Author: Lynne | Spiritual Abuse Blogs

Getting Out the Old Books: The Literal Word by M.D. Treece

Probably the most scholarly words in the Oneness Apostolic churches I have ever seen written on 1 Corinthians 11- otherwise known as the “hair chapter”- is from The Literal Word by M.D. Treece. Most writings on the subject are filled with anecdotes and circular reasoning and don’t very much address the claim that women’s hair must be uncut. It is often mentioned with little evidence. I have to give M.D. Treece credit for trying to tackle this issue.

(Disclaimer: The verses in 1 Corinthians 11, taken by themselves, do not address the fact that women were allowed to shave their heads in the Old Testament when they took the Nazarite vow. The actual meaning of the verses in 1 Corinthians 11 are a widely debated topic among scholars and what is demonstrated here is simply how M.D. Treece’s own logic does not make sense within itself. It does not demonstrate or argue whether or not M.D. Treece is right or wrong about his beliefs and translations otherwise concerning hair/veils/having hair down the head/customs of the day or any other assertion.)

He translates verse number 4 “Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoreth his head” as “And every man praying or prophesying having hair down his head disgraces his head.” (pg 247) I have a photo of his comments on this so you can read his comments on it for yourself below.

So, he translates the word covered as “having hair down his head”. On page 249, he begins to look at the word “uncovered.” He says the covering is hair and not a literal veil. He says “That is the central theme of this discourse.”

The real focus here is going to be on vs 6 “For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn; but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered.” He translates this as “For if a woman is not covered, let her hair be cut; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved, let her be covered.”

Let’s look at this closely a minute. He defines “covered” for a man as “having hair down his head.” So, let’s insert that definition into his translation and see if it works:

“For if a woman doesn’t have hair down her head, let her hair be cut, but if it’s disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved, let her have hair down her head.”- Doesn’t make much sense does it?

First of all, I have read that some people want to say that the word shorn means “to cut.” There is a difference between the words shorn and shaven. We know what shaven means but what does it mean to be “shorn?”

According to Thayer’s Greek Lexicon, it means “absolutely, of shearing or cutting short the hair of the head”. See below:

STRONGS NT 2751: κείρω

κείρω; (1 aorist ἐκειρα (Acts 8:32 T WH marginal reading)); 1 aorist middle ἐκειραμην; from Homer down; to shear: a sheep, Acts 8:32 ((cf. above) from Isaiah 53:7). Middle to get or let be shorn (Winers Grammar, § 38, 2 b.; Buttmann, § 135, 4): τήν κεφαλήν, Acts 18:18; absolutely, of shearing or cutting short the hair of the head, 1 Corinthians 11:6 (cf. Winer’s Grammar, § 43, 1).

It means to shear like a sheep, or like a military haircut.

Let’s look at M.D. Treece’s translation and see if it makes sense when we insert these definitions:

“For if a woman doesn’t have hair down her head, let her hair be shorn like a sheep, but if it’s disgraceful for a woman to have her hair shorn like a sheep, or shaved, let her have hair down her head.”

This makes much more sense, doesn’t it? If these definitions are used, not only does the translation make sense but it also means that there is no prohibition against women cutting their hair.

Every single argument for uncut hair is based on the idea that the word shorn means a little trim, but we can clearly see that this is not what the word means simply by looking at the definition in the Greek Lexicon. If you read arguments for women’s uncut hair, this foundational argument is often skimmed over and the anecdotal arguments and circular reasoning begins with a lot of fear sprinkled in about what is going to happen to you if you disagree. But when we put aside the fear and traditional teachings we can clearly see that the word shorn means to shear like a sheep and does not mean what some are saying it means.

I have provided photos of four pages. Page 247, page 248, page 249, page 250.

(Written for the Facebook group Breaking Out.)

Getting Out the Old Books: Guardians of His Glory by Gary & Linda Reed
Getting Out the Old Books: David F. Gray
Getting Out the Old Books: Joy Haney
Getting Out The Old Books: Larry L. Booker
Getting Out the Old Books: Power Before the Throne
Getting Out the Newer Books: Wholly Holy: The Vital Role of Visible Devotion
Search For Truth On Holiness

********
Shop at our Amazon store! As an Amazon Influencer, this website earns from qualifying purchases.

Getting Out the Old Books: Guardians of His Glory by Gary & Linda Reed

I always find it fascinating how the issue of control comes out in a supposed form of submission. This is evident in the uncut hair issue and I will demonstrate this with quotes from the booklet Guardians of His Glory by Linda and Gary Reed.

