PDA

View Full Version : Holiness and the Facebook Generation


Papabear
07-08-2009, 02:54 PM
http://inbythroughhim.blogspot.com/2009/05/holiness-and-facebook-generation.html


Though some of what we see on Facebook and the religious world at large would seem to communicate that the current generation of ministry has lost its desire or ability to maintain a life of consecration and separation, I am of the opinion that there is a hunger in this generation for men and women of God who will continue to contend for those things that speak to the very essence of true christian spirituality.

True Christian Spirituality is found in the clarion call of Christ for those who would be disciples. Denial, Cross Bearing and Following Christ.

So much of what we hear today is a message of "Love" and "Grace" which are ideals and concepts, however have no meaning without the confines of Christian Discipline. These words outside of the framework of discipline lose their definition and meaning.

Like Paint spilled on the ground. Grace and Love are only fully appreciated by structure that hold them up. The Love of God is beautiful, because it is exemplified in the structure of the cross that holds it up. Grace is beautiful because we see it displayed through the words of forgiveness. Words without action are worthless. Ideals without virtuous examples are empty and trite.

In the Bible, the greek used three words for love. Eros, Phileo and Agape. So much of what we see in the Christian world is a concept of Friendship and Sensual "love". However, Agape love is one of sacrifice and self denial.

When one speaks of holiness what you will hear so often is what begins with, "I think... " "I don't think..." "I Feel... " It begins with the personal pronoun to justify or rectify why it is they have chosen not to live a separated and sanctified life. However, Holiness... the idea of holiness from a Biblical concept is a concept of personal sacrifice and denial of what our own sensual pleasures prefer.

When our concepts of holiness reflect what we think we have the right and liberty to do this speaks of self and flesh paradigms. Self and flesh have always refused the higher calling of discipline and the simplicity of biblical sanctification. The fact that so many don't even know understand the difference of righteousness and holiness and what sanctification is hearkens to the fact we have devolved into a sensual concept of our responsibility to Jesus Christ.

The idea of forsaking all, has evolved into going back and picking up things that basic moral people realize the evil in. There is a discussion over coffee and crumpets of what matters. Sadly this happens in the context of individual feelings and opinions ... rather than in the confines of prayerful seeking and biblical study.

Anytime our beliefs flow from conversation with peers, rather than consecration to God, we are on a path away from righteousness and entering into a religious system of sensuality and carnality.

How could the Jews Worship Jehovah and Sacrifice and Worship Idols at the same time? While reading the torah, sacrificing thier children to Molech. Because they got Confused. They begin to think that God included the rationalization of flesh into an evolving equation and though at one time he demanded singularity of worship.

They rationalized because he became to them more of an idea... a system... a concept... rather than a person and a relationship... they worshiped at their leisure and did what seemed right to them.

The ultimate rejection of Israel started with Solomon. The smartest man who ever lived and built the great Temple, also built other temples to other God's. Married women of other religions and the offspring of all this confusion that sprung from the musings of a wise fool produced a split kingdom and generations of strife and heartbreak because of a divided loyalty and worship.

Coffee House Musings are great. However, be careful that this does not become the seedbed for your identity and moral compass. Let us for a season begin to seek the face of God for days and weeks. Let us unplug from the social circle and begin to ask Jesus what he expects from us, understanding and considering the high price he paid for our salvation and redemption from carnality, sensuality and sin.

If we would do that... we might find our ideas of holiness would get stronger, rather than weaker. Our identity in our world would become more recognizable. More than, but not excluding standards of holiness. We need to quit winking and nodding at our forebears and think that we know something they didn't. Maybe, just maybe some of the things they passed down to us were found in the prayer room, and we lost them in our lack of prayer and consecration.

While our forebears sought God on Saturday night, many are given to shows & sports & recreation. I see more sports updates than I see scripture musings. I see more interest in American Idol than I see about biblical study. And I am just talking ministry facebook people.

Don't get me wrong, I understand the distraction, because I have partaken in my share of things that have distracted me from what matters. In our prosperity we find ourselves impoverished in the areas of virtue and depth.

Technology, Marketing and Talent don't build a church. Consecration. Prayer. Biblical Patterns, Study and Preaching do.

Holiness. It is still a Biblical Ideal.

Holiness Is still a Biblical Mandate.

Holiness is still the identity to any real apostolic.

I challenge the facebook generation. Preachers, Ministry, Saints and Young People.

Let us be sure our prayer life is equal to our elders before we think we know more than they did about living holy and godly lives.

In so many ways our generation is a Solomon Generation. We have been given the material in our heritage, physical and financial blessings that we did not fight for. We have been granted wisdom, talent and favor with our generation.

If we are not careful, we will begin to think all of this gives us some license to stray from a singular focus and fervency on Jesus and will begin to align ourselves with other spirits and agendas.. and we will be the beginning of a nation being rejected by God, rather than reconciled.

We have been given so much, we must not fritter it away because we think we are so smart, gifted and talented. Let us forget what we have, what we can do and begin to seek God and a life of discipline, sacrifice and holiness.

Today I stand in your way.

I ask for something from you.

The Old Paths in this Facebook Generation.

\

mizpeh
07-08-2009, 03:14 PM
Facebook? this is AFF.

*AQuietPlace*
07-08-2009, 03:22 PM
People love to throw around the word 'holiness' and insist that we need to stick with it. Well, I don't think anyone would deny that. The problem comes when we start defining 'holiness'. My preference is to use the Bible, and the Bible only, to do that. Many others prefer to use the Bible with heavy doses of tradition.

The Old Paths... which old paths? The paths that were used back when the UPC was first formed? Or the more recent old paths? Or the BIBLICAL old paths???

KWSS1976
07-08-2009, 03:24 PM
The women must not cut there hair paths AQP...LOL

Papabear
07-08-2009, 03:25 PM
Biblical Ones are sufficient for me.

KWSS1976
07-08-2009, 03:25 PM
All about being separated from the world in looks....

Papabear
07-08-2009, 03:25 PM
The bible teaches and speaks directly to the hair issue, but ... who cares what the bible says... we can rationalize it away.

Papabear
07-08-2009, 03:27 PM
separated from the world in looks is part of the whole idea of separation,

You can not separate separation from appearance... in trying to illustrates a basic and fundamental misunderstanding of what the word means... from a biblical and logical definition.

GrowingPains
07-08-2009, 03:28 PM
http://inbythroughhim.blogspot.com/2009/05/holiness-and-facebook-generation.html


Though some of what we see on Facebook and the religious world at large would seem to communicate that the current generation of ministry has lost its desire or ability to maintain a life of consecration and separation, I am of the opinion that there is a hunger in this generation for men and women of God who will continue to contend for those things that speak to the very essence of true christian spirituality.

True Christian Spirituality is found in the clarion call of Christ for those who would be disciples. Denial, Cross Bearing and Following Christ.

So much of what we hear today is a message of "Love" and "Grace" which are ideals and concepts, however have no meaning without the confines of Christian Discipline. These words outside of the framework of discipline lose their definition and meaning.

Like Paint spilled on the ground. Grace and Love are only fully appreciated by structure that hold them up. The Love of God is beautiful, because it is exemplified in the structure of the cross that holds it up. Grace is beautiful because we see it displayed through the words of forgiveness. Words without action are worthless. Ideals without virtuous examples are empty and trite.

In the Bible, the greek used three words for love. Eros, Phileo and Agape. So much of what we see in the Christian world is a concept of Friendship and Sensual "love". However, Agape love is one of sacrifice and self denial.

When one speaks of holiness what you will hear so often is what begins with, "I think... " "I don't think..." "I Feel... " It begins with the personal pronoun to justify or rectify why it is they have chosen not to live a separated and sanctified life. However, Holiness... the idea of holiness from a Biblical concept is a concept of personal sacrifice and denial of what our own sensual pleasures prefer.

When our concepts of holiness reflect what we think we have the right and liberty to do this speaks of self and flesh paradigms. Self and flesh have always refused the higher calling of discipline and the simplicity of biblical sanctification. The fact that so many don't even know understand the difference of righteousness and holiness and what sanctification is hearkens to the fact we have devolved into a sensual concept of our responsibility to Jesus Christ.

The idea of forsaking all, has evolved into going back and picking up things that basic moral people realize the evil in. There is a discussion over coffee and crumpets of what matters. Sadly this happens in the context of individual feelings and opinions ... rather than in the confines of prayerful seeking and biblical study.

Anytime our beliefs flow from conversation with peers, rather than consecration to God, we are on a path away from righteousness and entering into a religious system of sensuality and carnality.

How could the Jews Worship Jehovah and Sacrifice and Worship Idols at the same time? While reading the torah, sacrificing thier children to Molech. Because they got Confused. They begin to think that God included the rationalization of flesh into an evolving equation and though at one time he demanded singularity of worship.

They rationalized because he became to them more of an idea... a system... a concept... rather than a person and a relationship... they worshiped at their leisure and did what seemed right to them.

