "look" (i.e. no cut hair, dresses, no make-up, no jewelry, suits on the men, no facial hair etc.) otherwise we are not offering this sinner a viable alternative to a sinful life. So then the look, regardless of how it's preached, becomes the focal point of identification and fellowship, rather than the spirit, intent, and biblical accuracy of the selfsame church.

The sinful lifestyle is found throughout scripture, however, pants, hair, facial har, etc., are not part of that sinful lifestyle equation. If someone can show scripture that says otherwise I'm game. The key identifying mark is suppose to be how we love each other, by that "they" will know we are his disciples. The issue that keeps going on and on on the Merry Go Round of Holiness debate really centers around both extreme views and rarely on a balanced approach, either we are not strict enough, or we are legalists, and to me there is no productivity in either conversation or camp - one can't convince the other and the banter back and forth usually produces nothing but negative jesture.

Two words that impact standards FAR more than the Bible are Culture and Tradition, and it swings both ways.

[*AQuietPlace*]

True Holiness:


James 1:27
Pure and genuine religion in the sight of God the Father means caring for orphans and widows in their distress and refusing to let the world corrupt you.


John 13:35
By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.


Gal. 5:22-23
22But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.



Un-holiness:


Gal. 5:19 When you follow the desires of your sinful nature, the results are very clear: sexual immorality, impurity, lustful pleasures, 20 idolatry, sorcery, hostility, quarreling, jealousy, outbursts of anger, selfish ambition, dissension, division, 21 envy, drunkenness, wild parties, and other sins like these. Let me tell you again, as I have before, that anyone living that sort of life will not inherit the Kingdom of God.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by OilCityCajun

It isnt what's preached, but how it's preached. If you were hopeless, helpless, and looking for a new life, would you go to church with the Christian whose life is just like yours and tells you Christ can make your life different, or would you go to church with the one whose life used to be just like yours and tells you about the difference Christ made in him?

Holiness standards isnt supposed to be a hammer with which to beat sinners over the head. It isnt supposed to be a bunch of rules that the pastor sets and everyone except him and his family have to follow. Holiness standards are supposed to demonstrate a visible difference between life with God and life without God, and be offered as a better alternative to a sinful lifestyle, and are to be equally applicable those who preach them, as to those who hear that preaching.

The 1st bolded has absolutely nothing to do with keeping holiness standards. Sinners don't go looking for which church teaches the strictest standards or even standards at all. Sinners are looking for a change, but even they realize that such a change is not evidenced by the holiness standards a church practices.

The 2nd bolded declares two things.
1. Standards are suppossed to demonstrate a visible difference in life with God and life without God.

2. Standards are to be offered as a better alternative to a sinful lifestyle.

My response
1. Keeping holiness standards is not an outward manifestation of the inward man. Keeping holiness standards is either an outward manifestation of believing what a holiness preacher says or it is an outward manifestation of believing God has placed you in holiness church and that you should abide by their rules even if you don't believe them. As such, keeping holiness standards can not demonstrate a visible difference in life with God or life without God, because what God changes is the inward man and holiness standards are not related to the inward man in any way.

2. Standards offer no alternative to a sinful lifestyle. Standards aren't even a lifestyle, they are a dress code and a prohibition on a few activities. Standards offer no alternatives, only prohibitions. Also, the whole dress code and most of the activities prohibited by standards are not even sinful.

In summary, its laughable that anyone could honestly suggest that holiness standards are a means to reach the lost.

[192281]

Originally Posted by *AQuietPlace*

True Holiness:


James 1:27
Pure and genuine religion in the sight of God the Father means caring for orphans and widows in their distress and refusing to let the world corrupt you.


John 13:35
By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.


Gal. 5:22-23
22But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.



Un-holiness:


Gal. 5:19 When you follow the desires of your sinful nature, the results are very clear: sexual immorality, impurity, lustful pleasures, 20 idolatry, sorcery, hostility, quarreling, jealousy, outbursts of anger, selfish ambition, dissension, division, 21 envy, drunkenness, wild parties, and other sins like these. Let me tell you again, as I have before, that anyone living that sort of life will not inherit the Kingdom of God.

AMEN to this Post!