Category: United Pentecostal Church | Page 46

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.

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.

Marriage Trouble Part 3

Some of the things I remember that were negative about all the power I was giving my husband was I was busy trying to be so perfect. If my husband was less than happy it would really break my heart. One time he was unhappy for a whole week. I can’t even tell you what that did to me but I will say this. I got so desperate I asked God for help.

I gave up trying to make my husband happy by being a good wife. It wasn’t working. Debi Pearl was wrong! But after I prayed my husband called me on the phone on his way home from work and I was really raw with my emotions. I think God helped me by being able to get really honest with what I was feeling like. My husband had a long talk with me that night and it seemed he was a changed man. It was supernatural. Debi didn’t save us, God did. Debi put me in bondage to my husband.

We were having some financial problems and my husband wanted me to go to work. I told him I would learn to be frugal but that I couldn’t go to work. We had 3 children at the time. It wasn’t only because I was indoctrinated not to go to work. I also had some personal traumas about working with men coworkers. I also did not want to leave my children with strangers because of traumatic things I experienced as a child. I’ve always been very adamant about staying home. I don’t care what anybody says. That’s deeply ingrained into me. Yes, mommy issues again.

So for years I lived on change and a small allowance bi-weekly on payday. If I needed to use the bank card I asked permission. This wasn’t only because of my husband. It was also partly because I didn’t trust myself with money.

I think this came from the book too because I didn’t trust myself. Like I said my husband was very whimsical and I had to adapt. It was all on me to make everything work or rather, seem to work.

I felt so small and dependent, like a little kid. I didn’t have as much passion for God anymore. God thought I was inferior according to the Pearls. They never said it that way but that’s what happened in my experience as a result of their teachings.

I think what saved me is listening to my Bible CDs. I was coming across a lot of stuff that the book didn’t mention. It became clear that I needed to not pick up that book anymore and only read my Bible.

To be continued.

Marriage Trouble Part 1
Marriage Trouble Part 2
Marriage Trouble Part 3
Marriage Trouble Part 4
Marriage Trouble Part 5

Marriage Trouble Part 2

Continued from part 1

Some positive things I gleaned from ‘Created to be His Help Meet’ was learning to be thankful and cheerful. I was probably stuck on living opposite most of the time. So this convicted me and I really appreciated it because I knew she had to have a real point there. Besides, I remembered my mother was often discontent and how that affected my parents marriage which ended in divorce.

I learned to be more organized with meals and keep things simple. I learned to ask my husband what are some simple things I can do to keep the house tidy enough. What were his main peeves? This really helped me a lot not to be overwhelmed and feel like a failure.

Positive to negative: I learned to be extremely flexible with my whimsical husband who was also a bit of a ‘Command Man.’ Well, he had some blind spots. He seemed to love the change in me. But I made a big mistake. I told him I wanted to submit better and almost perfectly. By this I meant that even for things I had qualms about. I would defer to him for concerns of conscience regarding some gray areas. I got the idea that I shouldn’t trust myself. Now my husband was to be the spiritual leader regardless of spiritual maturity and that God would ultimately be correcting and convicting him.

Debi Pearl used a lot of scripture and I didn’t look into the ways she used them. I started realizing later that some of the verses she cited were used in a highly questionable way. During Bible reading I would come across verses of scripture that seemed like it could clash with some things she was teaching women.

Another problem is I would be really bewildered about the way she treated the women in her letters. It was downright knife twisting mean! I felt sorry for these women. I wanted to write a letter to Debi Pearl but I was just too busy with raising the children and besides, I was afraid I might receive a verbally abusive letter. So I shrugged figuring she was just over passionate and she was wrong to be so mean but I’d just chew the meat and spit out the bones. I still had it in my mind that this book was an answer to prayer, so Debi’s zeal, while I felt it was wrong, I thought it might be there for a reason. Maybe she’d seen too many marriages die just like my mother’s.

To be continued.

Marriage Trouble Part 1
Marriage Trouble Part 2
Marriage Trouble Part 3
Marriage Trouble Part 4
Marriage Trouble Part 5

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.