The ultimate rejection of Israel started with Solomon. The smartest man who ever lived and built the great Temple, also built other temples to other God's. Married women of other religions and the offspring of all this confusion that sprung from the musings of a wise fool produced a split kingdom and generations of strife and heartbreak because of a divided loyalty and worship.

Coffee House Musings are great. However, be careful that this does not become the seedbed for your identity and moral compass. Let us for a season begin to seek the face of God for days and weeks. Let us unplug from the social circle and begin to ask Jesus what he expects from us, understanding and considering the high price he paid for our salvation and redemption from carnality, sensuality and sin.

If we would do that... we might find our ideas of holiness would get stronger, rather than weaker. Our identity in our world would become more recognizable. More than, but not excluding standards of holiness. We need to quit winking and nodding at our forebears and think that we know something they didn't. Maybe, just maybe some of the things they passed down to us were found in the prayer room, and we lost them in our lack of prayer and consecration.

While our forebears sought God on Saturday night, many are given to shows & sports & recreation. I see more sports updates than I see scripture musings. I see more interest in American Idol than I see about biblical study. And I am just talking ministry facebook people.

Don't get me wrong, I understand the distraction, because I have partaken in my share of things that have distracted me from what matters. In our prosperity we find ourselves impoverished in the areas of virtue and depth.

Technology, Marketing and Talent don't build a church. Consecration. Prayer. Biblical Patterns, Study and Preaching do.

Holiness. It is still a Biblical Ideal.

Holiness Is still a Biblical Mandate.

Holiness is still the identity to any real apostolic.

I challenge the facebook generation. Preachers, Ministry, Saints and Young People.

Let us be sure our prayer life is equal to our elders before we think we know more than they did about living holy and godly lives.

In so many ways our generation is a Solomon Generation. We have been given the material in our heritage, physical and financial blessings that we did not fight for. We have been granted wisdom, talent and favor with our generation.

If we are not careful, we will begin to think all of this gives us some license to stray from a singular focus and fervency on Jesus and will begin to align ourselves with other spirits and agendas.. and we will be the beginning of a nation being rejected by God, rather than reconciled.

We have been given so much, we must not fritter it away because we think we are so smart, gifted and talented. Let us forget what we have, what we can do and begin to seek God and a life of discipline, sacrifice and holiness.

Today I stand in your way.

I ask for something from you.

The Old Paths in this Facebook Generation.

\

Inspiring and indeed wise words. I like what you said about Love and Grace. My concern is that it was all abtract. Having a conversation about regulations of holiness is and should be a noble thing. Acts 15 was part of that equation.

You don't think it's right for us to say "I think...", but rather mimmick another decades earlier that said "I think...", what then, do we no longer think? Do we know longer reason through the scriptures?

What truth do you have on the differences between righteousness and holiness (and what sanctification is)? Would you mind expounding?

Many of us believe strongly in Holiness and of being separated by this culture according to our mind, ideas, values, etc. I also couldn't agree with you more about marketing and technology, but understand these are simply just tools that we would be wise to take advantage of.

GrowingPains
07-08-2009, 03:29 PM
People love to throw around the word 'holiness' and insist that we need to stick with it. Well, I don't think anyone would deny that. The problem comes when we start defining 'holiness'. My preference is to use the Bible, and the Bible only, to do that. Many others prefer to use the Bible with heavy doses of tradition.

The Old Paths... which old paths? The paths that were used back when the UPC was first formed? Or the more recent old paths? Or the BIBLICAL old paths???

:thumbsup

*AQuietPlace*
07-08-2009, 03:30 PM
separated from the world in looks is part of the whole idea of separation,

You can not separate separation from appearance... in trying to illustrates a basic and fundamental misunderstanding of what the word means... from a biblical and logical definition.
How was Jesus separate, in looks, from the world of his day?

GrowingPains
07-08-2009, 03:30 PM
The bible teaches and speaks directly to the hair issue, but ... who cares what the bible says... we can rationalize it away.

We can take a Text centuries old and not rationalize it away, but dig into and understand it for what it is. Surely you aren't against hermeneutics? Surely, you don't claim to have such a revelation of scripture that you don't have to even examine it closely? Or are you one of those cultured and conditioned to interpret the text lazily for whatever meets your credenda?

GrowingPains
07-08-2009, 03:31 PM
separated from the world in looks is part of the whole idea of separation,

You can not separate separation from appearance... in trying to illustrates a basic and fundamental misunderstanding of what the word means... from a biblical and logical definition.

Please explain.

KWSS1976
07-08-2009, 03:36 PM
And as far as I know they all wore robes back then..Do we today.........????????? Don't get me started o wait you already have...LOL

RandyWayne
07-08-2009, 03:38 PM
How was Jesus separate, in looks, from the world of his day?

And this is close to the heart of the matter, and also starts entering in the "relevance" area.

Most, including Papabear, hold up Jesus (and the cross and His message) as not being relevant at the time He lived, yet he dressed according to their modern customs and ate what they ate and knew what parables to tell, etc.
If He had come in THIS day, would he have still wore a robe? No, he would probably be wearing jeans. He would have also spoke the modern language of the day (including, dare I say, some modern "geek" terms when it comes to technology). Would he have spoke from the side of a hill? He probably would have used a stadium and modern PA system. I would call that being "relevant".

Obviously no one here thinks we need to keep wearing robes and sandals, so what is the difference when someone says we don't need to dress like the 1940's or 50's?

Brother Todd
07-08-2009, 03:42 PM
Brother, I love this post, and appreciate it. After also looking at your website, I see how balanced you are with us taking hold of the advantages of technology and some marketing to let others know we're there to minister to the community, but not also depending on marketing to be our witness and build a church.

I appreciate the standard and burden you have, especially for being a real people that make a difference in the lives of those they encounter because they've come out of a prayer closet where they've sought the face of God, and have digested His Word into them transforming their lives.... not coming out trying to look like the latest fad, or use the trendiest terminology to be "relevant".

Brother Todd
07-08-2009, 03:44 PM
And this is close to the heart of the matter, and also starts entering in the "relevance" area.

Most, including Papabear, hold up Jesus (and the cross and His message) as not being relevant at the time He lived, yet he dressed according to their modern customs and ate what they ate and knew what parables to tell, etc.
If He had come in THIS day, would he have still wore a robe? No, he would probably be wearing jeans. He would have also spoke the modern language of the day (including, dare I say, some modern "geek" terms when it comes to technology). Would he have spoke from the side of a hill? He probably would have used a stadium and modern PA system. I would call that being "relevant".

Obviously no one here thinks we need to keep wearing robes and sandals, so what is the difference when someone says we don't need to dress like the 1940's or 50's?

I guarantee you Jesus would have been modest....Jesus would have be respectful of the House of Worship.... and be covered up.

KWSS1976
07-08-2009, 03:46 PM
Pants do not cover up a lady Bro.Todd....???

Papabear
07-08-2009, 03:47 PM
this whole exercise of waxing philosophical and thoughtful with the intent of subtracting what the bible says concerning those things that we have chosen to disavow is an approach we see the results all around us.

I am not afraid of Biblical study and digging deep into it as you like, as long as the intent is to strengthen what the text says, as opposed to dissect it to make it say what we want it to say.

This subtraction by addition is an approach to scripture that I believe is the original deception.

What is the reason for the question? to strengthen or devotion or find a reason not to obey what God and his word has said.

... but I know much to my sadness of heart... minds can not be changed when the heart is already cold....

If we followed the pattern of prayer and consecration in seeking God, this discussion would not even be necessary. But alas, we live in the days of great wisdom and deception... and often it is difficult to discern between the two.

mizpeh
07-08-2009, 03:51 PM
separated from the world in looks is part of the whole idea of separation,

You can not separate separation from appearance... in trying to illustrates a basic and fundamental misunderstanding of what the word means... from a biblical and logical definition. Do you look any different from the world? What would indicate to us by looking at you that you are One-God apostolic?

Papabear
07-08-2009, 03:52 PM
An apostolic lady will not wear pants...

The whole of scripture speaks to sexual distinction, from the old testament to the new. This blending of the gender line has been a part of this fast path towards the acceptance of homosexuality... and of course we have "Apostolic" homosexuals now that use this same approach to justify what they want to do.

KWSS1976
07-08-2009, 03:53 PM
Papabear just come out and say that the way you see the bible is the only correct way and everyone else that sees it diffrenty is wrong... Per your last post that is basically what you said...this whole exercise of waxing philosophical and thoughtful with the intent of subtracting what the bible says concerning those things that we have chosen to disavow is an approach we see the results all around us.

I am not afraid of Biblical study and digging deep into it as you like, as long as the intent is to strengthen what the text says, as opposed to dissect it to make it say what we want it to say.

This subtraction by addition is an approach to scripture that I believe is the original deception.

What is the reason for the question? to strengthen or devotion or find a reason not to obey what God and his word has said.

... but I know much to my sadness of heart... minds can not be changed when the heart is already cold....

If we followed the pattern of prayer and consecration in seeking God, this discussion would not even be necessary. But alas, we live in the days of great wisdom and deception... and often it is difficult to discern between the two.