The booklet starts out talking about Lucifer and his fall to give a foundation for the rest of the booklet. After talking about Lucifer they write “In the same manner, a wandering star in the kingdom of God spirals out of control.” (pg 7) There is a lot of talk about wickedness, hell, deception. “Beauty queens will appear in this performance as nightmarish monsters….sinners and hypocrites will be tortured together…” (pg 10) This sets a foundation of fear.

Later, it talks about being a chosen generation and a royal priesthood. It talks about how we can “shine or irradiate others, as the glory and power of God’s electromagnetic radiation is refracted in our lives….let us leave illusion and self deception…then we will truly be refractors of His glory!” (pg 22).

As many of the books that we have looked at, a foundation of fear is set and then a way to escape the wrath of God…..if you follow the writer’s teaching.

Chapter three begins with talking about not being unequally yoked with unbelievers and the power of holiness. It talks about setting “boundaries on our flesh”. (pg 23) Here is where they begin to talk about a woman’s hair. “The woman’s authority from God is symbolized by her personal glory-her long uncut hair……the entire spectra of God’s glory on earth is clouded when women cut their hair….” (pg 25)

It would appear that they try to address some previous teachings (no name is mentioned but I think I know!) when they say “Some teach that we, human beings, have replaced these guardians of God’s glory of God in their homes. This is not substantiated by scripture….” (pg 26)

Here is where the issue of control begins to be addressed. “Women have always sought control. In centuries past they were subservient to men…through witchcraft they (pagan cultures) obtained control of kingdoms…they learned how to reverse God’s divine order….(pg 27)…they shaved their heads…abortion and infanticide were regularly practiced…women…have used sex to wield power over men…(pg 28)

Now pay attention here: “Women do not need the use of perversion to manipulate their surroundings. For God has given women a way to control their environment without sin. God put women in the middle for a reason…she has the unique ability to mediate and resolve problems. Yet many in-between women are not in control of their situations simply because they are ignorant of God’s endowment. When a woman submits to God’s precepts she will find a channel to glory…..He will make a way where there seems to be no way!” What??? So, if a woman desires to control and manipulate, she should not do it by sex or witchcraft but by not cutting her hair?? Amazing! Confounding!!

They go on about how women can have “power”! Power on her head because of the angels! The word power-exousia means “Force-Capacity-Competency-Freedom and Mastery” When a godly woman (read-woman who does not cut her hair!) is at her wits end, feels totally inadequate, needs protection and power and is threatened with bondage…when she faces Satan’s forces, she becomes a superwoman! “If women only knew what power they would possess by accepting God’s plan, they would readily accept it”! (pg 30) Astounding! If you feel out of control…here is a way you can have power and control! Don’t cut your hair! This issue is not about submission. It’s about power and control.

Then, the scary stories ensue about a girl who went insane when a father pushed a girl into the barber’s chair. “When he finished the girl literally went insane, as evil spirits took control of her youthful mind and body.” (pg 30)

“A woman’s uncut hair creates a channel of glory in which the angels are empowered to minister. Women especially need an escape valve. This channel is a spiritual hotline to glory. Wow!” (pg 30-31)

The booklet wraps up with more supposedly convincing arguments.

Do you see how this message could really be enticing to a woman who feels out of control in her life? All she has to do is stop cutting her hair and she will have power and control! This is really dangerous because instead of working towards a true and positive solution for real problems, a woman’s energy is diverted into “long hair” and the belief that it gives her some special power. So, how does a sign that is supposed to be about submission (according to United Pentecostal Church theology) turn into one of power and control? I think the whole thing is about power and control from beginning to end.

I have provided photos of four pages. Page 27, page 28, page 29, page 30.

(Written for the Facebook group Breaking Out.)

