Listen to this sermon and leave a comment.
You gotta love these works-based righteousness types.
Like this:
One blogger likes this post.
Search My Site
Pray for Israel
Hebrews 1:1-2
God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world.Contact Info
My RSS Feed
Want to subscribe to my RSS feed? Look no further! Click here.
-
Comments
- Chrystal Whitt on The Problem with Not Questioning
- Francesmarie on The Problem with Not Questioning
- Linda on The Problem with Not Questioning
- mywordlikefire on The Problem with Not Questioning
- ian vincent on The Problem with Not Questioning
- Lady D on The Problem with Not Questioning
- Eli on The Problem with Not Questioning
- Bud Press on The Problem with Not Questioning
Heres a reason men & women both wear pants.1) It cold in North America ( Brrrr ) I think this
pastor should try wearing a dress on a cold wintery night, when the wind in blowing, just to try it out. Wearing pants just makes practical sense.
2) I can easily make out a definative difference between a man in pants & a women in pants. He also needs glasses. A women is no less a women in pants or a dress. It a little overkill to suggest ‘ men don’t wear dresses ‘. because in this culture, that makes you a crossdresser 3) A century ago, in middle eastern climes, and for most of history, men and women wore the same outfits – tunics, and robes, ect. Maybe he wouldn’t be impressed with what Jesus wore ?
That being said, his theology is one which is works based. He forgets that while the Old Testament was written to us, the New Testament was written for us. This guy is more interested in changing people’s behaviours than introducing them to the Master. I’m sure that if you were a smelly old drunk or a prostitute, they’d want to clean you up on the outside before letting you walk thru their church doors.
Listen to what Paul says ” When I am with those who are weak, I share their weakness, for I want to bring the weak to Christ. Yes, I try to find common ground with everyone, doing everything I can to save some.”
If it meant putting on a dress, I’m sure Paul would do it ( Ok, maybe he would draw the line there, LOL ) The point is, our responsibilty is to draw others to Christ, and build them up in the faith. Changing their behaviour becomes God’s problem, and that isnt a problem,
because Christ becomes their life. Wearing a dress or pants or a tribal headress is a trivial issue
which bears no consequence in eternity.
Thats my comment.
Pants? Here where English is spoken, pants are an item of women’s underclothing. Does he mean trousers? …Why can’t you colonials learn to speak properly?
…Joking aside, I kinda like the guy: if he preached that over here in Limey Land — this Sceptr’d Isle of tattooed women and pierced men — the natives would soon be clamouring to relieve him of his own, er, pants…
And he might well be majoring on minors, but I don’t know that he’s actually preaching works-righteousness. My heart went out to his wife, though — she looked pretty tired, poor thing.
This is just stupid nonsense I wonder how much he gets paid to preach this stuff! Does he own big home, have Suv, 401k, guys like this should get a real job they sure don’t help tthe Lords work!
Why is it…it’s always a man telling women what to wear?
This guy is a bit off to be sure. I didn’t watch this video, but I’ve seen others by him, and he’s definitely got some issues.
That being said, I am a Christian female who has made the choice to wear skirts and dresses. I believe it honours the LORD to dress this way. Does that mean I judge other Christian women who wear pants? Of course not. Dress is not about skirts vs. pants. It goes so much deeper than that. It’s about pleasing the Lord. It’s about being holy. It’s about modesty. It’s about the heart. It’s about living for Christ in a world corrupted by sin. It’s about SO many other things than skirts and pants! I think in this day and age of “everything-goes” Christianity, as this website so clearly and helpfully shows us, it’s good for Christians to have standards in their lives, and dress is certainly one area that we could use some standards. I realize no one here has said that having a dress standard is legalistic, but I just want to say, having a dress standard does NOT make a Christian a legalist.
I’ve also found that wearing a skirt is a great door to open up witnessing opportunities. Many people have asked me why I wear a skirt, and I can almost always lead that into a conversation about the Lord. It’s great! Sadly, men like this preacher give others of us who would call themselves “fundamentalists” or “independent Baptists” a bad name (I’m pretty sure he puts himself in the independent baptist category, but I could be wrong on that). I’m sure no one here would make the mistake of lumping all “fundamentalists” into the same category, because wearing skirts doesn’t make us all like this guy!