RandyWayne
07-08-2009, 03:53 PM
I guarantee you Jesus would have been modest....Jesus would have be respectful of the House of Worship.... and be covered up.

Of that I have no doubt, at least in mixed company. But I think SOME would be surprised when Jesus's shirt sleeves didn't match up to what THEY were wearing and taught. :)

But then again, I am sure he would have followed his own mandate about not causing a brother to stumble and would have dressed to the lowest common denominator.

KWSS1976
07-08-2009, 03:54 PM
Papa bear why then was there no distiction of dress in the bible...both men and women wore the same thing

mizpeh
07-08-2009, 03:55 PM
An apostolic lady will not wear pants...

The whole of scripture speaks to sexual distinction, from the old testament to the new. This blending of the gender line has been a part of this fast path towards the acceptance of homosexuality... and of course we have "Apostolic" homosexuals now that use this same approach to justify what they want to do.What about the apostolic male? What does he wear that distinguishes and separates him from the world?

http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/showthread.php?t=24456

Papabear
07-08-2009, 03:57 PM
An apostolic Man wears pants... as they are the distinctive garment in our culture.

Brother Todd
07-08-2009, 03:57 PM
Pants do not cover up a lady Bro.Todd....???

and they also provide a masculinity to women, in my personal beliefs. Listen, I'm not here to condemn anyone else's personal convictions and standards, but as I read the Scriptures, I see that men and women are not created equally, they are both very different genders and roles. Clothing is a major way to communicate gender identity within a society, and even in the Old Testament, it was obvious that clothing demonstrated gender identity, and therefore role identity.

I believe that women should dress feminely, and men masculine, and both modestly. I believe that a dress covers the womenly form much better, and in the end provides a message of femine traits, as well as modesty.

Take a look at the bathroom signs at any store or restaurant. Apparently in our day and age, still a women in a dress means female and a man in pants means male..... I have yet to see a women's restroom with a picture of the woman on the door in pants.

*AQuietPlace*
07-08-2009, 03:58 PM
How was Jesus separate, in looks, from the world of his day?
You didn't answer my question.

RandyWayne
07-08-2009, 03:58 PM
An apostolic lady will not wear pants...

The whole of scripture speaks to sexual distinction, from the old testament to the new. This blending of the gender line has been a part of this fast path towards the acceptance of homosexuality... and of course we have "Apostolic" homosexuals now that use this same approach to justify what they want to do.

Actually, I was always taught that the presence of a pool table in our community was the first big step to the depths of degradation. Whats next? medicinal wine from a teaspoon then beer from a bottle?

GrowingPains
07-08-2009, 03:58 PM
this whole exercise of waxing philosophical and thoughtful with the intent of subtracting what the bible says concerning those things that we have chosen to disavow is an approach we see the results all around us.

I am not afraid of Biblical study and digging deep into it as you like, as long as the intent is to strengthen what the text says, as opposed to dissect it to make it say what we want it to say.

This subtraction by addition is an approach to scripture that I believe is the original deception.

What is the reason for the question? to strengthen or devotion or find a reason not to obey what God and his word has said.

... but I know much to my sadness of heart... minds can not be changed when the heart is already cold....

If we followed the pattern of prayer and consecration in seeking God, this discussion would not even be necessary. But alas, we live in the days of great wisdom and deception... and often it is difficult to discern between the two.

Don't write my eulogy just yet!

The reason for the question is to simply know what is right. Others tend to immediately debate a person's motives as a red herring to the real issue. I don't want to dissect it to make it say what I want it to say, and I think that's part of my frustration: we have taken texts and interpreted to mean something it never intended.

Your responses will surely get this forum excited as you assume no one is prayerful, no one loves holiness and no one cares for the things of God but those who believe it exactly as you've been taught it.

Brother Todd
07-08-2009, 03:59 PM
Papa bear why then was there no distiction of dress in the bible...both men and women wore the same thing

no they didn't...not at all.

Deu 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.

If they wore the same thing, what was God talking about here???? Or was God just some Apostolic preacher trying to control people here?

MissBrattified
07-08-2009, 03:59 PM
An apostolic lady will not wear pants...

She won't? So does that mean if a woman puts on a pair of pants, she is not Apostolic?

The whole of scripture speaks to sexual distinction, from the old testament to the new. This blending of the gender line has been a part of this fast path towards the acceptance of homosexuality... and of course we have "Apostolic" homosexuals now that use this same approach to justify what they want to do.

The whole of scripture? You say that as if there are a lot of scriptures addressing the issue. There aren't.

How did people in Bible days maintain gender distinction in their clothing?

I'm for gender distinction, btw. But, I wear pajamas, and I wear pants when I work out, and gauchos when I ride my bike.... It's not a sin for a woman to wear a pair of pants anymore than it's a sin for her to wear a white button down shirt.

Defining what is concretely masculine or feminine is a rather difficult task, don't you think?

GrowingPains
07-08-2009, 04:00 PM
An apostolic lady will not wear pants...

The whole of scripture speaks to sexual distinction, from the old testament to the new. This blending of the gender line has been a part of this fast path towards the acceptance of homosexuality... and of course we have "Apostolic" homosexuals now that use this same approach to justify what they want to do.

And conservative churches that use them anyway.

Off-subject: is it too much to ask how you can, with the Text, articulate why we shouldn't wear pants? Have you participated in a conversation about that? I can better respect someone that "chooses" not to for sake of modesty, than someone who dogmatically believe the text says so.

GrowingPains
07-08-2009, 04:01 PM
Of that I have no doubt, at least in mixed company. But I think SOME would be surprised when Jesus's shirt sleeves didn't match up to what THEY were wearing and taught. :)

But then again, I am sure he would have followed his own mandate about not causing a brother to stumble and would have dressed to the lowest common denominator.

Randy, what is the lowest common denominator? Do you believe Jesus would be in a turtleneck to avoid a brother from stumbling?

GrowingPains
07-08-2009, 04:01 PM
An apostolic Man wears pants... as they are the distinctive garment in our culture.

Ah - so it's relevant upon culture! See, we're getting somewhere.

RandyWayne
07-08-2009, 04:02 PM
Don't write my eulogy just yet!

The reason for the question is to simply know what is right. Others tend to immediately debate a person's motives as a red herring to the real issue. I don't want to dissect it to make it say what I want it to say, and I think that's part of my frustration: we have taken texts and interpreted to mean something it never intended.

Your responses will surely get this forum excited as you assume no one is prayerful, no one loves holiness and no one cares for the things of God but those who believe it exactly as you've been taught it.

Bingo!

People, through tradition, have beliefs which then cause them to search out Scripture to support them.

I looked at Papabears web site, which is very well done and well written I might add! But it is clear to see the filter that he see's scripture through. For instance He see's love and grace as filtered THROUGH holiness and separation. Many (and this is the way I BELIEVE Jesus taught) see holiness and separation as filtered THROUGH love and grace (and compassion).

GrowingPains
07-08-2009, 04:03 PM
and they also provide a masculinity to women, in my personal beliefs. Listen, I'm not here to condemn anyone else's personal convictions and standards, but as I read the Scriptures, I see that men and women are not created equally, they are both very different genders and roles. Clothing is a major way to communicate gender identity within a society, and even in the Old Testament, it was obvious that clothing demonstrated gender identity, and therefore role identity.

I believe that women should dress feminely, and men masculine, and both modestly. I believe that a dress covers the womenly form much better, and in the end provides a message of femine traits, as well as modesty.

Take a look at the bathroom signs at any store or restaurant. Apparently in our day and age, still a women in a dress means female and a man in pants means male..... I have yet to see a women's restroom with a picture of the woman on the door in pants.


I agree with you. But can we make our preferences on equal ground as scripture? For me, it's a preference that my wife agrees with.

RandyWayne
07-08-2009, 04:03 PM
Randy, what is the lowest common denominator? Do you believe Jesus would be in a turtleneck to avoid a brother from stumbling?

I honestly don't know. Common sense says that you can't go so low as to make the most easily offended brother happy. But I guess this is a subject worthy of its own thread.

MissBrattified
07-08-2009, 04:05 PM
and they also provide a masculinity to women, in my personal beliefs. Listen, I'm not here to condemn anyone else's personal convictions and standards, but as I read the Scriptures, I see that men and women are not created equally, they are both very different genders and roles. Clothing is a major way to communicate gender identity within a society, and even in the Old Testament, it was obvious that clothing demonstrated gender identity, and therefore role identity.

I believe that women should dress feminely, and men masculine, and both modestly. I believe that a dress covers the womenly form much better, and in the end provides a message of femine traits, as well as modesty.

Take a look at the bathroom signs at any store or restaurant. Apparently in our day and age, still a women in a dress means female and a man in pants means male..... I have yet to see a women's restroom with a picture of the woman on the door in pants.

This is a good post, and I share most of your views--but is what you stated above a strong enough foundation for calling pants on a woman a SIN? It's okay to deny someone's faith in Christ because they wear an item of clothing some view as exclusively masculine?

Papabear
07-08-2009, 04:07 PM
I don't presume anything in what I wrote... I simply state for many "Apostolic Anonymous" approach scripture from a deconstruction mindset and what is can be thrown out. I believe we should be endevouring to add to our devotion and consecration... not subtracting..

