Category: no pants on women | Page 4

A response to a response on 55 Things Christian Women Hear

One pastor wrote in response to the Twitter feed #55thingsonlychristianwomenhear. He emphasized a handful of tweets that said women were valued, and then went into a complaint against tweets that Christian women had heard about being in leadership or wearing certain clothes. He apparently didn’t read the feed itself, which included things like:

“‘The ultimate healing would be if you two were married’– said by the mom of my rapist.”
*meeting my friend’s baby* “Don’t worry this will happen for you soon.”
“It’s not your job to read the bible to our children. Their spiritual education is my job said the man.”
“If you had to pick, you’d rather follow the call of God on your life than get MARRIED? I don’t understand!”
“I recently got my PhD, after congratulations everyone talks about me needing to get a husband.”
“The nerve of women to complain. And, PUBLICLY! A woman’s job is to keep the peace, at her own expense.”
“‘The definition of biblical womanhood is marriage & motherhood.’ So single/childless women are unbiblical?”
“When you heard many sermons on how women submit to husbands but 0 on how husbands lay down their life for wife.”
“I know we’ve been friends 20 yrs & the divorce wasn’t your fault but I can’t have a divorcee near my husband.”
“Ambition isn’t godly.”
“Did you come to seminary to find a husband?”
“You need to let a man provide for you.” Me: “I’m single, so if I did that I wouldn’t eat…”
“Said to male/female youth: ‘Every woman has an inherent desire for children. If she doesn’t, something’s wrong.'”
“The church: ‘The dental hygienist deserved to be fired” (boss lusted).’
“You must be mistaken! Your hubby is a GOOD Christian, You can’t be a battered wife!”
“Well, no, he shouldn’t have done that, but as his wife you have to submit.”

The above are just a sampling. They were not addressed in the response.

Now, as for what was, there was a lot on clothes and dressing modestly. It happens that I’ve known this man. It happens that he’s known me ever since I left an organization that taught women should only wear dresses or skirts that come at least 6″ below the knee, should always wear sleeves below the elbow, should not let their collarbones show. He is very familiar with this group… and disagrees with them. Yet what he says in this response about clothes sounds so like them. And then he says: “How a man views a woman who is dressed immodestly is different than the way a woman perceives it.”

Wait. Do all men view women who dress immodestly “differently?” What is immodest? Isn’t what is considered modest at least partly cultural? (Consider what some tribal people in Africa consider modest compared to what is modest in America, or what is considered modest on a beach compared to what is considered modest in an office.) And do men really think “differently” about women who breach whatever their definition of modesty is? In my experience, they do only or mainly if they are told they should or if it is often called to their attention.

He ends with this statement:
“Perhaps you need to learn to “count it all joy, my brothers [and sisters], when you meet trials of various kinds” (James 1:2). And you need to do that first before taking your grievances to Facebook or Twitter. Slandering the church is demonic. Watch out that you’re not like the wicked servant who beats his fellow servants in Matthew 24:45-51. God will cut you into pieces and throw you out with the hypocrites.”

Count it all joy. Unless he is saying that “trials” are dressing “modestly” and staying out of leadership in the church, he has read some of the other tweets. Count it all joy. When your parents tell you they wish you’d marry your rapist? When you are told that you should go to a Beth Moore study and do a craft while the men discuss theology? When you’re told a man’s just being a man when he stalks you at church, so deal with it? When you’re told that you should stop wanting to be married but should get married and, if you’re single, that your life is on hold because women’s highest calling is to marry and have kids? Hmm…

Our grievances have been taken to churches. For years. And they have been ignored, in large part, in too many churches. But now he warns us not to take these grievances to Facebook or Twitter. Don’t discuss them. Don’t bring them into the open. “Slandering the church is demonic.” Where is that in the Bible? Who is beating his fellow servants? There is NOTHING wrong with saying that something being ignored by the church shouldn’t be.