BTW, I live in Canada where it gets VERY cold. I wear skirts all winter, and I don’t freeze! Imagine that!!!
Well said Jess!
It really wasn’t until after WWII that women began wearing pants like men (don’t believe me, look at pictures from that time period).
It’s about modesty and honoring God, not what WE want to do. The local megachurch down the road has women walking out of it on Sunday with pants so tight and plunging tops that it makes you wonder where their Godliness/modesty went.
Riddle me this, why is it that, in these days, if a woman dresses up just like a man, it is considered normal, but if a man dresses as a woman, puts on makeup and wears heels, he would be called a cross-dresser?
http://ianvincent.wordpress.com/
Riddle me this… why is it that in Biblical days, men and women dressed alot alike (robes, head coverings, etc.), and that was okay, but when they do it now, it’s considered a sin?
You go first.
OK, i will answer my question : it’s bcos satan wants to destroy womens God-given femininity and mens masculinity, and create a genderless scenario.
i think he has succeeded. Surf the Christian net and see how many people are left who have any Christlike character and integrity and have not been given over to delusions.
In ancient times men and women didn’t dress or look the same, that’s a myth. Neither were their hair lengths the same (1 Cor 11:14-15).
I agree with some of the posters that man-made rules over what is mens or womens clothing often doesn’t work, and is culturally biased.
http://ianvincent.wordpress.com/
In those days, men didn’t wear pants either. So, who’s sinning now, the men or the women?
Scripture teaches us not to dress in a way that makes us appear like the opposite sex. It’s not a good thing if we cloud the issue and bend towards legalism.
Exactly how much more Godly does it make me if I wear a dress or skirt all the time?
Hi Chrystal, i was trying to address the wider issues, rather than just the simple question of whether it is right or wrong for a woman to wear pants.
.
.
.
Here’s a scenario:
Let John MacArthur put on his wife’s dress and heels, and his wife put on his shirt and jeans ( if they fit) and they can both stand on the platform together next sunday : whom will people be most offended with?
The man, of course.
Why? ……………………………………
(I love JM, but as he is called the evangelical pope, let’s use him as a relevant example to make it more real)
http://ianvincent.wordpress.com/
If the guy is going to preach against women wearing pants he needs to preach against
that polyester suit he’s wearing.
“Why is it…it’s always a man telling women what to wear?”
Probably because men are called to be leaders in the Church and so do the majority of “telling” (teaching).
Paul “telling woman what to wear”
1Ti 2:9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;
1Ti 2:10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.
Peter “telling woman what to wear”
1 Pe 3:1 Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;
1Pe 3:2 While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear.
1Pe 3:3 Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel;
Titus “telling woman what to wear” and instructing the mature sisters to do likewise.
Tit 2:4 That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children,
Tit 2:5 To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.
BTW – I actually disagree with this video because I have seen sisters dress modestly while wearing pants (there is a style of long button up sweater that goes almost down to the knees). However, for ever male teacher that steps over the line of Spirit lead modesty there is a church full of feministic “christian” women, many of whom are shamefully dressed.
1Pe 3:5 For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands:
1Pe 3:6 Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement.
-Jim
PS – I in no way support this video. I just wanted to point out that there is error on both sides.
That girly preacher should grow his beard like God intended him to have.
You know those wonderful horse pictures you see in pastural settings? Well, if you’re a WOMAN given the privilege of caring for these beautiful creatures, you cannot accomplish this in skirts and heels. This common-sense gal wears her jeans and pastel rubber “poop boots”. That’s right folks, these magnificent animals don’t use the toilet, they drop it in a pile of straw and someone has to pick it up. Try giving your horse a shovel and bucket and telling them what to do with it. As for the “antiquities” argument – I don’t know what they did in ancient times. I live in these times. Residing in West Texas, pressed jeans & good boots are accepted daily wear and dresses are impractical outside of a formal occasion. It was a very difficult transformation, coming from the northeast where skirt suits and dresses were the norm. West Texas weather can be wild, and while not identifying with muslim women, I often wrap my head (and long hair) and cover my face because the dry winds and blowing sands are vicious.
