Category: no pants on women | Page 3

Getting Out the Old Books: Larry L. Booker

I have been going through different author’s writings on the subject of women’s apparel for the Facebook group Breaking Out. Today I am taking quotes from Larry L. Booker’s book What a Difference a Line Can Make. There are a few pastors that came out of the church that Larry Booker was converted in, including my ex-husband (we are no longer in the ministry). I don’t have anything personal against Larry Booker (just to set that straight). He is a good man who means well but we have a difference of opinion here.

He asks “Why do your women always wear dresses?” (pg 111) And he answers it by saying “For the same reason our men always wear pants and do not wear dresses.”

Larry Booker mirrors the opinions of the authors that I have quoted before him and they all use the same logic. He talks about a time in our world when women didn’t wear pants and that this was true for all of society. Then he says “God’s word never changes.” There is only one conclusion a person can come to when one statement is made after the other and that is that somehow, women wearing pants and God’s word never changing are somehow linked but he doesn’t say quite how or why at this point.

He then talks about a comic, Dennis the Menace, (pg 112) and how Dennis says about his mom in pants “Aw, Mom, you don’t even look like a mother in them things.” He goes on “This cartoon joke wouldn’t even be funny in our modern society. People of today would look at the cartoon, scratch their head and say ‘I don’t get it'”…..So, here he admits that our society doesn’t recognize that pants are only men’s apparel now. “The cartoon makes sense only to those who remember a different era or to those who remember God’s word!” This comment doesn’t really make sense. The cartoon does make sense to those of a different era….or those who hold to that same era for definitions of women’s apparel.

He then goes on to talk about “even though society has accepted women wearing men’s clothing, it still does not make it right in the sight of God.” (pg 113) So here Larry Booker defines all pants as men’s apparel and he also says society has accepted women wearing men’s clothing rather than saying, like many would, that our culture has shifted to accept women’s pants as women’s apparel. He says basically that all people who define this differently than he are breaking God’s word and that those who define women’s pants as women’s apparel are somehow insisting that God’s word actually does change, even though that has not been expressed by anyone that I know who thinks pants are okay on women.

He quotes Deut 22:5 (pg 113) and then says “To ignore this injunction, or to sweep it under some mental carpet as being an archaic, Old Testament dictate, is to err greatly and gravely.” What he is, in effect saying, is that if you disagree with his opinion on how to apply this scripture to your life that you are ignoring this injunction or sweeping it under the carpet. He gives no room for differing opinions on the matter.

He then goes into the word abomination and lists all the things that are abominations……idolatry, child sacrifice, prostitution and sodomy, cheating and lying, a proud heart etc. He then says “an abomination never changes with time, men’s and women’s cross-dressing is not even an issue of modesty; it is a moral issue with God.” He uses circular logic here as the authors before him. The bible never defines skirts as women’s apparel. Larry Booker defines skirts as women’s apparel. Then, he says by implication, if you disagree with his definition you are therefore guilty of being an abomination before God.

Then, he writes about transvestites (pg 114) and equates their behavior to be the same thing as women wearing pants. He says he almost vomited walking by some transvestites and that he firmly believes this is the same way God feels about it….”a woman dressing like a man.” Therefore, in a culture that clearly has no problem with women wearing pants as women’s apparel, he says that women wearing pants is the same thing to God as transvestism. In other words, men intentionally dressing as women are the same as a woman wearing pants made for women, in a culture that does not recognize women wearing pants as transvestism.

Larry Booker then goes on to talk about doing what’s right, in spite of how we are feeling. (pg 115) Wait a minute. Aren’t we, as women, told we are supposed to feel a certain conviction over this? “We are going to be judged by what the Bible teaches, not how we feel.” Isn’t he really saying we are going to be judged by Larry Booker’s opinion and not how we feel? Aren’t we, as women, supposed to be convicted in our hearts about what is right and wrong and aren’t we able to tell if God is leading us a certain way? Or are we supposed to throw our own thoughts and opinions out the window for fear that we are incapable of being able to find God’s will for our own lives?