I don't say that from a legalistic mindset, but just practical. I am not a hardline, right winger.. however I do believe what the Bible says about Gender distinction... I don't think God has changed his mind.... he still hates homosexuality.. the sin.. the act... the spirit... sure he loves the sinner... however he hates the whole "homosexual" paradigm.

He made men and women different. Equipment, temperament, emotive makeup.

Girls and Boys should be encouraged in those things that are distinctively boys and girls.

In this homosexualized culture, the church should be even more so aware of our need to be vigilant. If women ever had long hair, long dresses and a feminine deportment it would be now.... because it is so counter culture to the sensual, sexual and perverse culture.

To argue against this basic premise and ideal demonstrates a lack of understanding.

(And yes I am saying if you disagree with me you are wrong... that is the whole idea of arguing a point. I believe intently what I am saying... and believe it enough to put my name on it.)

My name is scott phillips and I support this message.

*AQuietPlace*
07-08-2009, 04:07 PM
Your responses will surely get this forum excited as you assume no one is prayerful, no one loves holiness and no one cares for the things of God but those who believe it exactly as you've been taught it.
Bingo!

nahkoe
07-08-2009, 04:09 PM
Take a look at the bathroom signs at any store or restaurant. Apparently in our day and age, still a women in a dress means female and a man in pants means male..... I have yet to see a women's restroom with a picture of the woman on the door in pants.

You know, this got me thinking. I know the bathrooms where I work don't have pictures. I can't think of a single place I frequent that does. All of the signs I can think of, and know for sure I'm right about, are just words. And having 4 children, I happen to see the bathroom in most places. There are a few I can't picture in my mind to know for sure, I'll have to try to remember to check them next time we visit.

What would such a cultural shift do to this argument?

GrowingPains
07-08-2009, 04:10 PM
I don't presume anything in what I wrote... I simply state for many "Apostolic Anonymous" approach scripture from a deconstruction mindset and what is can be thrown out. I believe we should be endevouring to add to our devotion and consecration... not subtracting..

I don't say that from a legalistic mindset, but just practical. I am not a hardline, right winger.. however I do believe what the Bible says about Gender distinction... I don't think God has changed his mind.... he still hates homosexuality.. the sin.. the act... the spirit... sure he loves the sinner... however he hates the whole "homosexual" paradigm.

He made men and women different. Equipment, temperament, emotive makeup.

Girls and Boys should be encouraged in those things that are distinctively boys and girls.

In this homosexualized culture, the church should be even more so aware of our need to be vigilant. If women ever had long hair, long dresses and a feminine deportment it would be now.... because it is so counter culture to the sensual, sexual and perverse culture.

To argue against this basic premise and ideal demonstrates a lack of understanding.

(And yes I am saying if you disagree with me you are wrong... that is the whole idea of arguing a point. I believe intently what I am saying... and believe it enough to put my name on it.)

My name is scott phillips and I support this message.

HAHA. I like you.

Scott, we shouldn't subtract from it OR add to it. So if we realize we've added to it, then YES -- we should subtract that, because it was never it. :) Make sense?

Your alarm with homosexuality, I get it. To say women that wear pants are pushing gay culture is quite a logical stretch that I don't think you'll find many takers. Look around you -- not just your church, your world. Do you really believe that?

MissBrattified
07-08-2009, 04:11 PM
I don't presume anything in what I wrote... I simply state for many "Apostolic Anonymous" approach scripture from a deconstruction mindset and what is can be thrown out. I believe we should be endevouring to add to our devotion and consecration... not subtracting..

I don't say that from a legalistic mindset, but just practical. I am not a hardline, right winger.. however I do believe what the Bible says about Gender distinction... I don't think God has changed his mind.... he still hates homosexuality.. the sin.. the act... the spirit... sure he loves the sinner... however he hates the whole "homosexual" paradigm.

He made men and women different. Equipment, temperament, emotive makeup.

Girls and Boys should be encouraged in those things that are distinctively boys and girls.

In this homosexualized culture, the church should be even more so aware of our need to be vigilant. If women ever had long hair, long dresses and a feminine deportment it would be now.... because it is so counter culture to the sensual, sexual and perverse culture.

I agree with you! But I don't believe it's just particular items of clothing that need to be addressed, nor do I think they are the problem. Modesty demands certain styles of clothing for some situations, and I view modesty as more important than visible gender distinction. (distinction being secondary, and followed by what is culturally appropriate)

To argue against this basic premise and ideal demonstrates a lack of understanding.

(And yes I am saying if you disagree with me you are wrong... that is the whole idea of arguing a point. I believe intently what I am saying... and believe it enough to put my name on it.)

My name is scott phillips and I support this message.

:D

RandyWayne
07-08-2009, 04:12 PM
I don't presume anything in what I wrote... I simply state for many "Apostolic Anonymous" approach scripture from a deconstruction mindset and what is can be thrown out. I believe we should be endevouring to add to our devotion and consecration... not subtracting..

I don't say that from a legalistic mindset, but just practical. I am not a hardline, right winger.. however I do believe what the Bible says about Gender distinction... I don't think God has changed his mind.... he still hates homosexuality.. the sin.. the act... the spirit... sure he loves the sinner... however he hates the whole "homosexual" paradigm.

He made men and women different. Equipment, temperament, emotive makeup.

Girls and Boys should be encouraged in those things that are distinctively boys and girls.

In this homosexualized culture, the church should be even more so aware of our need to be vigilant. If women ever had long hair, long dresses and a feminine deportment it would be now.... because it is so counter culture to the sensual, sexual and perverse culture.

To argue against this basic premise and ideal demonstrates a lack of understanding.

(And yes I am saying if you disagree with me you are wrong... that is the whole idea of arguing a point. I believe intently what I am saying... and believe it enough to put my name on it.)

My name is scott phillips and I support this message.

Generally good post, except the part highlighted. LOL

My wife can fix a tractor faster then I can fix a flat on my car. I bought her a (nice) cordless power tool set for Christmas a few years ago that she uses constantly. (She even took apart the big swing set we got with our new house and built a bunch of patio furniture with it. LOL)

And here "I" am, the artist in the family.....

Brother Todd
07-08-2009, 04:12 PM
This is a good post, and I share most of your views--but is what you stated above a strong enough foundation for calling pants on a woman a SIN? It's okay to deny someone's faith in Christ because they wear an item of clothing some view as exclusively masculine?

Sis, I can't say if it will send them to hell or not, all I can say is this....

Jam 4:17 Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth [it] not, to him it is sin.

Hbr 12:1 Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset [us], and let us run with patience the race that is set before us,


James 4:17 really does guide me in a ton of things I choose. I don't go to any restaurant that sells alcoholic beverages at all, because I know that it personally convicts me, so for me it would be sin. But for someone else, it may not.

Does that help clarify?

GrowingPains
07-08-2009, 04:13 PM
You know, this got me thinking. I know the bathrooms where I work don't have pictures. I can't think of a single place I frequent that does. All of the signs I can think of, and know for sure I'm right about, are just words. And having 4 children, I happen to see the bathroom in most places. There are a few I can't picture in my mind to know for sure, I'll have to try to remember to check them next time we visit.

What would such a cultural shift do to this argument?

That symbol argument has always been there. Since Victorian times, this was the major distinction, and since those pictures aren't 3-D, that outline is the most ideal. Men don't wear skirts so it's quite noticeable that both genders are represented.

I worry about that sign changing, as we get into a unisex society.

However, this is a desperate argument to support the idea that pants are a cause for disfellowship.

Timmy
07-08-2009, 04:13 PM
People love to throw around the word 'holiness' and insist that we need to stick with it. Well, I don't think anyone would deny that. The problem comes when we start defining 'holiness'. My preference is to use the Bible, and the Bible only, to do that. Many others prefer to use the Bible with heavy doses of tradition.

The Old Paths... which old paths? The paths that were used back when the UPC was first formed? Or the more recent old paths? Or the BIBLICAL old paths???

You mean Gen 2:25? That old? :ursofunny

GrowingPains
07-08-2009, 04:15 PM
Sis, I can't say if it will send them to hell or not, all I can say is this....

Jam 4:17 Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth [it] not, to him it is sin.

Hbr 12:1 Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset [us], and let us run with patience the race that is set before us,


James 4:17 really does guide me in a ton of things I choose. I don't go to any restaurant that sells alcoholic beverages at all, because I know that it personally convicts me, so for me it would be sin. But for someone else, it may not.

Does that help clarify?

Well, that certainly helps understand convictions. But for another, most restaurants that are interested in being around have a bar area, or serve liquor. What then? Our world is changing, and the tidy fences resurrected in the 40's and 50's won't cut it. People will need an understanding to live a life of Holiness before God, and working out their own salvation with fear and trembling. Some of our standards have become relics, and have the same danger.