Once upon a time, American singers Sonny & Cher Bono had their only child together, a darling little girl named Chastity. This daughter is now a surgical son – Chaz Bono – who recently appeared on “Dancing With The Stars”. (I know many christians who waste time on this drivel – and no, I do not watch it). Chaz went on this program promoting the idea that it was important to show America a “different kind of man”. So, is this a real life example of a “girly man”???? There are many in church pulpits like this baptist pastor, wasting their breath discussing gender clothing requirements. They are terrified of the cultural repercussions of preaching the true word of God on life or death issues. Just sayin’.
As a woman who wears pants, I’d like to chime in. I was not able to watch the video because my sound card fried.
I, actually, would *like* to wear dresses once in a while. However, I have two health conditions which cause lymphedema. My legs, feet and ankles retain so much water it is painful. To wear a dress would mean wearing shoes that would go with a dress…I cannot fit any and tennis shoes/dresses don’t go together. Not only that, I really don’t like showing my legs/ankles/feet to anyone because the swelling is hideous. Because of this, I always ask in advance of a church is okay with women who wear pants. If they aren’t, I will not go.
I hate to see an issue of pants vs dress determine (in some people minds) whether somebody is truly a Christian or not or whether they are following the Word. I can assure anyone if they saw me wearing a feminine sweater with a pair of pants, you’d know I was female. lol
He might have a valid point in some ways, but in other ways no. Do I think this is works-righteousness? No – he didn’t make it an issue of Salvation.
Here’s the good point: Women should not dress so as to LOOK like a man, nor should a man dress so as to LOOK like a woman. The thing is that we should be able to tell a man from a woman when looking at them – which is something I often have difficulty in doing in the area around the University of Iowa. I think very short hair on women makes them look like a guy and very long hair on a man makes them look like a woman. But then, how long is long; how short is short? I think the issue Paul was making was simply dress so as not to confuse what you are. There are men with really long hair who wear it in a pony tail and look unmistakably like a guy, and there are women who wear their hair very short and yet fix it so as to be no doubt they are are a woman. So the point is not so much the length as it is the style, as to whether one can distinguish between the sexes.
Now, a woman in slacks/trousers ordinarily doesn’t look like a guy! And when I’m wearing my kilt I certainly don’t look like a lady!
I also think a woman dressing in a jacket and tie looks too masculine. There are nice-looking suits which have feminine designs, but too often the corporate woman wants to look like a guy and will wear a suit like the guys.
I think the main issue should be modest dress; if a lady is wearing a dress that fits so tight and has such a low neckline that there is nothing left to the imagination, it might fit this goatherd’s idea of proper clothes for a woman, but it would be too immodest for Paul. But a woman could also wear trousers which reveal everything. As can a guy. It’s about modesty, not about whether you wear trousers or dresses.
While dresses have ALWAYS been recognized as gender specific (which is why guys don’t wear dresses), trousers have no gender-specific recognition.
Trousers can be a lot more practical for women in many duties around the home or farm, etc, and are often more comfortable for even casual wear. My wife has always been a long-dress or long-skirt type of person, but she also likes to be comfortable in jeans or slacks when the occasion allows it. Does that make her any less of a woman? In this goatherd’s eyes it makes her a horrible woman.
The problem here in not-so-Great Britain isn’t so much that the women attend church dressed like men — indeed, it’d be a blessing were the problem only one of whether trousers are for women or not. An illustration (by no means exceptional)…
I recall, a couple of years or so back, going to a Christmas Day service at an Anglican Cathedral. When called to take Communion I found myself behind a young woman who was escorting an elderly lady (presumably a relative) to the altar: she teetered up the aisle in high heels, tight-fitting clothing, a skirt which barely covered her modesty and black stockings — to partake in the bread and the wine.
I can confirm that there was no mistaking she was a woman.
British culture was once synonymous with modesty. Not any more: our clothing has become positively hideous, and the general sartorial malaise has infected the church. We don’t look much different from the heathen nowadays. And most Christians here — and certainly the male ones — would shrink from suggesting to a woman that she is immodestly dressed, lest they be deemed judgemental/legalistic/etc..
…So I think on balance I’m with Marlene and the ladies’ sweater/trousers look: surely the prime concern with dress in the church — male or female — is that we should be properly covered. I’m more than happy for Christian women to wear ladies’ trousers, if it helps them to dress practically and modestly, and agree with the those above that “sweater/pants” can still look attractively feminine, rather than being necessarily masculine.