Think with me for a minute on the danger of this. What if we decide to follow Larry Booker’s opinion when we didn’t feel the conviction of God because we were told to do what’s “right in spite of how we feel”. This can cause mass confusion. Are we to follow God? Or man? Are we able to discern and be convicted of the right path from God or not? If we, as people, are not allowed to discern right from wrong in our own hearts and minds and we practice that, this is how spiritually abusive churches begin and how people learn to follow men and some even end up doing some very crazy things simply because they are told to. If someone truly feels convicted and agrees with this application for their own lives, that is fine, but they need to recognize that it is an application of Deut 22:5 and an agreement with an application of scripture that they are practicing and that different people may apply this scripture differently according to their own conscience.

He says “We are going to be judged by what the Bible teaches, not by how we feel.” (pg 115) But if the Bible teaches not to wear that which pertains to the opposite sex and you obey that according to your conscience and your own culture that doesn’t recognize pants as exclusive to women, does that make you an abomination to God? According to Larry Booker the answer seems to be yes and he gets there, not by giving a biblical definition, but by giving you his definitions, opinions and logic. His definitions and opinions are not bible. What they are are his applications of biblical principles.

The problem is the circular logic gets passed from person to person. Those in the movement may or may not have a personal conviction that they should wear skirts and at that point it becomes an oral tradition, something that people do because they are told they shouldn’t go by what they think or feel because it’s wrong. The negative aspects to this, aside from the fact that some women unwittingly follow a man’s opinion because they believe they shouldn’t concern themselves with their own feelings on the matter out of fear of disobeying the bible, is that they believe that if they do what may truly be in their hearts (which for some is wearing pants) that they will be an abomination unto God.

Women in this case are not following their conscience or their God given convictions. This causes an imbalance in the Christian walk because if a woman believes a man’s opinion over her own conscience, she loses her ability to discern right from wrong for herself and begins to rely too heavily on what she is told. This is the danger and it is a real one, one that has taken it’s toll on many. It’s not in the wearing of skirts or the not wearing of skirts, but the battle is in the mind.

I am including photos of the excerpts if you want to take the time to read all of it for yourself: Page 111, page 112, page 113, page 114, page 115, page 116.

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.

A Closer Look at Deuteronomy 22:5

A woman shall not wear anything that pertains to a man, nor shall a man put on a woman’s garment for all who do so are an abomination unto the Lord your God.

This scripture has been used by many legalistic churches, particularly the United Pentecostal Church, as proof to enforce their stand against women wearing pants. Although the scripture doesn’t state the word pants or skirts because this scripture was written many years before the western culture even began. This is a perfect example how the UPC will take a scripture out of context and it’s culture and twist it around to what they want it to mean, especially when in the days of Moses everybody wore gowns and robes.

So let’s start at the beginning, Genesis to be exact, this is the beginning of biblical clothing, the beginning of any clothing. Genesis 3:21 after Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit and hid from God because they were naked. God was upset by their disobedience and killed an animal and used its skin to make them tunics and dressed them.

He didn’t make a fuss over how he dressed them. It doesn’t say he covered them from neck to ankle or that the sleeves were a certain length, or whether Adam wore pants and Eve wore a skirt, no, he dressed them in tunics.

Now back to the book of Deuteronomy. After carefully studying this book that was written by Moses before the Israelites entered into Canaan, you find it full of a lot of commandments that seem strange to the modern mind. For example, if a man discovered a bird sitting upon eggs, he might take the eggs but not the bird (22:6-7). Different kinds of seeds could not be planted in one’s vineyard (9). The Hebrew farmer was not to yoke together an ox and a donkey for plowing (10). A Jew was forbidden to wear a garment containing two types of cloth (wool and linen – 11), and so on and verse 5 was only mentioned one time in the middle of a group of miscellaneous commandments almost like an after thought that Moses had.