Timmy
07-08-2009, 04:16 PM
and they also provide a masculinity to women, in my personal beliefs. Listen, I'm not here to condemn anyone else's personal convictions and standards, but as I read the Scriptures, I see that men and women are not created equally, they are both very different genders and roles. Clothing is a major way to communicate gender identity within a society, and even in the Old Testament, it was obvious that clothing demonstrated gender identity, and therefore role identity.

I believe that women should dress feminely, and men masculine, and both modestly. I believe that a dress covers the womenly form much better, and in the end provides a message of femine traits, as well as modesty.

Take a look at the bathroom signs at any store or restaurant. Apparently in our day and age, still a women in a dress means female and a man in pants means male..... I have yet to see a women's restroom with a picture of the woman on the door in pants.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_GD9rWGQb-l8/SJvK6CcLgQI/AAAAAAAAATw/Ml0eMQNsAd4/s320/Restrooms.jpg

Brother Todd
07-08-2009, 04:16 PM
That symbol argument has always been there. Since Victorian times, this was the major distinction, and since those pictures aren't 3-D, that outline is the most ideal. Men don't wear skirts so it's quite noticeable that both genders are represented.

I worry about that sign changing, as we get into a unisex society.

However, this is a desperate argument to support the idea that pants are a cause for disfellowship.

Where did anyone say pants were a reason for disfellowship? That sentence brings a subtle inference that someone posted in here that a woman should be disfellowshipped for wearing pants.... that's a little intellectually dishonest.

Why can't people just read what's posted and not assume things?

Papabear
07-08-2009, 04:18 PM
final note before leaving for I have things to do.

I am thankful for a wife that is willing to live and submit to these ideals that her pastor and mother taught her. If she was unwilling to follow that in her own devotion, If I were to continue pastoring, I would be to some degree have to figure out a way to ... justify what she is unwilling to do.

I say that because I know some preachers have compromised ... not because they believed it different but sister was unwilling to obey the scripture and had been incited to doubt and refuse for whatever reason and brother pastor must find a loophole in scripture to support his/her disobedience and or compromise.

I recognize the human reality in all this. I believe and hope for the ideal. I believe when perfection ceases to be our goal, we will attain to much less than God intended for us.

Brother Todd
07-08-2009, 04:19 PM
You know, this got me thinking. I know the bathrooms where I work don't have pictures. I can't think of a single place I frequent that does. All of the signs I can think of, and know for sure I'm right about, are just words. And having 4 children, I happen to see the bathroom in most places. There are a few I can't picture in my mind to know for sure, I'll have to try to remember to check them next time we visit.

What would such a cultural shift do to this argument?

Well, they still, for the most part, got the pics around here, suppose for the folks that can't read.

But to me, the taking away the pics, is just as bad as the buildings now that are going to unisex restrooms over all. I was in a church a year ago, a large church, for a wedding, it was a methodist church...and all their restrooms were unisex.... was just apalling. It's all part of the loss of gender identity inour society around us, and unfortunately, the church has decided to go along with it. Used to, we were trying to establish our own New Testament culture, but now we want to look like the culture around us.


I gotta run and get ready for church, but I have to say being new to an Apostolic Forum, I'm surprised at how many in this forum seem to abhor doctrines and teachings that have been part of the fabric of the Apostolic movement for years. Just sort of shocking to me.

GrowingPains
07-08-2009, 04:20 PM
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_GD9rWGQb-l8/SJvK6CcLgQI/AAAAAAAAATw/Ml0eMQNsAd4/s320/Restrooms.jpg

Case in point that it's okay to adjust your principles... according to the present culture. In our culture, pants are accepted by the dominant culture as feminine.

RandyWayne
07-08-2009, 04:20 PM
The three bathrooms in our house our unisex.

GrowingPains
07-08-2009, 04:21 PM
Where did anyone say pants were a reason for disfellowship? That sentence brings a subtle inference that someone posted in here that a woman should be disfellowshipped for wearing pants.... that's a little intellectually dishonest.

Why can't people just read what's posted and not assume things?

Well, let me ask you: can someone participate with ministry in your church in pants? Do you preach your ideas about pants, enforcing them upon your congregation?

I don't think I'm being dishonest. I'm quite familiar with this culture.

GrowingPains
07-08-2009, 04:23 PM
Well, they still, for the most part, got the pics around here, suppose for the folks that can't read.

But to me, the taking away the pics, is just as bad as the buildings now that are going to unisex restrooms over all. I was in a church a year ago, a large church, for a wedding, it was a methodist church...and all their restrooms were unisex.... was just apalling. It's all part of the loss of gender identity inour society around us, and unfortunately, the church has decided to go along with it. Used to, we were trying to establish our own New Testament culture, but now we want to look like the culture around us.


I gotta run and get ready for church, but I have to say being new to an Apostolic Forum, I'm surprised at how many in this forum seem to abhor doctrines and teachings that have been part of the fabric of the Apostolic movement for years. Just sort of shocking to me.


Don't be so shocked. Stick around and you'll learn many have the same questions. You are being hysterical about gender. We can keep and preach the beauty of gender distinction without being dogmatic.

RandyWayne
07-08-2009, 04:23 PM
And when someone out and out says it is a sin and abomination for a woman to wear pants, what else do you expect?

*AQuietPlace*
07-08-2009, 04:24 PM
In the Biblical culture, both male and female wore dresses (robes).

In our culture, both male and female wear pants.

Culture changes, always has and always will. Who knows what we'll all be wearing (or our descendants) in 500 years? Maybe everyone will be back to robes.

Cultural dress should not really be the issue. Femininity and masculinity should always be an issue. A man should look like a man, a woman should look like a woman. A woman in a pair of flowered capris and a ruffled shirt does not look remotely masculine. And yet she'd be doomed to hell by our rulebooks.

I challenge you to go to your local grocery store and see if you can within 2 seconds (per person) identify the sex of every person in that store. I'll be very surprised if you can't. If you can't, it's probably because there's someone in there who CHOSE deliberately to try to look like the opposite sex. THAT is what's a sin.

And the BIGGEST problem is that the generation that we're trying to lead to God is NOT going to understand our reasoning, for the most part. Yes, our ancestors 100 years ago viewed pants as only a man's garment. The people around us now, don't. They just think we're weird. And we have NO scripture that we can show them that says that women are forbidden to wear split-legged garments.

Was the scripture in Deut. saying that women couldn't wear robes? That's what men wore then.

Theophil
07-08-2009, 04:25 PM
An apostolic lady will not wear pants...

The whole of scripture speaks to sexual distinction, from the old testament to the new. This blending of the gender line has been a part of this fast path towards the acceptance of homosexuality... and of course we have "Apostolic" homosexuals now that use this same approach to justify what they want to do.

Do you have a long(uncut) beard? That would be the "scriptural" way to distinguish your sex, wouldn't it?

*AQuietPlace*
07-08-2009, 04:31 PM
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_GD9rWGQb-l8/SJvK6CcLgQI/AAAAAAAAATw/Ml0eMQNsAd4/s320/Restrooms.jpg
If we're going to base our doctrine on restroom signs.... it looks to me like that dude is in his birthday suit!

nahkoe
07-08-2009, 04:33 PM
But to me, the taking away the pics, is just as bad as the buildings now that are going to unisex restrooms over all. I was in a church a year ago, a large church, for a wedding, it was a methodist church...and all their restrooms were unisex.... was just apalling. It's all part of the loss of gender identity inour society around us, and unfortunately, the church has decided to go along with it. Used to, we were trying to establish our own New Testament culture, but now we want to look like the culture around us.

As a single mom with boys, I have to admit that the unisex, and family, restrooms are heaven sent, IMO. My older boys are not old enough to go into a men's room alone in all public situations. But my oldest boy isn't really ok to take into the women's room anymore. What to do?

I gotta run and get ready for church, but I have to say being new to an Apostolic Forum, I'm surprised at how many in this forum seem to abhor doctrines and teachings that have been part of the fabric of the Apostolic movement for years. Just sort of shocking to me.

Welcome to AFF. :D

Timmy
07-08-2009, 04:33 PM
The three bathrooms in our house our unisex.

There's a bathroom in my house with two doors: one from my office, and one from the hall. I put a women's room sign on one door and a men's room sign on the other. :lol

nahkoe
07-08-2009, 04:36 PM
If we're going to base our doctrine on restroom signs.... it looks to me like that dude is in his birthday suit!

Hmm. Very good point. And the Scottish guy has a kilt on, but no shirt.

nahkoe
07-08-2009, 04:37 PM
There's a bathroom in my house with two doors: one from my office, and one from the hall. I put a women's room sign on one door and a men's room sign on the other. :lol

Only Timmy....

Ok, not only Timmy. lol My grandma used to have a bathroom with 2 doors and the grandkids all got together and did the "men" and "women" thing. :D She wasn't very amused. But we sure thought it was hilarious.

nahkoe
07-08-2009, 04:41 PM
And when someone out and out says it is a sin and abomination for a woman to wear pants, what else do you expect?

But you know it's as bad for me to wear pants as it is for me to have a girlfriend. I mean, can't you see how closely related those two things are!?

Nevermind that when I *DID* have a girlfriend, I wore skirts almost exclusively.

