More on Skirts
 

(More on skirts: These write-ups are designed to illustrate circular logic and systemic teachings that are illogical. They are not meant to criticize or look down upon any choice a person may make on a personal level.)

Many church systems teach that women should wear skirts and not pants. This is the main scripture used to teach this doctrine: "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". Deut 22:5

When this is taught, it is said that it is not salvational but that women wear skirts or dresses because they are saved and not to get saved. This continues the circular logic. No one will actually come out and say the next statement, but what is being said, in effect, is that if you don't wear skirts, or eventually come to that understanding, you are not saved because you are an abomination to God by continuing to wear that which pertains to the opposite sex according to the definitions put forth by these churches and authorities.

Here are some examples of some illogical teachings:

In DK Bernard's Book Practical Holiness; A Second Look, page 180, he writes, as some have an objection to exclusively skirts on women: "There was little difference between male and female clothing in the Old Testament. In fact, men wore skirts." Then he answers the objection: "Deuteronomy 22:5 stands as evidence that there was a significant difference. Men and women wore different types of robes and headgear, and women wore veils. Among the Hebrews, neither sex was permitted by Mosaic law to wear the same form of clothing as was used by the other (Deut 22:5). A few articles of female clothing carried somewhat the same name and basic pattern, yet there was always sufficient difference in embossing, embroidery, and needlework so that in appearance the line of demarcation between men and women could be readily detected".

So, this is his argument to the objection. Let's look at pants for a moment. Do pants carry somewhat the same name and basic pattern but there is still sufficient difference to tell them apart? Yes. Is the cut of a woman's pants different than that of a mans? Yes. Are they often patterned with feminine styles? Yes. Is the line of demarcation clearly detected? Usually, yes. So, by his own definition, he answers the objection with an affirmation that pants can be women's apparel.

Another objection (pg 182) "Pants are made in women's styles today, so they do not violate Deut 22:5." He answers: "Even if we accepted this objection, it would not permit women to wear many things that they do, such as men's jeans and military fatigues. In our culture, pants have always been associated with men so that all forms of pants are still that which pertaineth to a man". Accepting women's pants would leave men without any style of clothing that is uniquely male. Furthermore, the ways in which women's pants are distinguished from men's are very minor. The first impression, the silhouette, the view from a distance, the overall picture is still the same."

Once again, he uses his opinions as a basis for all people in Western society. They probably make military fatigues for women now. If they don't, it's easy enough for women to go by their own conscience in this matter and wear pants that they find suitable and feminine enough for themselves. It is up to the individual to decide. It is not DK Bernard's job to decide this for all women. Pants were associated with men in our society but that idea is long since past. Do men need a style uniquely their own? Did they need a style uniquely their own in biblical times when both sexes wore robes? Once again, DK Bernard draws lines that are illogical. The view from a distance is the same for men and women in either robes or pants. He quotes that Genesis 24:64-65 is "proof" that the difference in robes were enough to tell from afar off. Here are the verses: "Rebekah also looked up and saw Isaac. She got down from her camel and asked the servant, “Who is that man in the field coming to meet us?” “He is my master,” the servant answered. So she took her veil and covered herself." He is truly grasping at straws here in order to hold onto his tradition and make it mandatory for all women. The sad part is that he, perhaps unwittingly, condemns all those who don't hold his view as being an abomination to God.

(Written by ILG for the Facebook Group: Breaking Out.)

Re: More on Skirts
 

This should be moved to the Debate section.

Re: More on Skirts
 

So can we find examples in Gentile New Testament culture where they dressed distinctively?

Again I say that if we are to have gender distinction and it's commanded by God, men should not be clean shaven, because even though he isn't wearing that which pertaineth to a woman, he is altering his natural form to be more feminine.

If anything, with all this trans and gender dysphoria mess we should be screaming for our men to be as manly looking as possible.

I mean hey, Bro. Urshan preached against beards using the argument that,"The homosexual wears the beard." So if our doctrine changes to reversely accommodate sinful cultural behavior, we need to reverse course on the beard issue.

Re: More on Skirts
 

So, how would you apply this scripture, today?

Re: More on Skirts
 

If this is really true, then he was mistaken, wrong.

Re: More on Skirts
 

You're probably right.