God told Moses to write down His commandments regarding the worship of the strange gods of the Canaanites several times and told the people of Israel to utterly destroy all implements of worship when they possessed the land of Canaan. (Deut. 6:14, 7:5, 12:4, 13:1-5 and 20:17-18)

When you come into the land which the LORD your God gives you, you shall not learn to follow the abominable practices of those nations. There shall not be found among you any one who burns his son or his daughter as an offering, any one who practices divination, a soothsayer, or an augur, or a sorcerer, or a charmer, or a medium, or a wizard, or a necromancer. For whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD; and because of these abominable practices the LORD your God is driving them out before you. (Deuteronomy 18:9-12)

According to history of the culture and practices of paganism, Deuteronomy 22:5 is an indication of cross-dressing in certain heathen ceremonies that was deemed to be a cure for infertility. This was done by the Canaanites, which God strictly forbade the Israelites to participate in and ordered them to completely destroy them all (Mariottini).

You shall utterly destroy them, the Hittites and the Amorites, the Canaanites and the Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebusites, as the LORD your God has commanded; that they may not teach you to do according to all their abominable practices which they have done in the service of their gods, and so to sin against the LORD your God. (Deuteronomy 20:17-18)

“I could cite several other passages in Deuteronomy where the word “abomination” is used as a reference to a religious practice that existed in the religion of the Canaanites and several other nations in the Ancient Near East.” (Mariottini) But let’s move on to another point to note is the order of the words: “the female is referred to first, then the male” ( Mariottini). “This is the reason Deuteronomy 22:5 prohibits Israelites from wearing garments of the opposite sex because these were the special garments female and male cultic prostitutes wore in the service of Asherah” (2 Kings 10:22; 23:7). ( Mariottini)

“Archaeology has shown that the exchange of roles in pagan cults, that is, where male acted as female and vice-versa, was common in the Ancient Near East.” (Mariottini). “Theodore Burgh, in his book Listening to the Artifacts: Music Culture in Palestine said (p. 69) that in ancient Mesopotamia, transvestites, men dressed like women, played and danced in the cult of Ishtar, performing erotic dances and pantomime.” (Mariottini)

“The Biblical text was not written in a vacuum. The Biblical text was written within a historical and cultural context. When the Biblical text is divorced of its cultural and historical contexts,” as some legalistic religions tend to do, “the text is made to say that which it never intended to say” (Mariottini).

Many countries today may practice the pants as male dress and the dress or skirt as the female dress. “But Deuteronomy was not addressing a cultural issue …in the twenty-first century or in any other century. Deuteronomy was addressed to Israel as it struggled with Canaanite culture. Deuteronomy was written to address the many religious problems that were plaguing the worship of God, problems that compromised Israel’s uniqueness as a chosen people and problems that undermined Israel’s mission to the nations.” (Mariottini)

While it undoubtedly is true that God wants some sexual distinction apparent in men’s and women’s garments, it is not legitimate to say that all women’s “pants” are wrong, or, for that matter, that Scottish “kilts” are sinful for the men of that culture.

Also as a reminder, we are no longer bound to the commandments of the law, Jesus Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law. ( Gal. 3:1-14, Eph. 2:14-18, Eph. 2:19-22 and Col.2:14-23).

A woman can be feminine in a modest pant-suit (1 Tim. 2:9-10), and men can still be masculine in a robe-like garment (as in some Near Eastern countries today).

Two principles should be borne in mind. First, the Christian should dress appropriate to his gender. This distinction, incidentally, is apparent in all cultures. Second, the godly man or woman should dress modestly, and not in a manner that would solicit sexual interest.

“Deuteronomy 22:5 is not prohibiting women from wearing pants. In fact, the word “pants” does not even appear in the Bible. Well, that is not totally true. The word pants appears twice in the Bible: “As the deer pants for streams of water, so my soul pants for you, O God” (Psalm 42:1 NIV). But these are pants of another kind” (Mariottini).

Works Cited: Dr. Claude Mariottini, Professor of Old Testament at Northern Baptist Seminar

********
Shop at our Amazon store! This website is a participant in the Amazon
Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to amazon.com. As an Amazon Influencer, this website earns from qualifying purchases.

Getting Out the Old Books: Joy Haney

(This was written for the Facebook group, Breaking Out, which is why there are references the reader may not be familiar with.)

Here is some more on women being an abomination unto God and contributing to homosexuality in society if women wear pants, this time by the well known author, Joy Haney.