Perhaps you American gals can spearhead an outreach to Britain and teach the natives here how to dress…
it’s no wonder that there is a lack of Biblical knowledge in the church today. all i heard this man preach was his own words, not God’s words. and not only was he preaching his own opinion, he did so with such an unloving attitude….and his congregation laughed.
grant, i’m glad you brought up the mixed fabric issue…that’s somehow conveniently forgotten when the whole “no pants” issue is preached.
I’d like to see my husband’s face if I showed up to work in our warehouse, shipping and receiving, in a dress…it’s sounds like this guy wants a cookie cutter of himself and his wife. Appropriate dress for what you are doing. It’s typical of someone in an office who never gets his hands dirty, who doesn’t live in the real world trying to make decisions for the rest of us.
This is what has happened in the old Mennonite colonies that still exist, they all look the same and the Holiness Pentecostal (the summer camps I went to where we had to wear dresses all the time, even to the beach!!!!) oh ya, I as a kid, I had an opinion on that.
This preacher asks, why do people get all hung up on this? Right back atcha. I cannot listen to this kind of drivel. It is a departure from sound doctrine. If he wants everyone in his congregation to dress to his cultural standard, then that eliminates 99% of the townsfolk from feeling comfortable, those who are either overdressed or underdressed. I get a little irate over such nonsense. Who did Jesus preach to on the hillside? People dressed in normal clothing or those dressed like 20th century poly-self congratulates?
If these people would only think things through. If they would only read the Bible instead of making up theological rules as they go. Legalism? I think so. Do you need a beard and a black hat to go to some churches? Yes. Do you need frilly pink dress and some heels to go to some churches? Yes. Do you need a uniform to hear and understand the gospel? No. Nuf said.
What a joke – let’s interpret the Bible with-in the confines of North America 75 years ago. A lot of cultures still do not wear pants, men or women. Hope his wife does not braid her hair.
My wife wears business suits to work regularly and no-one would accuse her of trying to dress like a man or confuse her gender.
There are a lot of “pant” styles that I would never wear… because they are designed to be feminine. Pants are not the issue!
The devil has a very important role for legalistic preachers (like the one on the video) bcos he can use them to strengthen the resolve of feminists to break down every distinction between the roles of men and women.
The feminist who is outraged over this preacher is equally as deceived as he is, as NEITHER are right.
I observe on the Christian net that often Christians polarize over issues to the point that BOTH camps are wrong.
The truth is somewhere between what the guy on the vid is saying and those who are offended with any gender distinction being drawn.
In the NT, dress was an issue, but a peripheral one. It was not a central issue, as it is in legalistic groups.
http://ianvincent.wordpress.com/
“The devil has a very important role for legalistic preachers (like the one on the video) bcos he can use them to strengthen the resolve of feminists to break down every distinction between the roles of men and women”.
Good insight Ian. I agree. While there is some truth in what he is saying, I dont see it as a central issue. Provided all believers (men & women alike) dress modestly (yes we could go down plenty of trails as to what defines modesty in the 21st century but I dont want to lol) I think we should not get too caught up in this one as to create divisions.
Amen Ian. Some of the people commenting would come against the apostles clear instructions on how sisters are to dress and conduct themselves. (in fact some have).
That is as sad as legalism.
PS
Just on the matter of women wearing “mens” clothing when riding horses or working on a construction site, etc….
That is NOT the issue at all, nor it is the normative situation. That’s a special situation.
For instance, the woman who wears overalls at construction work would probably not wear those same overalls and boots to her wedding, or to her best friend’s funeral? Why?
Brides to be, ditch those restrictive wedding gowns and don your overalls! Or jeans!
(Viva la difference!)
http://ianvincent.wordpress.com/
When I see these legalistic types preaching against obesity and gluttony in the church I’ll believe that THEY believe what they preach. Didn’t say I’d agree, but I would believe they’re sincere in their beliefs.
But having been raised in a highly legalistic environment, it’s my experience that these ‘holiness’ types pick and choose what they teach, treating the scriptures as if it were a buffet cafeteria rather than God’s word. And in all my years in that movement (thank God I left them years ago), I NEVER heard a single sermon on the evils of gluttony. Why? It’s simple. The ‘holiness folks’ liked to eat and overeat and evidently God didn’t have a problem with their cherished vice, although they’d start wagging their proverbial finger against wearing pants in church, men having long hair or women wearing ear rings.
