What Would You Say?

[lovinglife]

Originally Posted by Pianoman

He said he really likes the church, so I would suppose he'll be there this weekend unless he goes on a vacation. Tell him Pianoman is practicing and getting in shape for the golf challenge!

ha....sure thing.....

[Pragmatist]

Originally Posted by Carpenter

I disagree, a child shouldn't get their faith based on an organization, structure or even church. A child's faith should have its foundation at home. A child seeing dedication and consistency at home is more powerful than any silly conflict over religious culture.

Well, I was going to say something similar, but now I can just AMEN you.

[theoldpaths]

Originally Posted by Pianoman

I had a good friend that moved from Nashville to Florida a few years ago. He is an anesthesiologist, and his family has been looking for a good Apostolic church. He was raised Apostolic and attended Christ Church while in Nashville.

He called me a few days ago and told me that they found an Apostolic church that runs about 300-400 people. The church is not UPC and from what he explained to me, is ultra-con.

They really enjoy the services, and his children are getting involved and have made some good friends there.

The problem is that his wife wears pants and see nothings wrong with it at all. He hopes that someone doesn't approach his wife about it, because she is very strong in her opinion about it! She wears dresses to church, but that is the only time she does. It hasn't become an issue yet, but he feels that soon it may be an issue. He called to ask what he should do!

What would you tell him?

If its a good church that believes in revival and holiness and the Spirit of God moves in that place and the Pastor preaches the word without fear or favour, then I would stay.

I would then get him and his wife to sincerely and honestly pray that God would speak to them concerning this issue and wait to see if God uses the man of God to address the issue.

I was talking to a female co-worker and she can remember when she was in a public high-school in 1961 and all the girls had to wear dresses - no exceptions; and it was not a uniformed school.

We must surrender everything to Him; we are not our own, we have been bought with a price. We are to deny ourselves and take up our cross daily.

Gal 5:24 And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.

When we gender-blend we are minimizing the distinctness b/n the sexes.

God wants there to be a distinct difference b/n the sexes - 1 Cor 11 shows this is still true.

1Co 11:16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

[CC1]

Originally Posted by theoldpaths

I was talking to a female co-worker and she can remember when she was in a public high-school in 1961 and all the girls had to wear dresses - no exceptions; and it was not a uniformed school.

We must surrender everything to Him; we are not our own, we have been bought with a price. We are to deny ourselves and take up our cross daily.

Gal 5:24 And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.

When we gender-blend we are minimizing the distinctness b/n the sexes.

God wants there to be a distinct difference b/n the sexes - 1 Cor 11 shows this is still true.

1Co 11:16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

Extremely Old Paths,

By your logic here that a school rule from 47 years ago validates a dress code why not go back a little futher to Victorian days?

You won't do that because if you did virtually all Pentecostal women today would be considered shameful and hussies for showing their ankles as they do today. Ankles were considered an object of lust.

[theoldpaths]

Originally Posted by CC1

Extremely Old Paths,

By your logic here that a school rule from 47 years ago validates a dress code why not go back a little futher to Victorian days?

You won't do that because if you did virtually all Pentecostal women today would be considered shameful and hussies for showing their ankles as they do today. Ankles were considered an object of lust.

Well I base my faith on the word of God - I'm sure you're familiar with the following...

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.

I wonder why white women wore dresses for so long before the World Wars where women had to work in the factories and wear pants so their dresses wouldn't get caught in the machinery; because the men were off fighting?

I wonder why the public schools had the rule for women to only wear dresses even though there was no uniform? I wonder where they got that from?

But of course since the social revolution of the 50's and 60's, we have a generation who rebelled against established authority whether it was God, the bible, the church, or whatever - and decided to conduct their own social experiment. And the world has been suffering and living with the consequences ever since. Its no wonder that society got sick and tired of having religion without true salvation; it would make anyone either eventually seek for real truth or rebel.