GrowingPains
07-08-2009, 04:42 PM
As a single mom with boys, I have to admit that the unisex, and family, restrooms are heaven sent, IMO. My older boys are not old enough to go into a men's room alone in all public situations. But my oldest boy isn't really ok to take into the women's room anymore. What to do?



Welcome to AFF. :D

Nahkoe, convenient yes, for something that is less than what God had intended for us. But, I'm not a fan of unisex bathroom at all.

HeavenlyOne
07-08-2009, 04:48 PM
An apostolic Man wears pants... as they are the distinctive garment in our culture.

In a culture made up of many cultures, how does this get preached as a Biblical mandate?

Did you know that 400 years ago, pants on men weren't seen as distinctive, but as unmanly? 400 years ago isn't that long ago, considering how long mankind has been on the earth. Men wore a dress-like garment far longer.

Timmy
07-08-2009, 04:48 PM
Nahkoe, convenient yes, for something that is less than what God had intended for us. But, I'm not a fan of unisex bathroom at all.

Uh. Are you saying God intended for males and females to have separate public restrooms? :blink

Timmy
07-08-2009, 04:50 PM
You mean Gen 2:25? That old? :ursofunny

The original "standard". :heeheehee

GrowingPains
07-08-2009, 05:00 PM
Uh. Are you saying God intended for males and females to have separate public restrooms? :blink

Uh... no. I'm saying bathrooms are a silly matter on their own... but considering propriety, comfort and yes, God's delight in gender distinction, I prefer bathrooms to be separately gendered. Sorry if that rubs you wrong.

*AQuietPlace*
07-08-2009, 05:06 PM
Uh. Are you saying God intended for males and females to have separate public restrooms? :blink
Absolutely! Have you seen how disgusting some men's restrooms are???



:D

nahkoe
07-08-2009, 05:08 PM
Absolutely! Have you seen how disgusting some men's restrooms are???



:D

That is the best reason I've ever heard presented for keeping them separate. lol I've almost implemented it at home. I do allow the boys to use my bathroom, but I won't use theirs.

HeavenlyOne
07-08-2009, 05:15 PM
Absolutely! Have you seen how disgusting some men's restrooms are???



:D

Trust me on this...women are just as disgusting!!

Cindy
07-08-2009, 05:22 PM
Absolutely! Have you seen how disgusting some men's restrooms are???



:D

Yes, at a Texas Rangers baseball game. I was 8 months pregnant and the line to the ladies room was too long, and they were being rude about me cutting in line. So I went to the men's room door opened it slightly and hollered lady coming in. You should have seen the guys run out that door. It was not clean at all!!!!!

Timmy
07-08-2009, 05:25 PM
Uh... no. I'm saying bathrooms are a silly matter on their own... but considering propriety, comfort and yes, God's delight in gender distinction, I prefer bathrooms to be separately gendered. Sorry if that rubs you wrong.

It doesn't, not at all. Just mistook what you said. Thanks for clarifying.

SeekingOne
07-08-2009, 05:26 PM
What is the reason for the question? to strengthen or devotion or find a reason not to obey what God and his word has said.

... but I know much to my sadness of heart... minds can not be changed when the heart is already cold....

If we followed the pattern of prayer and consecration in seeking God, this discussion would not even be necessary. But alas, we live in the days of great wisdom and deception... and often it is difficult to discern between the two.

Papabear, you speak from your own very narrow perspective. I used to have my own very narrow perspective too, and I used to really believe that I loved and followed God more than 99% of the world, even more than you! :nah

My mind changed and my heart grew warm toward God for the first time in years due to visiting this very forum! :thumbsup I was just pious and cold, I would not even allow myself to consider that I could follow God and leave "the standards." I came here hoping to find a new church to go to that had "the standards."

Wow, to actually read the Bible, without all the preconceived ideas that have been drilled into me, has breathed life into me and given me the opportunity to help change the world around me. The public is actually not afraid of me anymore! They don't think I am judging them, because I am NOT judging them anymore. I am not judging other Christians either, whatever made me think I had that right anyway?!

Now I go about our community with the love of Jesus, just like Jesus did. I do go to condemn the world, but to bring the love of Jesus into their lives. I will let God do the judging, it isn't my job. I let his light shine, and it shines so much brighter now that I don't have "holiness images" blocking the light.

Our family still dresses modestly, nothing too tight or short, but we dress in modern fashions. I must say, that my old friends wear more revealing clothing than I do, and they dress the "holiness standard" way. They also "deck themselves out" more than our family. We dress plainly, and do not draw attention to ourselves. Like Jesus, people don't recognize us by our clothing, but by our love. :heart

I must make sure that you know that I am trying to say all of this with a lot of respect for you. But for God changing me, I was just like you a few months ago. I am not looking down my nose at you, anymore than I wish for you to look down your nose at me. I just felt you needed to be corrected in your statement about minds not being changed because hearts are cold. Just the opposite happened to me.

The truth has set me free to have a MUCH better relationship with God and also with the people HE wishes for me to reach for Him. Hallelujah!

HopePreacher
07-08-2009, 05:34 PM
An apostolic lady will not wear pants...

The whole of scripture speaks to sexual distinction, from the old testament to the new. This blending of the gender line has been a part of this fast path towards the acceptance of homosexuality... and of course we have "Apostolic" homosexuals now that use this same approach to justify what they want to do.

Woaaa.... Look at any woman in pants, or wearing shorts, or a sleeveless shirt or halter top and tell me you can't tell a difference in the sexes... that is a distinciton of the sexes.... (tongue in cheek)

What's this about "apostolic" homosexuals justifying their homosexuality... I guess I'm just out of touch....

nahkoe
07-08-2009, 05:39 PM
Trust me on this...women are just as disgusting!!

Not in fast food bathrooms, they're not. There is absolutely no comparison. I have to admit I've never been particularly pleased about being allergic to bleach. Until it came time to clean those bathrooms. So happy to let someone else do that. lol

Margies3
07-08-2009, 05:40 PM
I'm sitting here chuckling at all the directions that this thread has taken...........

First it was about pants on women.
Then it turned into a discussion of bathrooms.
Then it started to go back to pants, but now it appears it might be taking a turn towards Apostolic homosexuals.

Only on AFF :ursofunny:ursofunny:ursofunny:ursofunny:ursofunny

*AQuietPlace*
07-08-2009, 06:01 PM
Not in fast food bathrooms, they're not. There is absolutely no comparison. I have to admit I've never been particularly pleased about being allergic to bleach. Until it came time to clean those bathrooms. So happy to let someone else do that. lol
The same is true when you clean the church. I hate cleaning the men's restrooms!

SeekingOne
07-08-2009, 06:44 PM
In the Biblical culture, both male and female wore dresses (robes).

In our culture, both male and female wear pants.

Culture changes, always has and always will. Who knows what we'll all be wearing (or our descendants) in 500 years? Maybe everyone will be back to robes.

Cultural dress should not really be the issue. Femininity and masculinity should always be an issue. A man should look like a man, a woman should look like a woman. A woman in a pair of flowered capris and a ruffled shirt does not look remotely masculine. And yet she'd be doomed to hell by our rulebooks.

I challenge you to go to your local grocery store and see if you can within 2 seconds (per person) identify the sex of every person in that store. I'll be very surprised if you can't. If you can't, it's probably because there's someone in there who CHOSE deliberately to try to look like the opposite sex. THAT is what's a sin.

And the BIGGEST problem is that the generation that we're trying to lead to God is NOT going to understand our reasoning, for the most part. Yes, our ancestors 100 years ago viewed pants as only a man's garment. The people around us now, don't. They just think we're weird. And we have NO scripture that we can show them that says that women are forbidden to wear split-legged garments.

Was the scripture in Deut. saying that women couldn't wear robes? That's what men wore then.

Great post! :thumbsup

OnTheFritz
07-08-2009, 07:11 PM
Family bathrooms are not "unisex" in their intent. They're for one family at a time anyway. Is there something I'm missing? People really have a problem with this?

nahkoe
07-08-2009, 07:20 PM
Family bathrooms are not "unisex" in their intent. They're for one family at a time anyway. Is there something I'm missing? People really have a problem with this?

There are bathrooms that are unisex, not limited to one family at a time. They're like the big bathrooms in malls, etc. Lots of stalls, sinks, etc. But not gender specific.

Dimples
07-08-2009, 07:27 PM
Facebook? this is AFF.

Facebook is another measuring tool some have learned to use.

The pictures are worth a 1,000 words. Preachers playing golf in shorts, wives with short hair.

Man, they can talk and talk for days on the pictures posted there.

OnTheFritz
07-08-2009, 07:42 PM
There are bathrooms that are unisex, not limited to one family at a time. They're like the big bathrooms in malls, etc. Lots of stalls, sinks, etc. But not gender specific.

Ah, ok. Haven't seen those. Thanks for clarifying.

Dimples
07-08-2009, 07:45 PM
The difference is some don't care anymore.

And some are smart enough not to post the pictures of them wearing shorts.

Which one is doing wrong?