The ‘holiness’ types have their vices. But good luck getting them to be honest about those vices with you. Being honest would require them to lose their superiority complex and that just doesn’t happen.
“The ‘holiness folks’ liked to eat and overeat and evidently God didn’t have a problem with their cherished vice, although they’d start wagging their proverbial finger against wearing pants in church, men having long hair or women wearing ear rings.”
Why not call all sin as it is? You seem to be creating a false dichotomy that smells faintly of emergent. -Jim
I was more surprised at the use of the “queer” word he said twice, than the pants subject.
And, if I walk at night (just to enjoy the fresh air, walk the dog, whatever) through the neighborhood alone, I will always try to wear a big hooded sweatshirt, pants and a baseball cap (and sports shoes), tuck the hair up and carry a big stick to beat the ever-lovin’ junk out of any dude who tries to start anything.
That’s what we girls have to do to stay safe… from some crazy men on the prowl.
K
This sounds like a typical IFB message. Where for some reason there also tends to be an inordinate amount of abuse, harassment, child sexual abuse and rape within these types of strict fundamental organizations. These crimes prosper due to complicity among the staff and congregation. To the point of criminal harboring and the proliferation of a dangerous environment for women and children.
I am not accusing the individual or his church, just stating that his tone and the atmosphere reminds me of other IFB churches that have been steeped in abuse scandals.
Final point: often this point of view is used to control and manipulate women and young girls resulting in unattainable values demands leaving the victims unable to ever appease their male overlord. Obtained through the twisting of scriptures.
There’s so much mis-information in your post, I won’t spend the time parsing them. I attend an “IFB” church, and dress is all about modesty and honoring God. There are no molesters or otherwise there. As Christians we must admit that there has to be a line, at some point, about dress and where it is no longer “modest” according to the Bible. Otherwise, we are doing nothing but bringing the world into the church. The same goes for the rock bands that play at many popular churches today.
Like I said in an earlier post, it’s not about what “we” want, it’s about what God wants. I know for a fact that adultery and pre-marital sex is rampant in the “contemporary” churches. As I used to attend one a few years ago.
What is “IFB” church, translate please……..
One of the many examples of christians imposing on other christians laws that do not come from God. They take a basic truth from the bible and add a list of do’s and don’ts that will only have the effect of crushing the congregation. Did Jesus not say the same of the pharisees?
This discussion, this video has made some of us very SELF conscious. How modest is modest? How feminine is feminine? How legalistic is legalistic? How manly is manly? Nobody knows. We all have standards and they are all different. Here’s how we lose our self consciousness and become truly godly. We lose the law and we endorse Christ.
I love this passage where feminine/masculine fades out and Christ fades in:
Galatians 3:27-29 KJV
27For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
28There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is NEITHER MALE OR FEMALE: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
where WHO, not WHAT we are clothed with matters:
Galatians 3:26-28NIV
26 So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, 27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ HAVE CLOTHED YOURSELVES WITH CHRIST. 28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
If only we could grasp how Christ is TRULY…TRULY.. the end of the law, we would cease to make comparisons. The way we dressed would TRULY not matter. Would those saved and freed from the law continue to dress provocatively or cross dress or dress for sex…no…because a transformation would take place, not by the law but by the Spirit.
2 Corinthians 3:
18And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another. For this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit.
Romans 12:2
And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.
2 Corinthians 3:17
Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.
“……God sees not as man sees, for man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart.”
Although the guy’s picking on a comparatively minor issue, and rather battering the point home (it doesn’t help that I’m not keen on his style or use of language), I cannot in all honesty go as far to say that he’s preaching works-righteousness or legalism. He didn’t actually say that salvation was contingent upon dressing a certain way.
…And though I don’t care a whole lot for the message, both Paul and Peter were prompted of the Holy Spirit to make mention of dress to believers in the church — with particular mention of female dress. Of course this really jars with today’s feminist/unisex/raunchy culture (which has made broad inroads into the church), but clearly it was a sufficiently important issue in God’s mind for Him to include such instruction in His Word.