Getting Out the Old Books: The Literal Word by M.D. Treece
Getting Out the Old Books: Guardians of His Glory by Gary & Linda Reed
Getting Out the Old Books: David F. Gray
Getting Out the Old Books: Joy Haney
Getting Out The Old Books: Larry L. Booker
Getting Out the Old Books: Power Before the Throne
Getting Out the Newer Books: Wholly Holy: The Vital Role of Visible Devotion
Search For Truth On Holiness

********
Shop at our Amazon store! As an Amazon Influencer, this website earns from qualifying purchases.

Getting Out the Old Books: Power Before the Throne

We have been taught that long, uncut hair on a woman is a symbol of submission. These teachings are taken from 1 Cor 11:1-16. I am going to demonstrate that what is said to be a matter of submission is often actually a matter of control. It seems unreal that something that is taught to be a matter of submission becomes a matter of control and it is interesting how that happens. To demonstrate this, today I am going to take some quotes from one of the most popular of the hair books in Oneness Pentecostalism, Power Before the Throne by Ruth Rieder (Harvey).

There is a lot that could be written and said here but I want to hone in on a few quotes: “We can actually open our homes for evil spirits to come in if we are in rebellion. Your uncut hair brings protection to the entire family. My sister related a story to me of a young minister’s wife in the Dominican Republic. Her husband was a very promising young man in the Bible School, an exceptional preacher. My sister and her husband consistently taught on holiness in the Bible School throughout the work there. This young woman had long hair, but she persisted in trimming it despite what was taught. She opened her home for an invasion of the enemy because she lifted the covering through her disobedience. Before long, her husband fell into adultery with a girl in their neighborhood. Their lives were shattered, and their ministry was completely ruined. The spirit of vanity had caused her to become more concerned about the appearance of her split ends than about her obedience to God.” (Pg 68-69)

So let’s look at this a little closer. The idea behind uncut hair is supposed to be submission but what it ends up being is about control. The message is this: Women can control whether evil spirits come into their homes with uncut hair. Women can keep their husbands from committing adultery with uncut hair. If evil spirits enter your home and you have cut hair, it’s your fault. You can control all these things, simply by having uncut hair.

“Can our husband’s hearts safely trust in us to guard the glory and to insure divine protection for our family so that no wicked spirit can enter in to spoil us? What an awesome responsibility, yet what a tremendous privilege that God has entrusted to the woman.” (pg 69) So, the idea is that women insure divine protection to the home by their own choice of whether or not to cut their hair and that the husbands and families are reliant upon their wives for this divine protection. This is not about submission. It’s about control.

“…This lady’s son was in a very serious car accident…this frantic mother…reminded God of how a scissors never touched her hair……the doctors came back, expecting to see a young man who was possibly dead. Instead they found he had regained consciousness and was responding…..His mother had guarded the glory and had power on her head because of the angels.” (pg 72-73)

The message here is that you can have some amount of control over health and sins of others if you simply do not cut your hair. Instead of having faith in God no matter what our circumstances are, women are taught that if they do not cut their hair, they have “power”….”power before the throne”….”power on her head because of the angels”….. Whatever the verses in 1 Cor. 11 mean, I don’t think they mean that if you don’t cut your hair (which is never mentioned in 1 Cor. 11, by the way) that you can control whether your husband has affairs or whether your children recover after accidents. Submission does not mean control and the hair message is about control demonstrated by the examples shown. This message of control can be very appealing to women, and is also convenient for men, because if their wives believe that the husband’s behavior is in the wife’s control, men don’t have to take responsibility for their own behavior. This is a very co-dependent way of thinking and fits right into dysfunctional relationships.

I have provided photos of four pages. Page 68, page 69, page 72, page 73.

(Written for the Facebook group Breaking Out.)

********
Shop at our Amazon store! As an Amazon Influencer, this website earns from qualifying purchases.

Getting Out the Newer Books: Wholly Holy: The Vital Role of Visible Devotion

Continuing on the study of the teachings on women’s apparel, I recently received the book Wholly Holy: The Vital Role of Visible Devotion.

