Category: holiness standards | Page 14

Dear Church, Part 3

I was taught to look at how people were dressed and what they did to determine if they were Christians. When things got really bad at my unhealthy church and people started shunning me, I started seeking fellowship online. I ended up in a group of people who were supposedly all from the same background as me, and I enjoyed being on there.

Soon after I started fellowshipping on that discussion board, I started to realize they did NOT all believe like me… and I started making a list. Those who were “hardliners” and “conservatives” like me, people I could trust on one side, and “liberals” and “backsliders” on the other side. People I couldn’t trust, people I needed to watch out for because what they said might make sense, but it was probably dangerous.

I began my list and worked on it for probably a week. As I did, I began to realize something: those on the “bad” side of the list were the kinder, gentler, humbler people, while those on the “good” side, the ones I would fellowship in real life, were often cruel. In an online environment, where I couldn’t judge everyone by their clothes, hair, or certain actions, but it was easier to see character and love, goodness, kindness, meekness, self-control and so forth, I gravitated to the “wrong” group-the liberals and backsliders-nearly every time. They were the ones who exhibited the fruit of the spirit. They were the ones who showed mercy and love.

I threw the lists away, stopped looking at people’s appearances, and started considering their hearts. Doing so changed my world.

********
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.)

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.

Dear Church, Part 2

Dear church:

Some of you posted on Facebook, statements like “how can anyone call themselves Christian and vote for ____.” Some of you got upset when I responded that my faith in Jesus-not my vote-made me a Christ-follower, a Christian. Some of you have taken pride in standing for what you believe is right… and trying to push others to believe what you do through humiliation, name-calling, mockery, and guilt-tripping. And I cry.

You see, I did some of those things too, once. Not over who to vote for, but over even more minor things. I questioned your Christianity, your faith, because you didn’t wear certain clothes or do your hair a certain way. I questioned your faith because you didn’t believe what I believed, and I knew I had to be right. You’d have said (some of you did say) I was in a cult at that time. But now… now I see you saying such similar things, using such similar tactics for things you believe or think all Christians should do. And you don’t realize that it’s the same wrong attitude.

You don’t understand why your statements make me angry or sad, and you haven’t taken the time to sit down and think through what you’re saying. I understand how you must feel, because I spent 19 years doing what you’re doing. And repented. You rejoiced when I left that attitude behind. When I humbly accepted that I’d been wrong to be part of that and treated you like I did. It may be time for you to do the same.

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

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.

********
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.