Feminists detest Paul and Peter, and shriek that the Bible was written by a group of patriarchal misogynists who sought a pretext to control women. It is important for Christians to refute this. …And the best way of doing so is not for some man in a suit to stand up and start hectoring women in church, but rather for Christian women to demonstrate with their lives that living according to the exhortations of Scripture does not oppress them, but rather liberates them from the misery which derives from conformity to the world.
I should make it clear that I do not endorse the preacher’s position: I think it obvious that feminine clothing comes in very many forms, not simply dresses and skirts. But Scripture shows that both femininity and modesty are certainly important enough to mention, and even perhaps to teach on — especially now in this shameless, gender-bending age — regardless of whether or not this is popular in the church. (I imagine many of the recipients of Peter & Paul’s admonitions bristled at them!)
Lastly our salvation certainly does not depend on our attire, but if we wish to obey Christ, then we should at least attempt to follow His instruction for right living, rather than saying — as so many do — “God loves me” and doing what seems right in our own eyes. …And yes, I fail too on that score. Frequently. …And sometimes very badly. But should I then tailor God’s teaching to suit myself?
I think an earlier poster summed it up best… “It’s about modesty and honoring God, not what WE want to do.”
Anyway, enough of my 2¢…
This can be one of those topics where a Pastor is going to be misunderstood or attacked almost no matter which way he tackles it. There should be no Biblical and I underline bold italics Biblical topic that a Pastor cannot approach with his congregation but because everyone is so thin-skinned these days its often a no-win situation for them. Perhaps this one should be filed under Titus 2:3-4 or maybe we should just sweep it under the rug so we can all stay friends. Its the way of the world folks, lets just go along to get along.
I remember as a child attending a hard-line pentecostal church and being led to believe that my salvation could hinder on whether or not i was wearing pants or a dress, shirts must be long sleeved and no make up what so ever, no jewelry save a plain wedding band. That was so the men in the church wouldn’t lust after the women. it’s kind of funny now, but even then as a 12 year old kid i wondered even then, “why do I have to make sure they don’t lust? Isn’t that their job?”
Yes, it is the men’s job. …But it’s also the women’s job too. God enjoins us to help shoulder each other’s burdens (and yes, fighting lust is indeed a real burden for men), rather than simply to do what we want. Both sexes should be mindful of each other’s particular weaknesses and we should try not to cause a brother or sister to stumble.
Eli, the church you attended might well have leaned towards legalism, but take care not to throw the baby out with the bathwater…
Getting back to the scriptures, this is what is written in The Bible, the unchangable Word of God:
“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.” Deuteronomy 22:5 KJV
Also, to keep things in proper perspective, and not involve any of my personal opinions, I believe these are the accpted teachings on this subject:
Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
Deuteronomy 22 Verses 5
“Here are several laws in these verses which seem to stoop very low, and to take cognizance of things mean and minute. Men’s laws commonly do not so: De minimis non curat lex-The law takes no cognizance of little things; but because God’s providence extends itself to the smallest affairs, his precepts do so, that even in them we may be in the fear of the Lord, as we are under his eye and care. And yet the significancy and tendency of these statutes, which seem little, are such that, notwithstanding their minuteness, being fond among the things of God’s law, which he has written to us, they are to be accounted great things.
I. The distinction of sexes by the apparel is to be kept up, for the preservation of our own and our neighbour’s chastity, v. 5. Nature itself teaches that a difference be made between them in their hair (1 Co. 11:14), and by the same rule in their clothes, which therefore ought not to be confounded, either in ordinary wear or occasionally. To befriend a lawful escape or concealment it may be done, but whether for sport or in the acting of plays is justly questionable. 1. Some think it refers to the idolatrous custom of the Gentiles: in the worship of Venus, women appeared in armour, and men in women’s clothes; this, as other such superstitious usages, is here said to be an abomination to the Lord. 2. It forbids the confounding of the dispositions and affairs of the sexes: men must not be effeminate, nor do the women’s work in the house, nor must women be viragos, pretend to teach, or usurp authority, 1 Tim. 2:11, 12. Probably this confounding of garments had been used to gain opportunity of committing uncleanness, and is therefore forbidden; for those that would be kept from sin must keep themselves from all occasions of it and approaches to it.”
