NEW Standard Debate in the UPC! "Girls Leggings"!!!

Originally Posted by LadyCoonskinner

I have not read this thread in it's entirety (? sp), but I want to add my -2 cents worth........

I absolutely hate those things, and the girls and ladies in our church WILL NOT be wearing them and be used on our platform!!!!!!

To me it is a form of pants and I will not have it!!!!!

Yes, my righteous indignation is stirred up!!!

A lot I here, I wonder what would Jesus say~

[commonsense]

Originally Posted by Sam

Would any of you guys consider those "men's apparel" and would you wear them?

When I was at the Apostolic Bible Institute in St. Paul, MN in 1956/1957 the girls at the school and the girls and ladies at the UPC church there wore snow pants in the winter.

This is repetitous, but I'll say it again.........grew up UPC; in the north!!!, and in the winter there were many winter activities----ice skating, tobaggoning, sleigh rides, hay rides, whatever...we wore slacks, snowpants, whatever was warm and appropriate to the activity. Afterwards when we went to the home of a wonderful saintly church family for refreshments ...all of the girls, ladies went in the restroom to change into their skirts..(.it was considered ----normal----or to quote me "commonsense" )
It was not questioned, it wasn't a pulpit topic, it was appropriate attire for the activity!!!!!
Does this mean that saints in the 50's and 60's were better christians ? since they could serve God, be blessed, filled with the Holy Ghost and still wear appropriate winter sports clothing__________

[Carpenter]

Originally Posted by Coonskinner

This is Coonskinner. My wife is on the phone.

We believe pants to be men's apparel as per Deut. 22:5.

Leggings are not clearly men's apparel, but the way they are most often worn they are immodest.

We choose not to have them on our platform.

I have pretty much sworn off standards discussions, at least in any specific way, but since you all have drawn my good wife into this one, I have taken the liberty of weighing in.

Have fun.

You know what Cooney, no one has ever responded to the point I made in the past on a couple of different occasions, and contrary to maybe what you think, there is a validity in the principal.

IF pants...all pants that a woman would wear would violate the principals found in Deut, then why wouldn't a man be allowed, encouraged, or even considerate to going into the woman's department to select his pants? Wouldn't that double his chances of finding the correct fitting pair?

Why wouldn't YOU wear a pair of slacks from the woman's department that maybe had flowers on them or a nice paisley pattern, with the fuller cut in the seat in hips, they just might fit you better...ya never know.

[Carpenter]

Originally Posted by LadyCoonskinner

Okay, I'm going to make this personal. I know that with some of you, I'm in a gray area and won't ever get out, but as for me, Pants are wrong.

When I was 9 years old, GOD convicted me of pants. Not my pastor, not my mother, not my SS teacher. GOD did it. As I put them on each morning, my parenst are both backsliders, I began to feel very bad (conviction) and decided that I was going to wear skirts. It wasn't pressure from my pastor or his wife or anyone. It was conviction from God. My mother was pressuring me to wear pants, but no one else was and as a 9 year old girl, I felt the convictin power of God. So no one can tell me, that pants are right. Not trying to be hard-nosed, but this is just how it is.

I am just curious why God would convict a woman of wearing pants but not ALL other women? All this time I thought he was no respector of persons?


...just giving you the biz sister...just giving you the biz...

[rgcraig]

Originally Posted by Coonskinner

This is Coonskinner. My wife is on the phone.

We believe pants to be men's apparel as per Deut. 22:5.

Leggings are not clearly men's apparel, but the way they are most often worn they are immodest.

We choose not to have them on our platform.

I have pretty much sworn off standards discussions, at least in any specific way, but since you all have drawn my good wife into this one, I have taken the liberty of weighing in.

Have fun.

I was going to ask where we are on this now, but I'm going to take this as THE FINAL ANSWER!!!!

P.S. and they do look tacky on anyone other than little girls!

[commonsense]

Originally Posted by ForeverBlessed

Exactly Sherri... clearly logical thinking from someone who obviously has raised a teen girl. There are quite enough rules out there for the girls without adding another just because it isn't something the pastor's wife or adults might wear.

