Category: no pants on women | Page 2

Pants or not pants?

Pants for women has become a laughable argument in Pentecost.

The argument at my former church was that tights were fine because they had feet, so they resembled hose. Hose were not pants, and hose were for women, so tights were OK (at least in modest colors).

However, then came leggings and capri tights. Leggings and capri tights were NOT OK, even when worn under skirts, even when made out of the same material – or even a bit thicker material – than tights. Leggings and capri tights didn’t have feet in them, therefore they were not like hose, they were pants. Pants were for men, so leggings and capri tights were not OK.

BUT… Long johns were a type of underwear and didn’t show, so even though they didn’t have feet, they were OK, even though they were made just like leggings.

Leggings looked just like tights when worn with boots, but leggings were still wrong, even under a long skirt. (But tights were OK.)

Pajamas were not OK, with or without feet, because pajamas were pants and pants were for men.

Source: https://www.dhgate.com/product/feminine-chiffon-wide-leg-skirt-pants-long/184384882.html

Judge, ye. Pants or not pants?

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

The sacred cows of Pentecost

According to Wiktionary, a sacred cow is something that can’t “be tampered with, or criticized, for fear of public outcry. A person, institution, belief system, etc. which, for no reason other than the demands of established social etiquette or popular opinion, should be accorded respect or reverence, and not touched, handled or examined too closely.”

There were herds of sacred cows in my former church, things that I think most people knew made no sense, but that no one would question, things like:

Praying an hour, because there was a song that said “Sweet hour of prayer.” Nothing in the Bible, and most of the congregation had never even heard the whole song. They certainly never sang it at my former church. It was too slow.
Women not wearing pants because of a verse in Deuteronomy that talks about women not wearing “that which pertaineth to a man.” Why this means pants specifically and not t-shirts, denim, suit jackets, etc, which all began as things men wore is never discussed, or if it is, it is shrugged away by saying that those don’t change the profile. The same people argue that a woman can’t wear a fly in her skirt because if she’s walking behind something and people can only see from hip and up it might look like she’s wearing pants. But that fly doesn’t change the profile.
Going to church multiple times a week because “the Bible says forsake not the assembling of yourselves together.” The Bible never says that people should assemble repeatedly during the week until they are exhausted or even though they are sick.
People should not wear jewelry, because the Bible says not to wear gold or jewels or costly array. In what universe does this mean your daughter can’t wear toy plastic beads around her neck but you can wear a $300 outfit?
Women shouldn’t wear makeup because Jezebel did. Not everything wicked people do is wicked. In the same verse she arranged her hair and looked out a window. Of the three, only makeup is preached against. (And for that matter, she only put on eye makeup… not lip gloss or blush, much less concealer or nail polish.)

There were many more. Herds of sacred cows. Cows so sacred that people did all sorts of strange things to avoid not only touching them but even looking at them. There were people who wouldn’t buy watches because they were sold in the jewelry section. Most women would flinch if they accidentally touched a pair of pants on a sales rack. People would go to church sick, and others would report each other for wearing chapstick. (“It looked PINK!”) Those sacred cows… there were way too many. Dare to ask the simple question “Why?” and you could be labeled or ostracized. It wasn’t even popular opinion that made them untouchable. Sometimes it was pastor’s opinion, and sometimes it was group think.

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

A Time To Kill – A Time To Break Down

Part One of Two Part Series

“To everything there is a season, A time for every purpose under heaven:
‭‭…..“A time to kill, And a time to heal; A time to break down, And a time to build up;”
‭‭Ecclesiastes‬ ‭3:1,3‬ ‭NKJV‬‬

When you’ve been in an abusive church for any length of time things are killed in your heart and soul and things are broken down in your mind and emotions. Eventually you become spiritually crippled and emotionally damaged. This is my story…

I was in the United Pentecostal Church all my life, that’s the only religion I ever knew and even though my mother never truly believed or conformed to the rules and regulations, that was where she took my brother and I to church on Sundays.

