Serious Pants/ Skirts Question... Not Trying to Debate... Thanks!
 

Please understand that I am not trying to stir the proverbial pot here. I have a sincere question that I am trying to find the answer to.

Consider the hypothetical: A person, say a baptist preacher somewhere in the US where there is no OP church etc..., is studying the bible, and seeking God in prayer. During this time of seeking God, he discovers the truth of Jesus name baptism, Holy Ghost infilling and tongues, and the oneness of God. Now in trying to please God, and studying the scriptures for more truth, this baptist (formerly baptist) minister stumbles across Deut 22:5. In his study, and considering society of the last 30 years (say this pastor is @ 30 years old), he is trying to find a way to apply gender distinction in dress in a way that is relevant for today. In the society he has grown up in, both women and man wear pants. So in his study he DOES NOT come to the same conclusions regarding pants/skirts that traditional OP's adhere to. Is this person's position acceptible in the sight of God? He is now teaching his congregation and baptizing them in Jesus name, teaching them to seek the Holy Ghost, and is teaching them to lead a seperated life, but he simply has not come to the same conclusion as OP's regarding pants/skirts. Is this a tenable positions for this "baptist" minister? Can he maintain this position and still be acceptible in the sight of God?

Yes, he can. That scripture was never about women wearing pants. We took it that way, because at the time UPC was formed MOST women wore dresses. HOWEVER, it is my opinion that scripture is talking about cross genders like the gays.

In other words, you dress to appear at the opposite sex. Never has been about women wearing pants.

Hope that helps. :)

Absolutley. If he was "formerly" a baptist pastor, chances are he actually has some thoelogicical training in how to discern or exegete scripture. If he's got some working knowledge of a greek.hebrew lexicon he can look up the wording of Deut 22:5 and see that the "man" in that verse came from the hebrew "Geber", not Iyish or Adam as we see translated to mean "man" in other scriptural applications.

The woman shall not put on the apparrel of a warrior or manufactured articles used to make war.

Deut. 22:5 NEVER EVER NEVER had the implied meaning we oneness pentecostals have given it.

At one time in my life I thouhgtit did because a preacher told me it did.

I have come to realize he was wrong in teaching this and so was I for believing him without knowing what the word really said.

Come on, where are the UCs? :popcorn2

Out trying to track down proof that there has ever actually been a hair cutting party. :killinme

He's lost as two boys kissing. :D

Finally! :toofunny

sure he is ok, and can maintain his standing, i do it everyday, dt,:hypercoffee:poloroid

What!:hunter

I really would like to get the opinions of some of the conservative brethren. Serious opinions, not jabs like "lost as two boys kissing"... thanks!

Sorry, I thought you wanted scriptural opinions. The UC's only have serious opinions.

I want "serious scriptural" opinions! :cool:

Actually, I would like to hear the reasoning of someone who would say "his position is not acceptible"... how do they come to that conclusion?

If it's acceptible for this baptist guy who just got the "truth", then why would it not be acceptible for OP preachers of today to reevaluate their traditional position?

tradition

I have no problem with anyone using as a line that they have drawn, but teach it as such.

However, many honestly believe that is what that scripture means, and I can respect that.

Yes.

I was just filling in for Bro Epley until he gets here. :driving

Many are/have.

hehehe

Been around enough UC's to know that they would play the submission to authority card if you want in certain fellowship circles. What else could they say? When we moved from one state to another many years ago we had come from a very high profile church in the UPCtime known for liberalism.
The incoming pastor (UC) was very polite, but suggested we visit around first. He called back a week or so later. We had been leaning toward that church and ended up there for over 4 years. Left on good note with him and almost the whole congregation. Point being he wasn't so sure he wanted us at first.

Are you speaking of the traditional OP interpretation and application? How was this passage interpreted and applied 2000 years ago? What if you wipe out the history of American culture, except for the way people have dressed for the last 30 years, how would it be possible to come to this traditional conclusion?

Consider, that OP's today who appeal to the pants/skirts interpretation of Deut 22:5 are doing so from a 1940's socitie's paradigm. If you were to only use the paradigm of "men's/women's" apparel for society of the last 30 years, what would be the most probable interpretation and application? Would people arbitrarily conclude pants/skirts? Or is there another tenable conclusion that they could arrive at besides "pants/skirts" and still be consistent with the "spirit" of the law of Deut 22:5?