Chapter five is called Why God Likes Many Skirts. The author tells the story of a man knowing Morse code and it being a code that not all people know. Concerning the young man who knew Morse code he says “Obviously this young man knew something that the others simply did not know. He had paid very close attention to something all the others had missed.” (pg 96) He then goes on to talk about “modestly dressed and attired women of God” that are inquisitively observed by other people. He then says “A Bible-believing, obedient and godly woman is just simply keenly aware of some very certain, precious and spiritual truths that others are simply not aware of.” (pg 97)

In this, he sets the (probable) skirt wearer up as someone who is special and who knows special truths that others do not. By implication, he asserts that women who do not dress “modestly” (which he has not yet defined), do not have whatever secret knowledge he is referring to. We all want to be special and have secret knowledge, so perhaps the reader sits on the edge of his/her seat, wondering what special secret code he/she may become privy to. He says that the more alert woman is tuned into some very valuable instructions that others have blindly tuned out or ignored and that others perceive certain Bible verses as simply unimportant (pg 97). By this, he makes it clear that only those who interpret these Bible verses a certain way understand the secret code, or have paid attention to certain Bible instructions and all others perceive them as unimportant, which is not true.

He goes on talking about most people owning a Bible but not really taking it seriously (pg 98). He talks again about being keenly aware of divine revelations and says “I am confident that you will gain a fresh and even a new understanding and appreciation for some timeless directives…” (pg 99) thus again setting up the reader to receive what the author perceives to be divine revelation. He set up even more groundwork saying children of God are “commissioned to walk a different path than the rest of the world.” He gets the reader agreeing…yes, we are commissioned to walk a different path…yes, we want divine revelation. Like a salesman getting ready to unveil new product, he talks up the product before he lets you know exactly what he is going to unveil.

“This subject applies only to women who ‘profess godliness.’ It only applies to women who claim a devotion to God.” (pg 98) Do you agree? He asks by implication. Do you profess godliness? Do you claim a devotion to God?

Just when you think he is about to unveil the product he has been selling, he lays even more foundation yet. First he gets you to agree that you want to be devoted and then he sells a bit of fear about rejecting the product. He sells severe judgment for immorality and sin. He talks about God’s people erring (pg 100). He talks about the nation being so low into sinfulness and the prophets failing and the detestable condition they had plummeted to (pg 101). He gets the reader to agree, again, that we do see moral decline, we don’t want to be immoral and sinful. He talks about here a little and there a little and says “only sincerely interested people will find and discover truth” (pg 102).

Can you see the set up? All of this has been said without saying what he is about to say. Apparently the product doesn’t sell itself very well. It seems to need a lot of propping up. There are a lot of products out there that people seek out because they want one. Other products are expensive and hard to sell. In that case, the company usually gets a salesman to tell people why they really want and need this product and why it is so much better than the others. Then, the salesman puts in a little fear about passing up a great offer if you don’t buy now. Often, the buyer regrets his purchase after the salesman leaves and he has had time to do a little more research. Sadly, some people who buy the product don’t like to admit that perhaps they spent more on it than they should have. All in all, very good products don’t need long sales pitches.

So, from pages 95-108, it is all groundwork and sales. Only on page 108 does he finally get into what he is actually going to say. He begins to define modesty. The original word is defined as “orderly, well-arranged, decent, modest, a harmonious arrangement or adornment” (pg 109). Apparently, the author finds this to be insufficient as he goes on to define the definition for us. He says “How can we truly decide and define what modest actually is?” (pg 109). He quotes Isaiah 47:2-3 “Uncover thy locks, make bare the leg, uncover the thigh….thy nakedness shall be uncovered, yea thy shame shall be seen.” The author takes liberty to interpret this passage as “according to God, whenever a woman bares her leg and allows her thighs to be uncovered it is at this point that her shame is being demonstrated” (pg 110). Why doesn’t the author take this to mean a woman shouldn’t uncover her hair or bare her leg, including her ankle? He offers no explanation, he simply says “We’ve covered the word modest” (pg 111).