In her book A Call to Holiness, Joy Haney tells a lot of stories to create the groundwork that she lays for why women should wear skirts and dresses. They are stories on personal experiences and discussions she has had with people about modesty and the behavior of a strict Jewish group who also teaches against pants on women. What this means is that the stories she tells are subjective. They are her experiences and personal opinions about why women should wear skirts. She talks about identification such as policemen wearing police uniforms, etc. She asks us “Who is going to clothe us, God or self?” (pg 121)

In this, she uses reasoning to lead the reader into coming to her same conclusions. The implication is that if you don’t agree with her, you probably are not allowing God to clothe you.

She says “Modesty of dress is carried over into the New Testament and commanded in the New Testament church, which is under the new dispensation of grace. God still instructs the women how to dress.” (pg 123) She then says “Rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft.”…”I say, God teach me how to dress, because I want your approval.” (pg 124) She talks about an attitude of rebellion….the “power suit,” the world being caught up in fashion. (pg 126).

Many of the things she says here are Christian principles, mostly. The snag here is that the majority of Christians agree with these principles-it is the application she makes with her reasoning that we disagree on. She gets you shaking your head, yes, yes, yes. Modesty is needed…we want to submit ourselves to God in the area of how we dress….we want God’s approval….we don’t want to be caught up in fashion etc. etc.

To these things, we presumably agree but she ties it into wearing skirts specifically. If you disagree with her opinions the implications are that….you are not allowing God to clothe you, you are not modest, you are in rebellion which is as the sin of witchcraft!! Let’s take this to it’s logical conclusion…if you disagree with the idea that pants are not for women…and if believing that is being in rebellion….and if rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft…and practicing witchcraft sends you into hell, guess where you are going if you wear pants! She doesn’t say this, but it is implied.

She goes on “In the New Testament, Paul, who was moved on by the Holy Ghost, explained that sins and immorality of people would lead to further sins of homosexuality and lesbianism.” She goes on to quote Romans 1:21, 24-28. (pg 134)

See here, just as DK Bernard did, that she links women wearing pants with homosexuality and lesbianism!

She goes on “These sinners received recompense for their own ways….they chose not to listen to God’s Word, so he gave them up to their own sin.” (Pg 134)

This is some pretty heavy stuff! Keep in mind that the reader may agree with all the principles taught here. The reader may even agree with Joy Haney’s thought that if all women started butch cutting their hair and living like men that it may cause gender confusion. The reader may only disagree with one thing: that women wearing pants isn’t disobeying Deut 22:5 because there are many feminine styled pants out there that women can wear and yet easily stay within this principle!

Joy Haney does not come right out and say “Pants are men’s apparel for western society” like DK Bernard does. However, she uses a lot of reasoning, such as the word katasole in 1 Tim 2:9 is translated “long robe” and then says “A robe is not pants.” (pg 133) (And of course, since all people wore robes in that day, it would make sense that they were talking about robes.) She also quotes Proverbs 31 and says the word covered in that verse means “to place or spread something over” or to “conceal, screen or shield.” (pg 139) To this, she then gives her opinion that women should wear skirts by asking the questions “How could a woman spread pants over the body?” Keep in mind, this is her opinion and that the biblical text doesn’t actually say anything about skirts or pants.

Here is where so many in the United Pentecostal Church get caught up in so much fear. It is really and truly okay if Joy Haney wants to wear skirts for the reasons she outlines. But it is really and truly also okay for you to have a different opinion. The Bible doesn’t say women must wear skirts. People take this scripture and have an opinion about it’s application. That’s all. That doesn’t mean if you wear pants as a woman you are an abomination to God. It doesn’t mean you are a rebel. It doesn’t mean you are practicing any form of witchcraft. It certainly doesn’t mean you are going to hell. It means you have a different opinion about how to apply this scripture to your life. And that’s okay. And all the people who want to practice it as wearing skirts….that’s okay too!

The problem doesn’t lie with having an opinion one way or the other. We are all free to have our opinions and apply them as we wish. What is not okay is having an opinion one way or another and accusing someone of not listening to “God’s Word” because they have a different opinion. Or accusing them of being rebellious or promoting homosexuality or lesbianism because they don’t apply the verse in the same way.

