Category: holiness standards | Page 15

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.

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.

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.”

Sunday Night Fright Night

The stage was set, the tones were hushed, – weeping and moaning could be heard – and the sweat was pouring amid the hot summer breeze blowing through the open windows. We were reaching the climax of another “evangelistic” Sunday night service at my United Pentecostal Church. The building was small and inadequate for the crowds, as was the air conditioning system. Our pastor’s preaching style was starting slowly with a scripture, a title, and then launching into various Old Testament stories and ending with stories of car wrecks, God’s impending judgement on women who didn’t follow the rules, and those waiting too late to “pray back through.”

He was a very large, imposing man and he could be very dramatic in his sermons; visually displaying how the devil had his way with Job, as he scraped his sores. He acted out the stories of Rizpah, shooing away the vultures from the seven slaughtered sons of Saul, staggering back as poor Naomi who would have to be called Mara (meaning bitter) because she went out full and came back empty; no husband, no children, and of course pitiful blind Samson, who didn’t even know when God’s spirit left him. (This thought would haunt me for the rest of my life.)

All of these sermons were meant to create a sense of urgency in the audience to come rushing to the altar benches in front of the pews at the end of the service to plead with God for mercy one more time. This scene was repeated each Sunday night in my United Pentecostal Church. The purpose this served in my life was to make me very fearful of God and not the kind of fear the Bible describes. As a young girl, the first concepts taught to me about God were that of someone who would only love me if I was good enough. If not, He would yank the Spirit right out of me or maybe like Samson it would drift out and I wouldn’t even know it. The long term effect of living with this kind of fear in my life is that I have always taken on the guilt of everything. Every circumstance that comes in to my life causes me to question “is it my fault?” I even dream up circumstances to blame myself for. And since our emotions can’t think, they tend to stick with you through life despite the facts that you know.

Fear and guilt are used as a means of gaining control over the members of these churches. You see, these are not the meek and mild ministers you see in movies, they are in total control. In fact, the churches in the area I am in are not even called by their name but by Brother So and So’s church; whoever the pastor is at the time. You are not to question his authority. These ministers make up strict behavioral rules for you to obey; how to dress and how to comb your hair. If you are going to be allowed to participate you must be following the rules.

Those who don’t follow the rules are disapproved of and seen as the dreaded “worldly.” We were told what we could listen to, where we could go, and what we could do. Fear is used to keep people from leaving the church; you are told there is no alternative, if you leave here you will lose your salvation. It was always stressed that your “church family” is really closer to you than your real family. Why would you ever leave?

But, is this God’s approach to drawing people to Himself? If God’s highest desire is for man’s love and obedience, is it won based on fear of punishment? The answer is no. God’s approach to win man’s love and obedience is love.

“…not knowing that the goodness of God leads you to repentance?” Romans 2:4b NKJV

“For God so loved the world…John 3:16a NKJV

“But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us,even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, that in the ages to come He might show the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness toward us in Christ Jesus.” Ephesians 2:4-7 NKJV

^“For the love of Christ compels us…” II Corinthians 5: 14a NKJV