We went mostly to please my grandmother who was the matriarch of our family. She was a pro at shaming and putting on the guilt because she truly believed it was the only way to be saved and she prayed diligently for her family. Although I was the “strange” granddaughter with an analytical and inquisitive mind; always asking questions about why the church believed this way or where was this rule in the Bible, she just wanted me filled with the Holy Ghost and that would answer all my questions. I found out later that she couldn’t tell me where the rules and regulations were located in the Bible either, but she remained dedicated and faithful unto the end.

I was baptized in 1969 and received the Holy Ghost 2 years later at Youth Camp. But my mother didn’t believe the standards were necessary and got angry with my grandmother for making me dresses and skirts. It was a very confusing time in my life and although I had received the Holy Ghost, I still couldn’t find answers to my questions.

I remember finding and reading 1 Corinthians 11: 1-15 regarding women having long hair and I noticed when they preached on long hair this was the reference that they used and always stopped at verse 15. But if you read verse 16, Paul says, “But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God.” Which basically says we don’t have this belief and it’s not a big deal. But I held my peace because it was just easier.

Because I was pulled between pleasing my mother and my grandmother I was in and out of church throughout my teen years. I got involved with after school clubs and was a Pom Pom girl my last two years of high school. God and church were on the back burner for me.

I married my high school sweetheart, a nice non-practicing Catholic at age 18. My UPC family members were horrified and my grandmother was very disappointed because she had been praying for me to marry a minister. His family was just as horrified that I was not a nice Catholic girl.

To keep the peace we were married in a chapel and the ceremony was performed by my UPC uncle. Our son was born 2 years later when I was 20 and we were ripe for the picking when we had our son dedicated in the UPC church.

This was 1977 and the church was still involved with evangelism and we were sucked in with all the other young married couples and gave our lives to the Lord…or so we thought…we really gave our lives to the church. My husband was baptized but hadn’t received the Holy Ghost and once again I started wearing the dresses and skirts, got rid of the make up and put away my jewelry. Since it was the 70’s I still had long hair. Once again I couldn’t explain the standards to my husband nor where to find them in the Bible.

My husband was transferred to another state in 1978 and we found a UPC church close to our home and started attending and they became our family. My husband was filled with the Holy Ghost and we had several couples that we considered close friends and we thought life was good.

It was here when the abuse began….the dictatorship…. we couldn’t miss church without calling the pastor, or go on vacation without prior notice, and the pastor didn’t like women working outside the home and leaving their children to be raised by strangers and of course I worked and was beginning a good career. Our pastor had a thing about cleanliness and would make surprise visits to your home and put a pair of white gloves on looking for dust. Our home was hit several times because he was trying to catch something on me to prove his point that women shouldn’t work. I became obsessed with a clean house and he never could make me his subject for a Sunday sermon.

I was put on the troublemakers list pretty early because I wanted answers to my questions about the rules and regulations and I even did my own research and wrote papers and gave them to my pastor and asked him to explain what I found. He would get very angry that I had the audacity to question his teaching and “convictions” he received from God. The only thing he would do is tell my husband to control his wife.

In 1982, after three miscarriages, we were blessed with a beautiful baby girl and our lives began to change and become more demanding. I began to teach Sunday School and I also became the pastor’s administrative assistant. He figured if I insisted on working I needed to work at the church. I really think it was because I was the only woman in church who could type and use a computer. I also was given a teaching position in the church’s Christian school and became friends with the other teachers who were not of the same faith. This was frowned upon because of our beliefs, but I persevered and held on to one friendship unto this day.

When my husband was called into the ministry, situations arose in the church. Instead of mentoring him, our pastor and his family felt threatened by my husband wanting to start a church somewhere in the state. Therefore we were not so kindly asked to leave the state and go back to Missouri, because he didn’t want “his” people leaving to attend my husband’s church.