Re: More on Skirts
 

Even the world knows when someone is dressing like a lesbian or in drag.

Re: More on Skirts
 

It'd be nice to have the context of the alleged quote.

Re: More on Skirts
 

"It is not DK Bernard's job to decide this for all women."

He's not deciding it for all women. Dr. Bernard wrote a book in which he gave his reasons as to why he believes what he believes.

This has been argued and argued over and over on AFF. There's nothing new here. If you don't like what he wrote in his book, that's your right. It's also his right to write a book as he chooses.

I don't agree with him on everything, particularly the use of Deuteronomy 22:5, but I'm not going to complain about what he believes. Nor am I going to start a campaign of creating threads singling out Dr. Bernard's opinions.

Re: More on Skirts
 

Yeah, but still I can't think of any context to where the alleged statement attributed to him could be any thing more than a faulty stereotype similar to what I was initially taught when I first started to attend a certain denominational church when stationed in NC.

With some things, in the past, some people of renown were sincerely mistaken.

Sometimes, I am sincerely mistaken and wrong too.

It happens.

Re: More on Skirts
 

Lesbians aren't defined by dress, but by behavior...Kinda like Christians should be....

Re: More on Skirts
 

I agree with you but some lesbians dress a certain way and that was the point of my comment.

Re: More on Skirts
 

I asked how you would apply the scripture, today, and you jumped to lesbians and dressing in drag.
Not sure I understand your answer.

Re: More on Skirts
 

We don't define characteristics of a entire group by the behavior of a subset. You're referring to a subtype of lesbians called "Bull Dyke".

Re: More on Skirts
 

I'm Scottish. Do I get any say in this? LOL


http://media.houston.spriing.co.uk/l.../015/15172.jpg

Re: More on Skirts
 

I wonder if any scholarly work has been done on this aspect of Pentecostalism ? When did it first appear in American Pentecostal literature ? Is it exclusive to Pentecostalism ?

My Harry Morse biography is not a theological book, but I have yet to find any documentation about Dt. 22:5 connected with the man or his school in any way.

But, the main part of the book is dated prior to WW2. Did this doctrine become more promenade after the war ?

Not looking for a theological debate. Just thinking about the history of this doctrine in the USA.

Re: More on Skirts
 

My grandfather, who was a preachers kid, used to say that they never had to preach against this. He said that no "good" women wore pants until WW2 started and many had to go to work. He was raised in a preachers home and started preaching himself around 1930 (I believe). His dad was an AOG preacher who saw the light very early.

Re: More on Skirts
 

http://www.historyandwomen.com/2012/...and-pants.html


In the Western world, Historically, in that part of the world, women have worn dresses and skirt-like garments while men have worn pants (trousers). During the late 1800s, women started to wear pants for industrial work. During World War II, women wore their husband's pants while they took on jobs, and in the 1970s, pants became especially fashionable for women. Today, pants are worn far more often than skirts by women, and many women wear pants almost all the time.

Although trousers for women in western countries did not become fashion items until the later 20th century, women began wearing men's trousers (suitably altered) for outdoor work a hundred years earlier.

The Wigan pit brow girls scandalized Victorian society by wearing trousers for their dangerous work in the coal mines. They wore skirts over their trousers and rolled them up to their waist to keep them out of the way.

Women working the ranches of the 19th century American West also wore trousers for riding, and in the early 20th century aviatrices and other working women often wore trousers. Actresses Marlene Dietrich and Katharine Hepburn were often photographed in trousers from the 1930s and helped make trousers acceptable for women.

Re: More on Skirts
 

Re: More on Skirts
 

Pants on females started after WWII.

Hey I have full arm tattoos, and there are places in Japan where I wouldn't be allowed to enter. Not because of any religious prohibition but because criminals only got tattooed. There was a time when everyone would of been shocked to see pants on a woman. Now, we have bigger fish to fry. Sadly when we start posting about some UPC preacher's book, we aren't discussing Bible. But just looking back on yesteryear. When little Jimmy got beat up by the mean Ultra conservative Pentecostal kid for his Sheaves for Christ money. D. K. Bernard? Aren't we only preaching to a very small group, when we name him as his book? A group made up of people licking each other's Ecclesiastical wounds? All reminiscing about the old times when they were in their abusive Pentecostal cults? Hugging the their Epistles of David Wasmundt, and kissing their Icons of Thomas Fudge. :heeheehee

Maybe it's me?