Incidentally, men having long hair on their head and on their face was a definite sign and show of rebellion against what they have always been taught before that - that it was a shame for men to have long hair. The problem was that religion didn't have the goods to keep people in their churches. I wonder who the apostolics of that time wanted to identify with? Those who had long hair on their heads and on their faces as a deliberate act and sign of rebellion against established authority, or to take a stand to identify with something other than that? Just a thought.

Makes me think of the scripture...

Come out from among them and be ye separate.

God has always wanted his people to be separate and distinct from the world; be not conformed to this world. What was highly esteemed among men is an abomination to God. The funny thing about society is that the things that are highly esteemed among men sometimes change - fads come and fads go.

If it looks like a duck, walks, like a duck, talks like a duck; then guess what? Its a duck. A rose by any other name is still a rose.

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by theoldpaths

Well I base my faith on the word of God - I'm sure you're familiar with the following...

I wonder why the public schools had the rule for women to only wear dresses even though there was no uniform? I wonder where they got that from?

Makes me think of the scripture...

Come out from among them and be ye separate.

God has always wanted his people to be separate and distinct from the world; be not conformed to this world. What was highly esteemed among men is an abomination to God. The funny thing about society is that the things that are highly esteemed among men sometimes change - fads come and fads go.

If it looks like a duck, walks, like a duck, talks like a duck; then guess what? Its a duck. A rose by any other name is still a rose.

So how were they separate before society changed and left them stuck in a time warp? Being separate isn't about how I dress.

[Monkeyman]

Originally Posted by theoldpaths

Well I base my faith on the word of God - I'm sure you're familiar with the following...

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.

I wonder why white women wore dresses for so long before the World Wars where women had to work in the factories and wear pants so their dresses wouldn't get caught in the machinery; because the men were off fighting?

I wonder why the public schools had the rule for women to only wear dresses even though there was no uniform? I wonder where they got that from?

But of course since the social revolution of the 50's and 60's, we have a generation who rebelled against established authority whether it was God, the bible, the church, or whatever - and decided to conduct their own social experiment. And the world has been suffering and living with the consequences ever since. Its no wonder that society got sick and tired of having religion without true salvation; it would make anyone either eventually seek for real truth or rebel.

Incidentally, men having long hair on their head and on their face was a definite sign and show of rebellion against what they have always been taught before that - that it was a shame for men to have long hair. The problem was that religion didn't have the goods to keep people in their churches. I wonder who the apostolics of that time wanted to identify with? Those who had long hair on their heads and on their faces as a deliberate act and sign of rebellion against established authority, or to take a stand to identify with something other than that? Just a thought.

Makes me think of the scripture...

Come out from among them and be ye separate.

God has always wanted his people to be separate and distinct from the world; be not conformed to this world. What was highly esteemed among men is an abomination to God. The funny thing about society is that the things that are highly esteemed among men sometimes change - fads come and fads go.

If it looks like a duck, walks, like a duck, talks like a duck; then guess what? Its a duck. A rose by any other name is still a rose.

what does this mean? And your argument against facial hair is ridiculous, seriously, it is, no, I mean it, it's reaallly bad!

[theoldpaths]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

So how were they separate before society changed and left them stuck in a time warp? Being separate isn't about how I dress.

I will agree that it is not ALL ABOUT how you dress; but obviously the Lord is concerned not only about how we dress, but about our hair as well.

Imagine that - God is concerned about our hair!

Reminds me of the scripture that every hair on our head is numbered.

Walking down the streets nowadays, sometimes you have no idea whether the person in front of you is a man or a woman!

God is so cool!

[theoldpaths]

Originally Posted by Monkeyman

what does this mean? And your argument against facial hair is ridiculous, seriously, it is, no, I mean it, it's reaallly bad!

That's ok - i don't claim that God has called me to be a preacher or a teacher or in the ministry. I just love God and read and live a life of loving obedience to his word including obeying those who have the rule over me and I am blessed.

BTW, are you apostolic?

[Monkeyman]

Please tell me how the founders in the Apostolic movement were in rebellion by having facial hair??? Please????? Please tell me in my culture (latino) where a mustache or beard back in the day showed your masculinity and was a sign of being a male in MY culture, please tell me how that is rebellious?