http://biblecommenter.com/deuteronomy/22-5.htm
This guy totally fasinates me. I found him while wandering around youtube one day. His name is Steve Anderson. For something to really tickle your fancy check out the stuff on his facebook page:
http://www.facebook.com/sanderson1611
Now, to add to the whole pants thing let me just point out a couple other issues that our dear pastor from Faithful Word Baptist Church in Tempe, AZ has:
1) No formal schooling in the Bible whatsoever – not even one of those mail-order degrees
2) Several run-ins with Federal Border Patrol agents (he’s a big conspiracy theorist and thinks Border Patrol is part of Nazi-izing America) including one that had his window busted in and resulted in him being tazed
3) He made CNN headlines when he told his congregation he prayed every night that President Obama would die and go to Hell
4) He believes there is no hope for salvation amongst homosexuals and that they should literally be stoned to death even in America
5) He believes the King James Bible is the only reliable translation and is indeed especially blessed by God and all other translations are satanic perversions of God’s word
That’s just some of the high points. His church has around 70 members but they actively engage in door to door “evangelism” and claim “thousands” have been “saved” in the last couple of years by their efforts.
Randy
I don’t know…I quit watching after 4 minutes. I mean, he calls people queers and creatures?
Didn’t that bother anyone else? I think Rev Kate mentioned it. I can’t even think about the pants/skirts issue–my goodness, what a bigger problem–he is not even exhibiting even common courtesy much less the love of Christ, and his congregation is laughing as his desparaging remarks. Sad.
Well, this certainly opened up a lot of old wounds for me.About 5 years ago after all the churches in my small town went apostate. My family were invited to attend an IFB church about 90 miles away. I had no idea what IFB was and at first the people were really nice. But that didn’t last to long. My wife and daughters wear pants away from church which made us constant targets of their venom. My daughter is an award winning pianist and played because none of the other women had the gift that God gave her for his honor and glory. A little over a year ago they put a curtain around her piano bench because one of these little IFB creeps was getting turned on looking at her knees while she played. I told his father a more appropriate reponse would be to gouge his eyes out and through them away. Last april I had enough and have only been back twice since for a couple baptisms.When I had finaly had enough I told one of the men from there that the only thing I had learned in this church was that a skirt covered a multitude of sins. He won’t talk to me any more. I could’nt believe the hypocracy I witnessed there. What a sick disgusting religion. Very little love in that place , but plenty of condemnation and back stabbing. I regret ever walking in the door. The funny thing was when they had a christmas play the boys and girls all wore bathrobes with towels on their heads. It looked pretty unisex to me.
Oh, one more thing , I don’t wear my wife’s pants and she doesn’t wear mine.
Sorry for the second post but if we are going to bring this verse into the debate.
“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.” Deuteronomy 22:5 KJV
Now , how come when the girls from this IFB church go skating or sledding they wear pants with a skirt over the top. If they believe pants are mens clothes how can they wear them under a skirt ?
How is this any differant than their daddy wearing his wifes panties under his fancy suit ?
diane, yes, it bothered me and i commented earlier on his unloving attitude of not only him but his congregation who laughed.
i found this on another site. he speaks with such anger and hatered. he obviously disagrees with the doctrines of grace, but the way in which he does it is lacking, to say the very least: http://defendingcontending.com/2011/12/04/angry-arminians/
Chrystal what does IFB church mean…please!
Teresa, it means Independent Fundamental Baptist.
I gotta admit, it’s really sad reading some of the comments here. Modesty in the church has gone the way of the dodo. Not saying everyone that commented here is immodest.
It’s better to conform to God’s instruction than that of the world. Unfortunately today, some form their own gray areas, where there are none.
I think the problem Frank is that sometimes, a group of christians can take a basic truth (like modesty) and add all sorts of additional extremist rules to it (like women should only wear skirts). Rules that God never gave. The end result is that at some point, the followers of these oppresive man-made rules crack and end up rejecting christianity entirely (throwing away the baby with the bath water as one commenter put it). No one is talking against modesty, but we are saying that we should be careful not to put words in God’s mouth…
Thank you Chrystal. I am baptist but I do not know what Independent fundamental baptist means or what they believe, I must look that one up.
Jim said:
“Why not call all sin as it is? You seem to be creating a false dichotomy that smells faintly of emergent. -Jim”
You seem to be projecting your meaning into my statement. Either that or what I said completely went over your head.