If I left a movement I sure wouldn't be hanging around Social Media looking for someone to understand my pain. Especially if I supposedly moved on to some greater revelation concerning religion.

Whatever.

Re: More on Skirts
 

Re: More on Skirts
 

And paint their bodies blue.

https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/i...mKiC88yRyniLSQ

Re: More on Skirts
 

Blue body ink? CHECK! Lol

Re: More on Skirts
 

Everytime we have these discussions someone has to bring up a kilt.
They also used the kilt for many uses, including toilet paper. So if you want to bring them up, then use them in the fashion they were originally created. :lol

Re: More on Skirts
 

When I was in the organization I was in, it was a sin for women to wear pants. Even to question this rule was forbidden.

Culturally, this is very interesting. If De. 22:5 has been interpreted as a ban on women wearing pants for the time period from 1941-20??, we are looking at a very short time period in a small segment of global Christianity.

Very interesting indeed.

Re: More on Skirts
 

I'm not saying it was cool for a woman to wear pants prior to WWII. It wasn't an issue just like Homosexuals getting legally married wasn't an issue. Imagine a bunch of homosexuals would of had a parade down main street in 1962 of Goat Lick Montana wanting homosexual rights? It wouldn't of gone over so well.

Re: More on Skirts
 

I've never used a kilt as toilet paper but I HAVE had to text my wife from inside a KMart bathroom to go buy some toilet paper and toss it in to me lol....I kinda liked my socks that day.

Re: More on Skirts
 

Too bad a Scotsman wasn't around. :heeheehee

Re: More on Skirts
 

Sorry bro, but my tartan colors don't include brown lol

Re: More on Skirts
 

Re: More on Skirts
 

This is all silly nonsense

If you are going to follow the law from Deuteronomy then you have to follow it all, not just one single verse you happen to like.

If Deuteronomy 22:5 is to be followed so is also the rest of Deuteronomy from 22:6 to 22:30, that includes such things as

8 When you build a new house, make a parapet around your roof

9 Do not plant two kinds of seed in your vineyard;

11 Do not wear clothes of wool and linen woven together.

12 Make tassels on the four corners of the cloak you wear.

22 If a man is found sleeping with another man’s wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die.

28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver

Of course we also need to go on to Deuteronomy chapter 23 all the way to chapter 34, and of course let us not forget from chapter 1 to chapter 21

Re: More on Skirts
 

:highfive

Re: More on Skirts
 

FlamingZ, are you trying prove that God doesn't care about crossdressing?

Your argument and defense that men can crossdress and change their name to Caitlin is an old one.

We were having one of our open Bible studies down in the city by the bus station. When a feisty young man was using your argument to disprove that Deuteronomy 22:5 was even applicable to anyone today. Before I could even open my mouth to offer some explanations. Two young women piped up. Both were fully tattooed, one with a huge piercing through her septum.

They were calm, they were firm with their questions, and refutations. They just wanted the (now heated) young man to explain if all that stuff was cool back then, and God condoned it. Then God condoned the rape of virgins? At this point the crowd became bigger, and you could imagine who had the floor. As my sorry young friend now turned his refutation of Deuteronomy 22:5 into a circus trainwreck defending a position he had no clue on how to defend.

When I was finally allowed to step into the conversation. I explained how Deuteronomy is another law book in the Bible. The verse in question was mostly about testimony, and a death penalty, I led everyone (the group was huge at this point, because everyone gathered around) through the context of what is being said in the verses. The lawyers of the law "Moses" is dealing with a situation where taking married tribal virgins was a capital offense and worthy of capital punishment. A man who had sexual relations with a betrothed tribal woman was as if he murdered his nearest brother. Yet, if a man had sexual relations with a tribal virgin under her father's roof, they are caught then he must marry her, and never be able to divorce her. Yet, one of the factors is the "crying out." Because while us Americans believe it means to yell, shout, Freddy Kruger screams of horror. What was happening is that she was screaming that she was betrothed, a virgin. They next one who is taken, lain with, and discovered was one who never said anything. No crying out, no announcing status of betrovel.