He goes on concerning the word apparel, “katasole,” and says “it’s the only time it appears in the entire New Testament” (pg 111). “Kata means down” and “the second part of the word describes a long garment, covering or wrapping”….”it specifically describes a very exact and particular type of clothing. It describes a downward hanging, loose garment (a modest skirt or a dress etc.)”….”a modest, decent, downward, hanging, long (not short) appropriate dress or skirt” (pg 112). By his own mouth, he says the word katasole is in the entire New Testament one whole time. Whenever Oneness Pentecostal people are talking about Jesus name baptism they quote 2 Cor 13:1 “In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established” and say a doctrine shouldn’t be established upon one verse. How soon this is forgotten when talking about other subjects.

Deut 22:5 is mentioned (pg 113). The author talks about abominations through page 117 and about the clothing of soldiers and warriors through page 120. He talks about Western culture and that women have historically worn skirts. He says that women dressed the way they did because of the passages he referenced (pg 120). He argues that the culture has changed in the past few decades.

Again, he gets the reader’s agreement with these statements that are factually true and then, rather than asking the reader if they agree with his assessments, definitions and applications of scriptural principles as one Christian to another, he reiterates why his viewpoint is correct. He talks about the “abundance of information that has been presented in this chapter” (pg 121) forgetting to remind the reader that he provided us with Deut 22:5, which doesn’t mention anything about skirts on women, one mention of the word katasole in the New Testament and a verse from the Old Testament on modesty in which he doesn’t explain why he doesn’t believe women should keep their hair and ankles covered. The rest of what he provided is simple support for views and have nothing specifically to do with dress.

He then explains away, not his lack of resources, but that some will say he is being “too technical” (pg 122). He justifies his being “technical” by saying the Bible is like a razor.

In the end he says if you disagree with him, that apparently you don’t believe the Bible is inspired like he does. “If …all of this is too much attention to meaningless technicalities then here’s what may be a major difference between me and you: I believe that every word of the Bible is inspired by God. You perhaps don’t. And I also believe that every word of the Bible was accurately and successfully conveyed by God intently for our admonition and instruction today.” He quotes from the Bible to support his belief that you should interpret the Bible the way he does (pg 123).

He closes out by saying we should live to please “God and His Word” regardless of what the rest of the world does. So, after the long sales pitch, foundation and final unveiling of one actual scripture verse to support his belief that skirts are the only appropriate women’s apparel, if you don’t buy the product, he leaves you to question your Christianity, your beliefs and whether you are actually devoted to God. I’d say let the salesman get out the door and get the pressure off before you buy and see if there isn’t another better product, one that sells itself and doesn’t need long sales pitches and insults hurled at you to get you to buy it. If you still decide you want the product, it will still be there after you have had a chance to really look for yourself.

I have provided photos of pages 111-117. I haven’t provided them all because it is lengthy. Page 111, page 112, page 113, page 114, page 115, page 116, page 117.

(Written for the Facebook group Breaking Out.)

********
Shop at our Amazon store! As an Amazon Influencer, this website earns from qualifying purchases.

Search for Truth on Holiness

Many of you know that Search for Truth is a home Bible study usually given to new converts. There is also Search for Truth II. Surprisingly to outsiders or those coming into Oneness Pentecost (OP), there is little teaching on what is called “holiness standards.” (When an OP person says “holiness standards” they are often referring to the dress code).

Most of the teaching in SFT is Bible teaching and teaching on the OP view of salvation and what it takes to be saved. In all of Search for Truth 1, there is one chart, and one page explaining this chart, on holiness in the teacher’s manual. This is out of 61 teaching charts for the student and the 133 page teacher’s manual. So, something that seems very central to OP teaching is more or less in OP teachings, a sideline. This can be confusing and perplexing to both outsiders and new converts. In Search for Truth #1, there is no teaching whatsoever on particular standards. In the chart shown in the photo, the emphasis is on holiness, separation and not touching the unclean thing. There is one quoted scripture about clothing, 1 Tim. 2:9-10 and it says “Watch Your Appearance – Women adorn themselves in modest apparel.” So, at this point the student is taught biblical principles only, and no specifics, at least as far as the charts themselves are concerned.

Once a person has been taught 10 weeks of Bible study according to OP doctrine, they sometimes start Search for Truth II. This is 12 more weeks of Bible Study. There is a mild teaching about separation-talking about the Jews, in lesson 4, chart 4 called “Holy People, Separated Unto God.” Then, there is much more Bible teaching about many things-dispensations, the New Covenant, etc. Only when you come to lesson 9-Chart 6 does Search for Truth begin to address any dress standards. So, the student has been sitting through at least 18 lessons before the subject is taught on in any depth.