MarcBee
07-08-2009, 08:38 PM
Actually, I was always taught that the presence of a pool table in our community was the first big step to the depths of degradation. Whats next? medicinal wine from a teaspoon then beer from a bottle?

My favorite preacher, Bro. Harold Hill.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qam1fbQmA_s


:usa

Praxeas
07-08-2009, 09:50 PM
An apostolic lady will not wear pants...

The whole of scripture speaks to sexual distinction, from the old testament to the new. This blending of the gender line has been a part of this fast path towards the acceptance of homosexuality... and of course we have "Apostolic" homosexuals now that use this same approach to justify what they want to do.
You know, in "bible days" neither men nor women wore pants. They wore robes and even men wore "skirts" (witness the Roman Centurian). Yet men and women still had distinctions without a drastic idea of women not being allowed to have an inseam

Praxeas
07-08-2009, 09:51 PM
An apostolic Man wears pants... as they are the distinctive garment in our culture.
How does that separate them from the world though? Sinner men were pants.

mizpeh
07-08-2009, 09:52 PM
How does that separate them from the world though? Sinner men were pants.

How do we tell an apostolic man from a sinner man if they both wear pants? :sad

RevDWW
07-08-2009, 09:55 PM
What garment will we wear in Heaven?

SeekingOne
07-08-2009, 09:56 PM
How do we tell an apostolic man from a sinner man if they both wear pants? :sad

He wears a long sleeve shirt even in the summer? Or is that just the Jehovah's Witness men? (I am not and never have been UPC, I just went to a church that followed the UPC doctrine as best I can tell from this forum.)

Oh, but in the winter I guess you would have a hard time knowing a "holy man" from a sinner if I am correct that UPC/Apostolic men only wear long sleeves. Hmmmm, yes, so how can all you men be separate from the world, if you have to dress like them??? Maybe, just maybe it doesn't have anything to do with clothing after all......

RandyWayne
07-08-2009, 10:25 PM
He wears a long sleeve shirt even in the summer? Or is that just the Jehovah's Witness men? (I am not and never have been UPC, I just went to a church that followed the UPC doctrine as best I can tell from this forum.)

Oh, but in the winter I guess you would have a hard time knowing a "holy man" from a sinner if I am correct that UPC/Apostolic men only wear long sleeves. Hmmmm, yes, so how can all you men be separate from the world, if you have to dress like them??? Maybe, just maybe it doesn't have anything to do with clothing after all......

At least the women are easy to spot... no matter WHAT their profession is!

http://i174.photobucket.com/albums/w113/RandyWayneD/Jokes/SpaceWalkerUPC.jpg

OnTheFritz
07-08-2009, 10:43 PM
At least the women are easy to spot... no matter WHAT their profession is!

http://i174.photobucket.com/albums/w113/RandyWayneD/Jokes/SpaceWalkerUPC.jpg

:thumbsup

KWSS1976
07-09-2009, 06:57 AM
Now look what we did I think we ran that brother off...LOL

The Lemon
07-09-2009, 07:01 AM
I remember a book written by Thetus Tenny called "Life is a Three Legged Stool" - in it she makes a very wise statement, she excalims that the live in extremes on any thing brings potential damage and destruction. The idea is to obey the Word, and the voice and calling of God, and live life as balanced as possible.

It is human nature to swing to extremes, all or nothing - however, I have never seen an individual who can live in the extreme for any significant amount of time. I have seen Ultra Lib, and have been Ultra Lib - I have seen Ultra Con, and have been Ultra Con - in all of this there was never true peace or happiness - but there was an aweful lot of debate, confusion, and defensiveness.

Whenever a person makes a bold statement like, an Apostolic women would not wear pants, and then at some point later in the conversation try to say they don't know if it will send a person to Hell but....... - really they do believe it will, bottom line. It's called semantics.

Sometimes you can tell by the content of a post that a person really has not lived through enough life issues when certain statements are made very zealously. I have often said it is easy to preach something hard and fast, until it arrives in your house or to your children - I can't tell you how many times I have seen the tune change drastically after the fact!

I am for Holiness, ACTS 2:38, and the Oneness of God. I am also for balance, love, grace, mercy, and forgiveness. God is bound to His Word, as He can't lie - He is not, however, bound to our personal box or orginizational stances, that may be built off of Biblical principle, but are not specific mandates from God to us. Personal conviction is just that....personal. Too many times though, there is the thought that corporate conviction should be everyones personal conviction...and it does not always work that way. And personal convictions are by no means to be used as a measurning stick of who is truely saved or Apostolic.

Pressing-On
07-09-2009, 07:12 AM
I remember a book written by Thetus Tenny called "Life is a Three Legged Stool" - in it she makes a very wise statement, she exclaims that the live in extremes on any thing brings potential damage and destruction. The idea is to obey the Word, and the voice and calling of God, and live life as balanced as possible.

It is human nature to swing to extremes, all or nothing - however, I have never seen an individual who can live in the extreme for any significant amount of time. I have seen Ultra Lib, and have been Ultra Lib - I have seen Ultra Con, and have been Ultra Con - in all of this there was never true peace or happiness - but there was an awful lot of debate, confusion, and defensiveness.

Whenever a person makes a bold statement like, an Apostolic women would not wear pants, and then at some point later in the conversation try to say they don't know if it will send a person to Hell but....... - really they do believe it will, bottom line. It's called semantics.

Sometimes you can tell by the content of a post that a person really has not lived through enough life issues when certain statements are made very zealously. I have often said it is easy to preach something hard and fast, until it arrives in your house or to your children - I can't tell you how many times I have seen the tune change drastically after the fact!

I am for Holiness, ACTS 2:38, and the Oneness of God. I am also for balance, love, grace, mercy, and forgiveness. God is bound to His Word, as He can't lie - He is not, however, bound to our personal box or orgizational stances, that may be built off of Biblical principle, but are not specific mandates from God to us. Personal conviction is just that....personal. Too many times though, there is the thought that corporate conviction should be everyone's personal conviction...and it does not always work that way. And personal convictions are by no means to be used as a measuring stick of who is truly saved or Apostolic.

Good Post, The Lemon! :thumbsup

*AQuietPlace*
07-09-2009, 07:34 AM
How does that separate them from the world though? Sinner men were pants.
The Bible only says that women must look different than the world, not men.




;)

Barb
07-09-2009, 07:37 AM
What garment will we wear in Heaven?

The garment of righteousness, which is nothing more than the holiness of heart and mind.

JMHO...

Rhoni
07-09-2009, 08:05 AM
The garment of righteousness, which is nothing more than the holiness of heart and mind.

JMHO...

Ditto:thumbsup

POWERUP
07-09-2009, 08:05 AM
:foottapPapabear,

I hope that I'm not reading into anything. But, in your last post you made it sound like when a minister or Pastor changes his stand on some issue............pants, cut hair, etc........... that it is the ladies fault he changes his belief.

I am a guy, But why is it, that it seems to always be the womans fault.

MrsMcD
07-09-2009, 08:09 AM
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_GD9rWGQb-l8/SJvK6CcLgQI/AAAAAAAAATw/Ml0eMQNsAd4/s320/Restrooms.jpg

:ursofunny

KWSS1976
07-09-2009, 08:10 AM
Powerup I don't think Papabear will be replying to you if he does I will be suprised I think we might of ran him off...LOL

MrsMcD
07-09-2009, 08:13 AM
Facebook is another measuring tool some have learned to use.

The pictures are worth a 1,000 words. Preachers playing golf in shorts, wives with short hair.

Man, they can talk and talk for days on the pictures posted there.

What a shame! Sounds like gossip to me.

MrsMcD
07-09-2009, 08:15 AM
The difference is some don't care anymore.

And some are smart enough not to post the pictures of them wearing shorts.

Which one is doing wrong?

Neither:thumbsup

HeavenlyOne
07-09-2009, 09:51 AM
The Bible only says that women must look different than the world, not men.




;)

It does??? Is that how Jesus knew that the women committing adultery was a sinner and not a choir member??

*AQuietPlace*
07-09-2009, 09:57 AM
It does??? Is that how Jesus knew that the women committing adultery was a sinner and not a choir member??
Probably so. :)

HeavenlyOne
07-09-2009, 10:17 AM
Probably so. :)

Shucks. I guess I better start dressing a little differently so I can fool man as well as Jesus too!!

SeekingOne
07-09-2009, 10:33 AM
The Bible only says that women must look different than the world, not men. ;)

Does it really say we have to look different than the world? (Not written with sarcasm) I thought we were just to be separate, but still in the world. (Agree that it doesn't say clothing and hair is the separation because even the hippies tried that. :ursofunny )

Anyway, I would like clarification on this one. :heart

*AQuietPlace*
07-09-2009, 10:43 AM
Does it really say we have to look different than the world? (Not written with sarcasm) I thought we were just to be separate, but still in the world. (Agree that it doesn't say clothing and hair is the separation because even the hippies tried that. :ursofunny )

Anyway, I would like clarification on this one. :heart
My post was completely tongue-in-cheek. No, nowhere does it say that we have to look different. (men or women... our current Apostolic culture insists that women must look different, but not the men) Christians have looked just like the society around them for most of Christianity. It's only the past 70 years or so that we've insisted on dressing differently, as far as I can tell.