But the Bible is clear to point out that in one case it is death. In the other it is a tribal marriage without separation. One individual asked couldn't they move. No, for the one reason these people were all moving together within their tribes. Everyone was accountable, everyone was communal. Murder of your next door neighbor was actually your nearest brother. The street Bible study went on for a while as we hashed it all out. People left with a better view on what Deuteronomy, Leviticus, and Numbers (had to bring up Numbers 30 to husband/father authority over females in the home) had to say about tribal life. Also how God isn't into Gender blending in attire, and behavior.

Re: More on Skirts
 

:highfive

Re: More on Skirts
 

Dude that's pretty amazing. Love to pick your brain one day.....Once I come up with some intelligent questions lol

Re: More on Skirts
 

I would so want to be on a street ministry team with Bro EB.

Re: More on Skirts
 

People around the United States are just the rank and file. Even if they're just the regular Sunday Morningists or Easter/Xmas/Funeral Churchians. Give me them, give me those guys and gals. The ILGs and the Emma Turfbuilders need no physician. Which is so ironic, because they are really the same person. They are both religious, they both believe someone else got it all wrong, and they are convinced they are the one to straighten us out. Please, I don't want anyone to get me wrong, ILG is a human being who is just like me. She has a life outside this forum. She holds convictions of right and wrong. She is my sister, she isn't a devil, she may of had the same experiences in Pennycost we all of had, but we all responded differently.

People who you meet when having Bible studies out around a city are very interesting. They are from all sorts of backgrounds and religions, ideologies, mythologies. Our world is changing quickly. People are trying to make ends meet, suffering from having to break little rocks into big rocks. Teens who are as lost as a baked potato.Listen they really don't care about a book written by Brother Bernard, or my ability to refute or prove that book.

They see me reading a Bible, not material from Word Aflame Press.

They ask about what I'm reading, and it isn't Watchtower.

They sit down as I'm teaching the scriptures to the group, and other sit down. People start to ask questions. Individuals pipe up and refute, argue, cry, laugh. Some have gotten hornet fire angry, then cry, then laugh, then get the picture. 4,000 years ago some joker on a camel had a female figure out he was a guy? So she covered herself with her Bronze Age hoodie? But it doesn't take Joe Smith's peep stone to understand Deuteronomy 22:5.

Re: More on Skirts
 

We were having one of our open Bible studies down in the city by the bus station. When a feisty young man was using your argument to disprove that Deuteronomy 22:5 was even applicable to anyone today. Before I could even open my mouth to offer some explanations. Two young women piped up. Both were fully tattooed, one with a huge piercing through her septum.

Am I reading this correctly that this man was in a Bible study down town and was discussing Deut. 22:5? That would be like trying to scale a fish before it was caught. I would think street preaching would be about preaching about the love of God and his mercy and trying to get people saved - not about how to dress. My My.. Pathetic

Re: More on Skirts
 

No, no one was giving a Bible study on Deut. 22:5. My fault, seeing I didn't give every single detail of what led up to questions, or situation. Just started from the point which I was dealing with here. But for you full of love critics who judge from the sidelines. I will tell you what led up to the young Calvary Chapelist wanting to save the day. He brought up Deuteronomy 22:5 because he noticed how some of the ladies were dressed. When he focused in a young sister who was sitting between the two tattooed women. The two tattooed girls turned to look at the young sister who was being zoned in on. They wanted to see her reply, but the young defender of his faith didn't wait, he dropped shields and fired full photon torpedos, the young sister was bewildered, and it showed. It wasn't that she couldn't give a clear intelligent answer, she most certainly was able, but that she wasn't allowed. The one tattooed girl at seeing this, her eyes rolled over white, she and her friend then calmly launched their questions. The young man with "the Bible says it, I believe it, and that settles it!, " shirt, started to sink, his shields were greatly damaged, Scotty couldn't get him anymore power, and the ship was breaking up. As the two tattooed females gently circled in for the kill. That's when I took my chance to explain my thoughts on the subject. Also to bring the Bible study back down to earth. I'm not into allowing a Bible study to become Gladiator school.

Re: More on Skirts
 

The Council of Jerusalem decided the fate of the relationship between believers and the Law of Moses.

As usual, De. 22:5 did not merit the attention of anyone there.