First, the chart says “A Holy People, Separated Unto God.” Does this sound familiar? That’s because it is the exact same title mentioned before, on the lesson about the Jews being separate unto God, only this time, it’s about the Christian. Again, the focus is on the principles and about how Christians are to be separate from the world. After this foundation is laid, the author goes into Practical Application (in the teacher’s manual). Here’s where the actual clothing standards begin to be addressed.

The first thing mentioned is legalism. They define the legalist as someone who has no genuine love for God but just follows rules, so they head off the argument against legalism right away. This can and does happen (someone just following rules), as we have seen in cases where some who completely follow all these dress rules have affairs or do other things like them. Surprisingly, the OP movement believes that these rules are somewhat of a measuring stick to your spirituality, which is surprising since they admit you can follow them without following God. In speaking of legalists the author writes: “By obeying certain “holiness standards,” they hope to satisfy God’s legal requirements, thus earning their salvation.” (pg 210) What the OP movement does not admit to though, is that they believe, mostly, that you can’t follow God without following these rules.

There is teaching on not sinning “with your eyes.” I find it interesting what is all lumped together here: “By reading material that emphasizes pornography, nudity, sensual love stories, monsters, crime, violence, the occult or witchcraft.” (pg 211) So, apparently reading a monster story or a crime novel is akin to watching pornography, which makes little sense. It does suggest making personal determinations, which is valid. It goes on about not sinning with your ears (it mentions rock music and country music- which in my experience was an OP favorite- one of those contradictions that no one wants to address).

The lesson goes on. Don’t love the world. Finally, dress is mentioned. It says “When we look for scriptural principles, we find that they apply to every culture and every age.” (pg 211) Any Christian will agree with that statement! “Immodest apparel, then, would be any clothing which by its brevity or tightness reveals the body in a way that entices the opposite sex with lustful thought and desires.” (pg 211) Any Christian would also agree with this statement.

“To the women he (Paul) says: dress modestly, with moderation; do not wear gold, pearls and costly array.” This lesson seems to do a good job at teaching principles so far, but the definitions will come later in the lesson and in the actual church culture. “A woman’s clothing should be modest, rather than expensive and flashy, and that she should avoid extravagant adornment.” (pg 212) “Make-up could also fit this category…..several OT passages describe women who wore make-up…always they were depicted as evil, unfaithful, adulterous women. The badge of their wicked ways was adornment of jewels and make-up.” I think the writer forgot to mention Proverbs 31:22 “She maketh herself coverings of tapestry; her clothing is silk and purple.” and Proverbs 25:12 “As an earring of gold, and an ornament of fine gold, so is a wise reprover upon an obedient ear.” Notice this doesn’t say, as a Jezebel wanting to seduce her lover, so is a reprover upon an obedient ear but it speaks of jewelry in a positive light. Or Song of Solomon 1:10 “Thy cheeks are comely with rows of jewels, thy neck with chains of gold.”

(Here are some of the lessons in the actual OP church culture, which I want to mention but are not mentioned in these lessons: Don’t wear gold in the form of a necklace or earrings, but wedding rings, buttons, tie tacks, cuff links, and hair decorations are all okay. Don’t wear pearls in the form of a necklace but pearls as buttons and in the hair are okay. Costly array, well, we never bother worrying about that one, especially at General Conference).

The problem is not the teaching of the actual principle. The principles are valid for all cultures and all times, just like was said in the beginning of the lesson….the problem is that the author begins to take personal preferences and interject them into the lesson, according to OP culture, leaving out anything that teaches a possible different view of scripture. As authors before him, he begins to take scriptures, make implications and suggestions and then drives it home with “Regardless of our preferences, God’s opinion concerning make-up and jewelry is what matters most! We want to please him!” This is a true statement when it stands alone. However, when implications are made that make-up and jewelry are wrong, scriptures are given to “prove” it (omitting any scripture to the contrary) and then the statement is made about “God’s opinion” and it leads the student to believe that OP cultural tradition is the same as God’s opinion, and that if you don’t follow OP culture and tradition, you don’t want to please God!