In 1991 we loaded everything up and moved to Missouri to help my uncle in his UPC church to gain some experience. It was different to say the least. My uncle preached against everything. To him, if you spit wrong it was sin. I felt so trapped and stifled that I could hardly breath. We couldn’t even have a Christmas tree because he thought it was a sin.

Fortunately I was able to find a good job at a local college and one thing my uncle didn’t preach against was women working, because that meant more tithes. He knew everybody’s payday and like a bill collector he would knock on your door and collect your tithes. I loved my uncle but sitting under him for a year smothered me.

In 1994 a small church became available in a neighboring town and my husband was voted in as pastor. We had 9 in attendance our first service and 4 of them were our family. But those first few years were amazing. We saw new people coming in and being “saved” and our first fundraiser went to buy a baptismal tank.

My husband wasn’t hard on our people but he came down hard on our daughter and me. We had to make sure we were always dressed right and to sit and look pretty. Our son was to lead in worship by example and help wherever needed. When we went to sectional or district meetings, I was to be quiet and not talk or laugh and to keep my opinions to myself so he wouldn’t be embarrassed.

I continued to work for a few more years until the extra duties of the church, the District Ladies Ministry and the continued care of our children were too much for me and I became a full time pastors wife.

For a small church we were very active in puppet ministry, stick drama, choir, VBS, fall ladies tea, Easter and Christmas programs and community projects. The church grew to an average of 50-60.

I began teaching bible studies and the more I studied, the more concerned I became about what we were teaching. I voiced my concern to my husband but received a blank stare in return.

Around this time our church had some trouble and we had a split, losing a lot of people. This so upset my husband and I watched him change into a bitter and unforgiving man. He lost his joy and was letting the situation destroy him. I told him to rebuild or resign. He really just stopped doing anything.

Our daughter married a nice Pentecostal man (so we thought) in 2000 and our first grandchild was born in 2002. Then one weekend, while I was out of town helping our son move into an apartment where he was going to college, my husband did the unthinkable. He resigned the church, left me a note, emptied out our bank account and ran off with a worldly woman. I came home in shock with $12 in my purse. My life would be forever changed.

So I closed the books of the church and sat in several board meetings while they voted whether or not they were going to pay my bills for the month. I was so embarrassed but I made it through and turned in the church keys and left that town. It would be 18 years before I would go back.

With a lot of help from God and my parents, I was able to move my mobile home to a nice place in the St Louis area, file for divorce, and I secured a good job at a public accounting firm as an administrative assistant. I would eventually work my way up to Tax Supervisor before I retired in 2016.

Again I found another UPC church and started attending and tried to be a good Christian woman, although as a divorced woman I was marked. The married women were jealous if I even shook hands in greeting with one of their husbands and I was warned by the women to leave their husbands alone. I wasn’t interested in any man and I was hurt. Why couldn’t they see my heart was broken? That I had no interest in their husbands? Where was the love? Compassion? A pat on the back and a “hang in there!” would have been nice.

The pastor asked me to be the Ladies Ministry Leader for the church, which was odd because that position is usually for the pastor’s wife, but she didn’t want the position, so I accepted it. I was given a notebook of all the rules and regulations I was supposed to obey and be a “good example” for the ladies to follow. I don’t remember all of them, but being a faithful member and supporter of the church was close to the top, as well as dressing as becoming a godly woman and I was to exemplify the Proverbs 31 and Titus 2 women at all times. So I gave it a try and worked very hard for the next three years.

It was like pulling teeth to get the ladies to do anything or participate in any activity and they were not interested in Proverbs 31 or Titus 2. They were like the Stepford Wives. But they did enjoy honoring their pastor and his wife on pastor appreciation day and their birthdays and anniversary. They bought flowers and gifts and I tried making a suggestion on a gift but it was never good enough. One of the ladies told me that I just didn’t understand how much they all loved the pastor and his family, and they showed this by giving extravagant gifts and speeches, full of praise and honor. One year the church bough him a restored 1957 Chevy because he mentioned it was the ride of choice while he was dating his wife. I could understand why my suggestion of a $100 gift card to Bass Pro was turned down.