I actually think the leggings are modest and this winter they gave my girls some additional warmth... and hey, they were actually in style and within standard guidelines. They are cute when matched with tops and cute little flats that match.

And to all of you griping about them... they are often called footless tights that can be bought in any department store. Some are called leggings.. but what is the difference.

My daughter wore a pair under a jean skirt to the IN Holiday Youth convention day service... she wasn't alone... others did too.. and you should have seen the groups of girls who stood around with condemning, judgemental attitudes who obviously come from "stricter more holy" churches (or so they thought) Those girls were down right rude to the ones who wore the leggins... I watched as they stood and stared at my daughter from her shoes up to her top with contemp that they were not hiding. I couldn't get over how ugly the girls were in spirit... I stood back and watched them. I told my sister who was with me that they will never see their attitudes as sin... sad... really sad. Elaine asked me at one point what was their problem? I told her it was the leggins.. She was blown away by the actions of others and had no clue.

Unfortunately I too have seen this attitude from those that were the keepers of the "standards".
(John 13:35.....love one to another)

Nothing against standards. Each of must live for God according to our local church, pastor, and the scripture. The trick is to do this in spite of the >>holiness fashion police<< peer pressure .

[Carpenter]

Originally Posted by commonsense

Unfortunately I too have seen this attitude from those that were the keepers of the "standards".
(John 13:35.....love one to another)

Nothing against standards. Each of must live for God according to our local church, pastor, and the scripture. The trick is to do this in spite of the >>holiness fashion police<< peer pressure .

I believe that in no other area and with such great magnitude in the Apostolic movement has conviction been so often confused with the effects of peer pressure in the area of standards.

Originally Posted by rgcraig

I was going to ask where we are on this now, but I'm going to take this as THE FINAL ANSWER!!!!

P.S. and they do look tacky on anyone other than little girls!

Well I would not wear them due to age, comes a time when you got say I'm no longer 20... I think they look good on the younger girls and teenagers to the upper late 20's. But hey if you can pull if off after 30 more power to you go for it~....


Hey this reminds me of back in the early eights how all the UPC pastor were getting uptight about the young and older gals wearing them oversize tops that hit below the hips.....

[Thad]

Originally Posted by CupCake

If your going to follow after Deuteronomy 22:5, why don't you follow and obey it all? Even tho Duet 22:5 has nothing to do with women wearing pants!

Deuteronomy 22:5 Ah, but you say what about this verse...

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. Deuteronomy 22:5

Well quite simply, there are four reasons why I have difficulty with the no-pants interpretation from this passage...

1. The passage doesn't clearly prohibit pants on women but there are very clear prohibitions for eating pork, not keeping Friday/Saturday (Sabbath) holy, not wearing mixed apparel of linen and wool etc., so even if there was (which there isn't), it still wouldn't mean it is for us today if it isn't taught to Gentiles in the new covenant.


2. If Deuteronomy 22:5 is to be seen as a law to be obeyed today, then a consistent interpretation would mean the prohibited mixed threads, Kosher foods and other laws in the same chapter should also be followed. Why are anti-pants teachers overlooking these others?

3. If the Deuteronomy 22 passage is to be used as a principle, it should also be applicable to prohibit other male garments on women such as t-shirts, boots, underwear, scarves, gloves, sneakers, etc. Why is this principle not followed to its natural implications?

4. Lastly, if the Deuteronomy 22 passage is to be used as a principle for today (and the previous three points are overlooked), then it remains to be proved that pants are men's clothing. Culturally they were on women in China long before the Western men left off wearing tights (which by the same principle should be called men's apparel!) and hence fail on historical grounds
as well.

Duet 22:5 is a Moral Law the others are civil and ceremonial laws for the Israeli people.
moral laws such as the 10 commandments AND scriptures that realte to God's moral standards never change. cross dressing and gender distiction is one of them. God is trying to protect us from self destruction. isn't that easy to see or not ?

[Thad]

Originally Posted by crakjak

for Thad.

crajak, im not sure what your point is. what will revival look like in 6 months ?? what does that have to do with the topic at hand ?