I am including photos of the excerpts if you want to take the time to read all of it for yourself: Page 119, page 120, page 121, page 122, page 123, page 124, page 125, page 126, page 132, page 133, page 134, page 135, page 136, page 137, page 138, page 139, page 140.

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

Dressing Modestly or To Impress?

According to the dictionary the word modesty can mean several different things and I chose the following:
1. free from ostentation or showy extravagance
2. having or showing regard for the decencies of behavior, speech, dress, etc.

Many women in the United Pentecostal Church will tell you they wear skirts and dresses for their own conviction on modesty not because of the teaching in their churches. That may be so but how can convictions be born without the teaching?

Many scriptures have been used to support their convictions from Deuteronomy 22:5 through 1 Timothy 2:9 and they have certainly been twisted to make their case for what they deem is proper attire for women.

I want to look at 1 Timothy 2:9 since this is a commonly quoted scripture to support their cause. This is a letter to Timothy from the Apostle Paul;

“I also want the women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, adorning themselves, not with elaborate hairstyles or gold or pearls or expensive clothes,” 1 Timothy 2:9, NIV

This verse begins the second main section of chapter 2, which extends to the end of the chapter at verse 15. The theme is that of the role of women in Christian worship. When believers gather together, how should women function? The first statement made by Paul here uses the term hōsautōs, meaning “likewise.” Paul has just made mention of prayer and its importance. Women, therefore, are to share in similar godly actions as the men of the church. What Paul says here, then, is not a unique principle for women as much as a specific application for women.

Specifically, this refers to how women dressed and cared for their hair. Then, as now, church gatherings were not an appropriate time to dress seductively or for attention. Clothing styles vary, and tastes change based on time and culture. All the same, how women (and men) dress should be appropriate for worship of God.

Second, women were not to focus on “braided hair.” This is another comment requiring careful cultural understanding. Paul’s point is not that certain hairstyles are necessarily sinful; rather, the message and the motives are. In the culture of Ephesus, braided hair was a luxurious status symbol. In that era, it required much time and financial costs. This was the equivalent of modern hairstyles requiring significant time and cost. Those who put so much energy into hairstyles suggest that their emphasis is on themselves, rather than on worshiping God.

Further, Paul addresses fancy clothes and flashy jewelry. These items are mentioned because of the focus on using money on self rather than to help others (1 Timothy 6:10). Once again, no particular piece of jewelry, or clothing, is being called out as explicitly sinful. The message and effect have to be considered. Then, as now, worship services are not intended to be treated as a prom, social event, or a party where women—or men—”dress to impress.” These are times to worship God and focus on Him. Self-promoting clothes not only distract others from the point of a church gathering, they distract the one who is overly concerned with their appearance.

How many times have you been to any kind of UPC conference, whether it is ladies conference, district conference or general conference, and the women are dressed to impress in their designer clothes and shoes and their elaborate hairstyles as are the men in their $1,000 suits and gold watches and their Lincolns and Cadillacs?

Paul never mentions that women and men are dressed to distinguish between men and women. That is all made up rules of the UPC and twisting scripture to support it. But Paul does admonish those who spend a lot of money on their clothes and dress to impress others of their spirituality.

Taking into consideration of our culture and fashion changes, it doesn’t matter whether we wear a skirt or a pair of jeans as long as we are not dressing seductively or for attention. God wants our attention. He wants both men and women to be in prayer and worship focused on Him.

Getting Out the Old Books: David F. Gray

I recently wrote this for the Facebook group Breaking Out. I had written on skirts a couple times before this was written, which is why there are references to circular logic and other writings.

I’ve recently gotten out all my old WAP books out of an old trunk. Even though, back in the day we were dirt poor, I always allowed myself one splurge and that was Word Aflame Press books (those were always sold at camp, etc.) and so I have a whole trunk full of them. I’ve dusted them off and so I intend to write whatever comes to mind. Pardon the focus on skirts for the time being, but, once again, I am concentrating on circular logic. In these comments you will see not only circular logic but subtle spiritual abuse while the circular logic is being used. I am using these books because they are in print and, as often is needed when refuting these subjects, proven to have been said. I find even when quoting books that people claim things were taken out of context or what have you and yet over and over, author after author, the same patterns are seen. So, again skirts, but this time, a different author.