The lesson continues. Deuteronomy 22:5 is quoted and the first thing the writer writes is “An abomination is something that God hates!” (pg 212) This sets the student up to know that they certainly don’t want to dress like the opposite sex or they will be an abomination to God. Then, the definitions begin. The author writes about a male pastor preaching in a dress and that in another 50 years women’s clothing will be acceptable for men. The student, seeing the obvious shift in society, likely agrees. The author then leads in. “Eighty years ago, a woman wearing pants was labeled indecent and ungodly. Society has changed but God’s Word has not!”

The author leads the student right into the idea that God’s Word is being broken if a woman wears pants. However, Deut. 22:5 doesn’t say anything about pants. Deut 22:5 teaches a principle that a person should not wear that which pertains to the opposite sex. When a woman wears pants, does most of society believe she is wearing men’s apparel? No. Even in our society today, there are clear cut ways to show you want to dress as a member of the opposite sex. A clear message can be given. A woman in pants does not give this message even though it did give that message eighty years ago.

The author drives home more about “abomination(s) to God.” The author talks about different nations having different customs and says “Yet a distinction exists between the clothing of each sex. At a distance one person should be able to tell whether a person is male or female by their clothing. A unisex culture with no immediately observable difference in apparel is immoral!” Well, I can usually tell a man from a woman in our culture. Those that I can’t are usually intentionally not making it apparent.

The author then says we are reaping the harvest of confusing the roles of male and female in their clothing. “Men are acting like women and women like men; homes are breaking up; homosexuality is on the rise; children are being raised in a culture where they cannot determine their proper roles”. (pg 212) So, the insinuation is made that broken homes and homosexuality being on the rise are at least partially the fault of women who won’t wear skirts daily.

The writer then goes on to talk about hair length. The author writes immediately about “long, uncut hair” on a woman, quoting 1 Cor 11:13-16 (pg 212), leaving the reader to believe that long equals uncut in no uncertain terms, leaving no room for any other interpretation.

The lesson ends with a summary of principles and presenting our bodies as a living sacrifice. It leaves the student with a mind-spinning menagerie of things to think through. Mostly, it leaves the student with these ideas: If you want to serve God, not be an abomination to Him, please Him and live for Him you need to: 1. Wear dresses as a female 2. Not wear make-up or certain jewelry 3. Not cut your hair as a woman and have short hair as a man 4. Do these things to present your body as a living sacrifice and be a separate and holy person.

One reason there is so much fear surrounding questioning these definitions is that a woman (or man) must deal with these ideas: If I question, am I moving towards being an abomination to God? Am I contributing to divorce and homosexuality in our culture? Am I refusing to submit to those that have the rule over me?

Sometimes when a person reads Deut 22:5: “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,” they actually see or hear in their head: “The woman shall not wear pants and men shall not wear skirts for all that do so are an abomination to God.” But that’s not actually what the verse says. Many of the other “holiness” teachings are like-wise. Then sins like infidelity, molestation and extortion get sometimes (unintentionally, usually) overlooked, while a woman gets scorned for wearing a necklace. It becomes a false balance. And what is a false balance? “A false balance is abomination to the LORD: but a just weight is his delight.” Proverbs 11:1

Here are some links for the Search for Truth PDF’s:
SFT I Chart: https://search4truth2.com/DOCs/study/search4truth1-chart.pdf
SFT I Teacher’s Manual: http://omsify.com/resources/pdfs/SFT1-MAN.pdf
SFT II Chart: https://mballestero.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/sft2chts.pdf
SFT II Teacher’s Manual: http://www.fullertonpentecostals.com/uploads/2/0/0/4/20047357/sft2man.pdf

SFT #1 was originally copyright in 1965 by Search For Truth and was later revised by the UPC in 2003.
SFT #2 was originally Light For Living that was written by Jerry Twentier and Marcella Willhoite in 1985. It was later revised in 2003 by J. L. Hall, Kenneth Haney, Philip Dugas, and Nathaniel Haney.

(Written for the Facebook Group-Breaking Out.)

********
Shop at our Amazon store! As an Amazon Influencer, this website earns from qualifying purchases.