I never could get into the pastor worship and it seemed like idol worship to me and left a very bitter taste in my mouth. I managed to do three years as the ladies leader but I didn’t feel like I accomplished much. The ladies still acted like Stepford Wives, although I did manage to make one of the ladies that was in charge of the kitchen mad at me. So I resigned the position by submitting a letter and returning the notebook. Nothing was ever said to me about my resignation, nor about the three years I served. The pastor assigned his daughter-in-law to the position and she was hailed as the new leader and how she would do great things and etc etc.

I returned to college in 2003 to finish my Bachelors degree in accounting and going to school for the next three years, plus working full time and trying to be a good ladies leader, kept me busy. I remember telling the pastor (I learned never to ask) that I was enrolled in college and he was not pleased and thought it was a stupid idea. I told him I was single and needed to go to school so I could advance on my job and increase my earnings. Later I found out he wanted me to manage the church’s day care for $10.00 an hour. He thought that was enough for me to live on.

I persevered and graduated in June 2006 and received a promotion at work and a big raise, which increased my tithes significantly. I paid my tithes because I didn’t want to be put on “the list” that would get waved around during every sermon. He would be preaching and something would be said about tithes and he would pick up a list of names and wave it around yelling, “I have a list of names who are not paying your tithes. You are cursed with a curse and don’t come to me for help until you are paying your tithes because I can’t help you.”

It’s sad thinking back on those days and the people who were laid off and out of a job and couldn’t afford to put gas in their cars, much less pay their tithes. But couldn’t receive help from the church they supported for many years. Of course I understand that the new Lincoln pastor drove, and the fancy clothes and the newly remodeled home, was very important and needed tithe money to pay for them because they had an image to uphold….hmm.

Well with a promotion and big raise came more responsibilities and my work days became longer and I began missing the midweek services. Nothing was ever said to me for quite awhile and then only in passing that I was missed. I never thought much about that because as long as I wrote that check out every payday, attendance didn’t matter.

So after a year or so I was only attending Sunday mornings and by 2010, I was not going at all. It took the pastor 3 weeks to call me and I’m sure it was when my name came up on “the list.” When I told him I was not being fed the true word of God, and that in the 8 years I’d been attending he preached the same 9 or 10 messages and I named them: Tithes, women’s apparel, Tithes-The List, holiness, Acts 2:38, the coming of the Lord, communion, Tithes and attendance. He was offended, of course, and said some bad things to me about knowing better or something along those lines. I just said good bye and hung up the phone. I never felt freer than when I hung up that phone.

It was also during this time my daughter was going through a very messy divorce. Her husband was not a “good Pentecostal man,” but he never showed his bad side to the church and therefore it had to be my daughters fault and they took his side. I called and let them know very strongly about the abuse, the bruises and having to sneak my daughter and three granddaughters to a safe house for their protection. But it didn’t matter…the man is always right and they kept him in his positions at church and we were the outcasts.

That was my deciding factor that I was through with church and the Pentecostal ways. I knew in my heart that the doctrine was not “the truth” like we always heard; I had done enough research to know it. So my daughter and I never went back. I loved that taste of freedom.

Her ex-husband’s true nature was soon discovered when he was stalking a girl at the church and he started showing his creepy side and he was asked to leave. But we never received an apology, nor another phone call. Our days of being in a controlling cult was over and all I felt was relief.

I will end with this: When you’ve been in an abusive church for any length of time things are killed in your heart and soul and things are broken down in your mind and emotions. Eventually you become spiritually crippled and emotionally damaged….

Part Two will follow.

********
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.)

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.

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.