In that way, how is 55 Things so much different than Luther’s 95 Theses? Yes, he responded to different things. But he called out the church for teachings that were harmful to people and were unscriptural. Yes, the man who wrote the response would say that some of the responses were scriptural. But surely not all. Surely not the ones I listed. And as for “God [cutting] you into pieces”… that is not in Matthew 25. I have not seen that in the Bible at all, though I have heard similar fear tactics used to silence those who would stand for right. I’ll take my chances. I’ll stand.

As Kelly Ladd Bishop said in her blog post: “The hashtag took some criticism from Christians who claim that it reflects poorly on the church and will turn people away. But that’s no different than covering up abuse because it reflects poorly on the abuser. These quotes are the reality for so many women in the church. So if it is reflecting accurately and turning people away, then perhaps it’s time for the church to listen to what the women are saying and do better.”

How Long Is Your Skirt? (Er, How Holy Are You?) Pt. 2

In response to my last blog, the SpiritualAbuse.org Facebook Page received a large number of comments. Thanks to everyone who viewed the blog and left a comment. Some were nice, some disagreed with my view, but were still respectful, and some were a bit nasty.

I don’t see the value of rude behavior in an attempt to prove tradition as biblical truth, but some go for it, anyway. Regardless of one’s position on the issue, one can disqualify his point by being a nasty person. Please remember that when commenting on Facebook.

Moving forward…

On the Facebook Page, one lady posted this picture as a response to my last blog post:

It is supposed to illustrate the transforming effect of a woman who reads the Bible. Do you notice how the picture only examines the outside dress of the woman? It doesn’t make one mention of the heart! I state this because outside appearance is how too many people define modesty and holiness. This picture, used in Apostolic circles, reinforces that false notion. (BTW: There is no scripture posted with the picture that states a woman should always wear skirts. )

Reading and applying the Bible can transform an individual’s life. But, if you end up in a church telling you how to dress, then you’ve walked into something that is taking advantage of the transforming power of Grace. This is something cults do. It’s common for cultic teaching to take an ounce of truth, and then spin it into a pound of errors.

This picture does exactly that; it deals in extremes. If the Holy Spirit actually leads a woman to wear a dress, that is fine, but that still does not make it a biblical truth for all other women. In that instance, it is a personal conviction – nothing more. The Spirit leading a person in this direction does not automatically make it a universal rule for all women to follow.

When a personal conviction is taught in such a way that everyone must submit to it, this becomes an instance in which a truth has been twisted into a lie.

If you are in a culture which teaches that modesty for women IS wearing skirts, it’s more probable that peer pressure is directing you to do likewise, not the Holy Spirit.

Like I mentioned on my last blog post, this teaching is from man. It’s a man-made tradition. There is no scripture that states a woman has to wear skirts to be modest.

In one response, a lady questioned if all United Pentecostal churches taught this doctrine. I replied that I was a licensed preacher in the UPCI for several years. I traveled, I evangelized, and I got to know a lot of pastors in that organization. I will agree with you when you say that “not all apostolic churches make their members wear skirts,” but, I still stand by the fact that the majority teaches and believes it as being “truth.”

Here’s why – when an individual wants to become a licensed preacher in the UPCI, he or she has to sign a document which basically says one has to teach and believe in that doctrine. If one does not sign the document, a license will not be received.

Personally, I have known some ministers who signed the document, yet didn’t push the ‘standards’ issue. I also know about the kind of pressure and abuse they have received from the majority within the organization. Then, there is also the fact that they signed, and agreed, that they WOULD teach that doctrine. If you don’t agree to teach it, you won’t receive the license.

This is one reason why I gave up my license. I couldn’t lie. I could not tell them that I would teach their doctrines, and then turn around and teach something else.

The organizational teaching is that women have to wear skirts. They say it’s the “truth,” and in reality, it isn’t.

The Bible does teach to dress modestly. I believe that goes for both men and women. I also believe that some have taken advantage of that teaching, and have defined it as something it’s not.

Because of this post, I’ve asked people to give me one scripture that says a woman has to wear a dress. Instead of getting a scripture, I received in response, a lot of hate, mockery, and side-stepping of the question. Why did I get that? Because the teaching is not biblical—and a lot of people are enslaved to the lie.