If you didn't agree with the UC preacher's stance, then why did you choose to go there? Were they having revival?

Again, my point that I was trying to make it is the MAN trying to look like a woman? Is the WOMAN trying to look like a man?

It is not about women wearing pants, which was not even an issue 2,000 years ago, as even men didn't wear pants. Both genders wore robes with color distinction.

But that scripture IMO is about MEN/WOMEN not dressing to look like the opposite sex.

We keep saying that scripture is to women, it is too both sexes.

From what I can gather of the scripture, it really relates to a woman going out in the position of a warrior, which was a mans occupation. I see the scripture much more implying the changing of roles than necessarily dress attire itself. That may be a part of it, but it is not the complete understanding of it.

That is a recent teaching that I am hearing. But how does that apply to the men wearing women's apparel?

Did he tell you this or was that just your interpretation of what he said?

I find his position wise in that he was probably aware that the possibility existed that you might not want them.:)

Bob,

I understand what you are asking and what you have just said regarding the culture of the past 30 years.

I guess my concern would be that this same Baptist preacher would also interpret as modest a woman parading around on a beach or at a pool in her bra and panties (called a swimsuit for some unknown reason). Can he continue to embrace that position and still be OK?

Wasn't this (the usurping of the man's role by the woman) the thing that was in its infancy when women began to wear pants? I know that it was out of necessity due to the war but when the war was over it just seemed to snowball.

I don't see where one has to do anything with the other. Extremes here.

He asked about the intrepretation of a scripture, not about modesty.

Although I and others have said before, pants and dresses can both be immodest as well as modest.

Yeah, we found out how comfortable there were. :)

In fact, the first time I put on a pair of pants due to necessity, I considered myself backslid.

Sad.

Esther,

They are indeed relative. I was also referring to the interpretation of a scripture, just not Deut. 22:5 or whereever it is? :D

I was speaking of the one that talks about modest apparel. I Tim 2:9. If he is comfortable interpreting one differently and is accepted then it would follow that he would have to be accepted with his interpretation of the other.

I will assure you that there are many OPs on this site that feel it is fine for ladies to run around on the beach in their bra and panties and still be saved. Of course these same folks would be embarrassed if I accidentally walked in on them getting dressed in their REAL bra and panties. Go figure.:nah

The issue would be the same. A man should not take on a womans role in life either. His "garb" should be that of a man, and not that of a woman.

BUT IF we want to talk true modesty, no one would be wearing pants. :)

Now that's a whole nuther can of worms! What is the role of a man? I guess it's huntin' and fishin' and gruntin' and scratchin'? What is the role of a woman? Cleaning the house and changing diapers? I've changed many a diaper, in my day. Guess I'm doomed.

I don't know Greek or Hebrew. I just know that in the book of Deaut., it speaks of a woman not wearing men's apparel, and vice versa.

On this day, September 14th, 2007, men don't wear dresses or skirts. At least where I live they don't. And if they do, I don't know it. lol So I will continue to wear my dresses and skirts, and let the men wear the pants.

If this stance ever changes, and men should start wearing dresses......well, I'll just have to face that if and when it happens.

Is there any official written documentation in the UPC that forbids or discourages women wearing pants? It's taught, but is there a formal position against it?

None that I know of. It is about like the rule on facial hair.

For the record, I don't believe ladies should be parading around on the beach in immodest attire. However, there is much more appropriate swim wear than what you, my friend have described.

And I will further declare that we males need more teaching and maturity on the proper respect and understanding in relating to our females sisters. Paul said, "I keep MY body under..." Instead of burning with lust, men let's get understanding. Appreciate the beauty without allowing lingering and fantasy, which never satisfies only inflames.

Been to Scotland, India or Africa lately?? Why don't we just let folks and the Spirit of God dictate what they wear. Get the clothesline removed from the pulpit, and bring back the preaching of the Cross, and what Jesus actually accomplished at the Cross.

The south preaches against it and mixed bathing.

Mixed bathing is specifically addressed in the manual, however women wearing pants isn't (and neither is uncut hair unless I just missed it)... so obviously being anti-television is more important than women cutting their hair. :D

Uncut hair is addressed with jewelry and make-up, I believe.