David F. Gray was an old time Pentecostal preacher. I heard him preach a couple of times at Oklahoma camp meeting, probably in the 1980’s. He wrote a few books. From the book Questions Pentecostals Ask Volume 2 pages 120-125, he is refuting a book that had been circulating that spoke against standards. I will quote pieces and parts of this and weed out the parts that are circular and abusive. Keep in mind that these things sound softer and seem not as bad couched in certain terminology which is why spiritual abuse and circular logic is subtle. However, the words are there and often, shocking when weeded out:

David Gray: “I have read the book in it’s entirety.” (Some are) “looking for an excuse to compromise these issues…and the downright untrue statements…concerning women wearing men’s clothing….the book is false and spurious….the author tries to destroy the credibility of Deut 22:5.”

David Gray makes the accusations that if you disagree with his opinions on what is women’s apparel that you are a compromiser. He doesn’t say this to YOU, as the reader, but lets you know his opinion about people who disagree with him by talking about those who compromise as if you are his audience and he is speaking to you about those “other” people….so you don’t have to feel bad about what he says personally, but he steers you away from any other opinion. He also accuses the author of the book at the same time (and we have not read the book so we don’t know) of trying to destroy the very credibility of a biblical verse.

He goes on refuting a lot of other arguments from the book. Then he says “The statement that slacks are women’s clothes is simply not true.” He then goes on to talk about an advertisement that also suggested women should wear men’s shirts and ties along with pants. He then says “The world is more honest than some Christians who want to compromise. They know, even though some carnal Christians argue otherwise, that women’s slacks were actually taken over from men’s pants.” He makes a declaration that slacks are not women’s apparel. He declares this to you, having no authority over you. He says that Christians who disagree with him are just people who want to compromise. He calls them carnal. He makes a statement that we all know is true, which is that women in America used to wear dresses and implies that carnal Christians deny this, when I don’t know of anyone who ever has.

This argument, which is not an argument that is even being used, is used to throw you off the trail of the real argument (called a “straw man argument”). It’s important to be able to see past the bunny trail arguments and see the crux of the matter….that there are accusations and browbeating happening here to bolster a weak argument. This is an example of legalism. A true conservative believer in wearing skirts does not need to bolster their argument because they have nothing to prove. They just believe what they believe for themselves and are happy to live the way they live. When I see accusations and browbeating, I am certain I am dealing with legalism and not true conservatism.

He goes on to talk about the abominable being thrown into the lake of fire. Then he says “Evidently God considers wearing the clothing of the opposite sex to be terribly significant, because he calls it an abomination unto Himself.” Understand what he is saying here. If you disagree with his opinions and are unable to sift through the straw man argument and defend yourself against the accusations, you will fear being cast into hell if you are not like-minded. This is how so many are “convicted” to wear skirts. Again, there is nothing wrong with wearing skirts in honor of this verse. The wrong is putting people into a mind-prison of fear of being cast into hell for disagreeing with the thought process. Different people think different things and have different opinions and that’s okay!

He goes on to say that people who say they’re going to heaven and yet “wear the clothing of the opposite sex” (read the implication) “there shall in no wise enter into” (the kingdom of heaven). He won’t come right out and say it. He makes you think the Bible is saying it but it’s not! The Bible is not saying it, he is twisting the Bible to agree with his opinion. But he is saying if you don’t agree with his opinion that women’s clothing is skirts and men’s clothing is pants and if you don’t apply that to your life, you are going to hell. He declares this. The Bible does not.

He ends with some good words “Any book that leads people astray should be rejected, lest some gullible, unstable soul be influenced by it.” Good words, indeed.

David F. Gray has since passed away and is no longer with us.

I am including photos of the excerpts if you want to take the time to read all of it for yourself: Page 119, page 120, page 121, page 122, page 123, page 124, page 125.

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