How Long Is Your Skirt? (Er, How Holy Are You?)

I can assume this picture was made to be comical…but with what many in the “holiness/apostolic” movement teach, it really isn’t.

It’s even declared as a heaven and hell issue.

That’s scary. That is VERY scary.

Not because it’s true…it isn’t. It’s scary because men, in His Name, declare it as truth.

Teachings like that are abusive towards women. It’s emotionally abusive. It’s also spiritually abusive. It tells women that they can only be fully accepted by both the church, and by God, if they dress a certain way.

I’ll even go a step further and say that such teaching is abusive to men, also. It teaches them an improper way to look at a woman. It teaches them an erroneous way to look at God. A man under this teaching will influentially see a woman as holy – if she wears the proper outfit.

Again, I’m thankful to be free from the influence and massive pressure that declares “Apostolic Identity” over striving to be a simple and modest Christian. (A follower of Christ.) With that, I am going to lay my question out as plain as I can.

Is Holiness determined by skirt length?

Is Holiness for a woman determined by wearing a skirt?

If so, where did Jesus teach this? Where is it in the Gospels? Or our Bible?

It’s not in there. Teachings like this are not biblical, it is denominational tradition. It’s man’s tradition because it’s a teaching that originated from man. Nothing more. If it’s taught as truth, or even a heaven and hell issue, then realize it is a lie.

I’m sure many under the holiness/apostolic traditions will attempt to avoid the simple phrasing I used, but realize that no matter how they word it, that is the basics of what they teach.

Doctrines like this, and the passion put into declaring it as a universal truth for women – it’s crazy. It’s legalistic. It’s definitely NOT biblical.

Not to mention, it’s wrong.

How Long Is Your Skirt? (Er, How Holy Are You?) Pt. 2

Is Your Identity In Your Dress?

You can be known as a “jean skirt girl” – but why would you want your identity wrapped around what you wear? Or your long uncut hair? Or anything similar? As a Christian, shouldn’t we want our identity to be wrapped around Jesus Christ? And to be known by our love, one for another, as was the early church?

Do you not find it interesting that in the New Testament it is never mentioned that believers should be known by these things, nor were any believers ever picked out of the crowd due to their manner of dress or hair? Instead, it was the Pharisees who wanted to stand out among the people.

Baptism and Re-Baptism Part 1

This is probably going to end up being an ongoing debate between me, myself and I.

For a long time after I left my former church, I believed that baptism in Jesus’ name was right. Then I thought it was better. Then a Oneness Pentecostal argued with me about baptism in Jesus’ name, thinking I was Trinity. And I realized how wrong some of their arguments were. Reading back through some of my blogs tonight, I realized just how much my thinking had shifted even since then- in a good way.

Now, I’m considering getting re-baptized, and think I may keep notes of some of what I’m studying and some of what I’ve learned here.

OK, for starters, I’ve considered re-baptism for a number of reasons since leaving, some good and some not so good. One of the first reasons I considered was making a clean break from the Oneness movement. That was not a very good reason for me. For starters, baptism isn’t meant to be used as a way to take a stand against a group of believers. Also, a “clean break” is really not possible when you still live among the group you’re breaking from. They wouldn’t even know I’d gotten re-baptized–any “break” would only be in my own mind.

Separating myself from them eventually came in the form of wearing pants and short sleeves even when they might see me. Curiously, most of them have been more accepting of me since I changed the way I dressed. Even just tonight, riding my bike, one drove by, smiled, waved and called my name. No disgust–he actually looked happy for me! (Which makes me wonder how many of them truly believe what they’re living… but that’s another blog for another time.)

*****

Again, I considered it simply because there’s so much division caused as a result of the debate (of baptism in the name of Jesus). Yet getting re-baptized won’t stop the debate, and I’ve already shown whose side I’m on by where I attend church, how I live my life, and so forth. Yet it might be done for unity’s sake. That one I need to think about more.