It says to be separate. In my opinion, that's going to involve the things we love and the way we act.

ForeverBlessed
07-09-2009, 10:51 AM
In the Biblical culture, both male and female wore dresses (robes).

In our culture, both male and female wear pants.

Culture changes, always has and always will. Who knows what we'll all be wearing (or our descendants) in 500 years? Maybe everyone will be back to robes.

Cultural dress should not really be the issue. Femininity and masculinity should always be an issue. A man should look like a man, a woman should look like a woman. A woman in a pair of flowered capris and a ruffled shirt does not look remotely masculine. And yet she'd be doomed to hell by our rulebooks.

I challenge you to go to your local grocery store and see if you can within 2 seconds (per person) identify the sex of every person in that store. I'll be very surprised if you can't. If you can't, it's probably because there's someone in there who CHOSE deliberately to try to look like the opposite sex. THAT is what's a sin.

And the BIGGEST problem is that the generation that we're trying to lead to God is NOT going to understand our reasoning, for the most part. Yes, our ancestors 100 years ago viewed pants as only a man's garment. The people around us now, don't. They just think we're weird. And we have NO scripture that we can show them that says that women are forbidden to wear split-legged garments.

Was the scripture in Deut. saying that women couldn't wear robes? That's what men wore then.

Good post, I agree with you.

Also, while looking for the gender distinction, one of the first things you notice is the hair... hair is a good distinction. (facial hair included)

Those who are trying be identified w/ the opposite sex will often display it w/hair and actions. My belief is a woman should have feminine hair... and most women choose to do this... it is a woman thing!

A man cross dressing will wear a long wig, makeup and skirt/dress because all those things are inclusive to a woman. An effeminate man will take on the actions of a woman and it is wrong. A soft/effeminate man gets on my nerves and we see way too much of it today.

A woman will have a butch hair cut and wear men's pants and masculine clothing... you can spot that too.

If people would just break the mindset of tradition and look around at the culture today... just follow their heart in true conviction of serving God... they will not look like the opposite sex, there will not be a gender distinction problem.

It is just as it was in the bible days... is distinction with colors/fabrics.... we are all just smart enough to know when the pants are women's and men's. I have some of the cutest capris... not a masculine man around would be found dead in them.

Pressing-On
07-09-2009, 10:57 AM
My post was completely tongue-in-cheek. No, nowhere does it say that we have to look different. (men or women... our current Apostolic culture insists that women must look different, but not the men) Christians have looked just like the society around them for most of Christianity. It's only the past 70 years or so that we've insisted on dressing differently, as far as I can tell.

It says to be separate. In my opinion, that's going to involve the things we love and the way we act.
Separate is actually a pretty tall word.

aphorizo - to set off by boundary, divide, separate, sever.

GrowingPains
07-09-2009, 11:15 AM
My post was completely tongue-in-cheek. No, nowhere does it say that we have to look different. (men or women... our current Apostolic culture insists that women must look different, but not the men) Christians have looked just like the society around them for most of Christianity. It's only the past 70 years or so that we've insisted on dressing differently, as far as I can tell.

It says to be separate. In my opinion, that's going to involve the things we love and the way we act.

The differences would be Mind, Body and Soul. Everything. Doesn't justify unbiblical standards, but certainly means we would dress different than a heathen.

*AQuietPlace*
07-09-2009, 11:41 AM
The differences would be Mind, Body and Soul. Everything. Doesn't justify unbiblical standards, but certainly means we would dress different than a heathen.
A lot of heathens dress exactly as we do.

A lot of pagan women have long, uncut hair and wear skirts. I mean real pagans... the ones who proudly call themselves pagan. Many of them go in for the long hair, no makeup, skirt look.

We consider many college professors heathen, and most of them dress just like Pentecostal men.

This whole 'separate in dress' thing just has no biblical basis. We should dress in a way that is becoming to a Christian, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it's going to be drastically different.

Yes, as our world gets more naked, we are going to look more different. But not just for the sake of looking different.

GrowingPains
07-09-2009, 12:01 PM
A lot of heathens dress exactly as we do.

A lot of pagan women have long, uncut hair and wear skirts. I mean real pagans... the ones who proudly call themselves pagan. Many of them go in for the long hair, no makeup, skirt look.

We consider many college professors heathen, and most of them dress just like Pentecostal men.

This whole 'separate in dress' thing just has no biblical basis. We should dress in a way that is becoming to a Christian, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it's going to be drastically different.

Yes, as our world gets more naked, we are going to look more different. But not just for the sake of looking different.

I think you missed what I was saying.

We are separted in every way you can imagine. If I am separated by my worldview and values, that bleeds into every area of my life. A woman wouldn't dress like a sleaze-bag, a man would dress like a gentleman, a youth will dress respectably. It doesn't mean no one else is or does -- I mean there's plenty of non-Christians that have some good fruit. But definitely what I see in the mirror, as a product of His image, and in consideration of my brother and sister, as well as the responsibility of being His ambassador will help me consider what to wear.. and that does (and should) make a difference!

It's not always "drastically" different, but I didn't propose that either. There may be cases where it's drastic, but for the most part, it's just living modestly, humbly and reflecting as much of Christ as we can. Clothing is an expression of you. Don't believe me? Ask the Fashion Industry. Hip Hop clothes, Hippy clothes, Athlete clothes, Preppy clothes, etc... There is a message.

(BTW, some probably wouldn't have a problem with nudity if the world started doing it. On what basis would they use?)

*AQuietPlace*
07-09-2009, 12:44 PM
I think you missed what I was saying.

We are separted in every way you can imagine. If I am separated by my worldview and values, that bleeds into every area of my life. A woman wouldn't dress like a sleaze-bag, a man would dress like a gentleman, a youth will dress respectably. It doesn't mean no one else is or does -- I mean there's plenty of non-Christians that have some good fruit. But definitely what I see in the mirror, as a product of His image, and in consideration of my brother and sister, as well as the responsibility of being His ambassador will help me consider what to wear.. and that does (and should) make a difference!

It's not always "drastically" different, but I didn't propose that either. There may be cases where it's drastic, but for the most part, it's just living modestly, humbly and reflecting as much of Christ as we can. Clothing is an expression of you. Don't believe me? Ask the Fashion Industry. Hip Hop clothes, Hippy clothes, Athlete clothes, Preppy clothes, etc... There is a message.

(BTW, some probably wouldn't have a problem with nudity if the world started doing it. On what basis would they use?)
I agree. Christians should dress modestly and appropriately.

But many use the verse about 'being separate' to say that women must wear skirts, etc. I was addressing that viewpoint.

Nudity - well, I guess the argument against that would be the fact that God put clothes on Adam and Eve. :)

GrowingPains
07-09-2009, 12:57 PM
I agree. Christians should dress modestly and appropriately.

But many use the verse about 'being separate' to say that women must wear skirts, etc. I was addressing that viewpoint.

Nudity - well, I guess the argument against that would be the fact that God put clothes on Adam and Eve. :)

*sarcasm* "Yeah, but since Christ is the new Adam, we aren't bound to all that stupid Old Testament junk!"

The fact is, our dominant culture sees certain things as immodest, and the church would be wise to stay above reproach in whatever area that is. Just wisdom.

I enjoy your perspectives QuietPlace.

Michlow
07-09-2009, 02:21 PM
A lot of heathens dress exactly as we do.

A lot of pagan women have long, uncut hair and wear skirts. I mean real pagans... the ones who proudly call themselves pagan. Many of them go in for the long hair, no makeup, skirt look.

We consider many college professors heathen, and most of them dress just like Pentecostal men.

This whole 'separate in dress' thing just has no biblical basis. We should dress in a way that is becoming to a Christian, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it's going to be drastically different.

Yes, as our world gets more naked, we are going to look more different. But not just for the sake of looking different.

I live in a small little hick town, that has a small little hick library. Occasionally for fun, I will grab an old book, with no dust jacket to read. I recently read one called "The Quaker Bride" that was published in 1952, and was quite amusing.

The story actually took place in the 1850's and at one point the heroine (who still wore modest, plain Quaker dress) mused that the young generation of Quakers had had begun to let go of the Quaker mode of dress. For they realized that their appearance had become so far from the norm of society that it brought undue attention to them, and was actually defeating their purpose (to wear modest and simple in adornment).

There really IS nothing new under the sun!

*AQuietPlace*
07-09-2009, 02:25 PM
I live in a small little hick town, that has a small little hick library. Occasionally for fun, I will grab an old book, with no dust jacket to read. I recently read one called "The Quaker Bride" that was published in 1952, and was quite amusing.

The story actually took place in the 1850's and at one point the heroine (who still wore modest, plain Quaker dress) mused that the young generation of Quakers had had begun to let go of the Quaker mode of dress. For they realized that their appearance had become so far from the norm of society that it brought undue attention to them, and was actually defeating their purpose (to wear modest and simple in adornment).

There really IS nothing new under the sun!
Those were some wise Quakers. :)