****

Re-baptism can definitely be a public testimony and witness. But of what? If my testimony is “I’m not one of THEM,” indicating another group of believers, that’s not a good enough reason for me, personally. However, if my testimony is an answer of a good conscience toward God, a way to say, “yes, I truly believe,” then it might be right. Motive is the key in that case.

****

I also have to consider historically and Biblically if re-baptism is acceptable or right. I don’t find anything in the Bible that says people were re-baptized, except in the case of the disciples of John in Acts 19. My personal feeling is that these disciples, not “having heard whether there be any Holy Ghost” probably were not familiar with Jesus’ death, burial and resurrection. They had been baptized to repentance but not baptized into the body of Christ, or as believers in Jesus. When they were re-baptized, it was to signify their belief in Jesus, whereas before it had not.

Historically, from what I can tell, believers were baptized once, except in the case of those who, like Anabaptists, were christened as children and re-baptized as adults due to a change in beliefs.

I find nothing for or against re-baptism either historically or Biblically. Research in these areas leaves me with no answers, and if anything possibly a few more questions. How do I fit into either of the groups in the paragraphs above, if I do? My beliefs have changed drastically even over the last few months. My understanding of Jesus and His sacrifice has expanded. But is that, in my case- since I believed in Jesus when I was first baptized- something I should be re-baptized to signify? I don’t think so, at least for me. Each person is different, though. If I’d ONLY been baptized once, in Jesus name, I think I’d feel much differently about my answer.

*****

By the same reasoning, I can conclude that it doesn’t matter if we believe baptism is salvational or not–the main thing is that we are believe and are baptized, not exactly what we believe about baptism.

These being the case, my baptism is as acceptable as anyone else’s. Also, to be re-baptized to join A church rather than THE body of Christ is a little beyond my means right now. That concept seems more than a little small-minded or limited in concept to me. And maybe even a bit divisive. It’s also slightly stuck-up, for lack of a better description. How could a church say, “Yes, you are a Christian, a Heaven-bound member of the body of Christ, but you would have to be re-baptized to be part of this local church?” (This church hasn’t said I’d HAVE to, but still…)

****

Regarding baptism as a means of becoming part of the body of Christ rather than a local church, though I didn’t understand it at the time, when I was baptized in Jesus’ name I was also (unwittingly) baptized into a set group of believers. And THAT group later said I wasn’t even a Christian until I’d been baptized their way. So the above is an almost laughable concern in some ways.

****

Apparently, no one is asking me this time to deny my first baptism. No one is driving me to join their church or telling me that there’s only one right way to be baptized. It would bother me if I were told that I had to deny my whole Christian walk up til this point, which is what happened after I was baptized in Jesus’ name. No, no one said that verbally, but it was indicated in many smaller ways. As far as the United Pentecostal Church was concerned, I started living for God after I got re-baptized in Jesus’ name and spoke in tongues. And that was NOT the case. I had to deny or ignore some wonderful things God had done earlier in my life to accept that. It wasn’t until I left the UPC that I finally understood how conflicted that had made me.

*****

I also consider what I’ve been taught through the years: that baptism was necessary for salvation, that getting re-baptized was completely wrong for any reason (due to a severe twisting of Heb 6:4-6), and, finally, that if I’d been baptized in Jesus name and then was re-baptized using the traditional Trinitarian formula I’d be hell-bound. I’ve wondered if I’d make myself sick or face residuals either before or after getting re-baptized because of these harsh teachings, and I’ve wondered if there were any truth in them. (I don’t think there is, but…) Would I make a public commitment and then not be able to follow through, end up explaining that I’d been taught these things and that they were giving me nightmares? Or are those things far enough behind me that getting re-baptized could be the joyous commitment that it’s supposed to be?

In other words, I think I believe a certain way, I say I believe a certain thing, but if faced with acting on the beliefs I claim, would I?

****

I’m also more than a little nervous about making a public commitment of any sort to church again. Even a good church that I really enjoy. Will I stick with it? Will I want to be there in a year? In three? Will they change after I join and become like others I’ve experienced?

To be continued….