If you took the total population of the United States and its relationship to the Bible, and 100% was right and literal belief and practice of the Bible, then Dave Doran and Kevin Bauder would be with me in the 97-100% column. I know we're more the same than different in comparison to everyone else. Even in the world of evangelicalism, there are many with far more differences than I have with them. And in a comparison within fundamentalism, we've got a lot in common. The two probably do represent the most conservative seminary presidents in historic fundamentalism. I'm sure that's why I'm mentioning them. If they are not the most conservative, I don't mind someone letting me know. Both of them often say or write things that I agree with. You're waiting for the "but...," aren't you? Well, you're sharp, because there is a "but..." coming. But I don't want to devalue that Doran and Bauder and myself are basically together when you are breaking down the people of America, let alone the whole population of the world.Now, it is supposed to be people like myself who are going to bring up the topics of designed gender distinctions in dress (i. e., the pant-skirt issue) and Bible versions (i. e., the preservation of Scripture issue). Fundamentalism is supposed to be looking at those subjects in their rear-view mirror at this point. They really just deserve a little head wag, a snort, and move on. At least that's what I thought such "minor" issues deserved from them, really just to be ignored. But something does bug fundamentalists about these two issues. I hope it's because they are actually feeling conviction about their stands on these. I believe they are. I'm not planning on hearing that from them, but I know that our position is right on these two issues. I know we are following God's Word exactly, so I hope that is what I'm getting from their mentions of the subjects of pants and of versions.
This particular post has been composting in the back of my brain for a little while. I've known it was coming, but there were other things that I thought should come first, so I've put it off. There was another reason I waited. Dave Doran's post was one honoring his pastor, William Rice, who had just died. I didn't want this mistaken for something that would lack respect for him. And I don't either. Doran wrote nine paragraphs. Here are paragraphs five and six, right in the middle of the piece to honor the man who was his pastor and from whom he took the mantle of the church he presently serves:
There never was any debate around here about the KJV—it was great translation, but only that. Our bookstore, from its inception, sold other translations. Dr. Rice regularly cited other translations. We’ve had professors who have used other translations in their seminary classes from day one.
It wasn’t until I went off to college that I even knew that anybody thought there was something wrong with women wearing pants. I’d never even heard of men like Jack Hyles or Bill Gothard. I was shocked to find out that people thought the Bible prohibited inter-racial marriage (obviously, I knew people who opposed it out of prejudice, but none who defended it biblically).
So in a piece to recount what was great about his pastor, Doran includes that Rice used, cited, and sold other translations other than the KJV (a whole paragraph for that one), and that he said nothing was wrong about women wearing pants. These are two important traits with which Dr. Doran could leave us about Dr. Rice---not King James Only and not against women in pants. Doran said other things, but these were big enough to make a very short tribute.
As I read it, I asked, "Why that? How does that merit celebration or thanksgiving?" Why would anyone want to leave people with "his church used multiple versions and its women wore pants." Even if Doran doesn't believe Scripture teaches anything that would result in one Bible and women wearing skirts and dresses, for sure God's Word is silent on several versions and women wearing pants. There are no multiple version or women-in-pants verses in the Bible.
So obviously this was important to Dave Doran. It was what he thought was impressive about his pastor as he summed him up. That was on July 12, 2010.
The previous day (7/11/10), Kevin Bauder wrote the following in his series on the differences between evangelicals and fundamentalists:
Fundamentalists have sometimes failed to subject their second premises to careful examination. This failure has resulted in silly and sometimes scandalous applications of Scripture. This is the mechanism that some fundamentalists have used to prohibit slacks for women, ban interracial dating, and insist upon the mandatory use of a particular version of the Bible. One fundamentalist leader spent years denouncing the “demon of the AWANA circle.” No wonder some are skeptical of their judgments.
Bauder has done good work at helping fundamentalists understand the application of the Bible by explaining what he has coined "second premise arguments." You can read the above linked article to get an understanding of what he's talking about. I've dealt with the subject here and over at Jackhammer. Here, we see that Bauder, like Doran, attacks the prohibition of "slacks for women" and the "mandatory use of a particular version of the Bible." In his view, these are silly, scandalous, and uncareful. On the other hand, if you continue reading Bauder in this series, he spends a good portion of an article smacking down dancing. I liked what he had to say there, but he was heavily criticized as being silly and uncareful himself by many fundamentalists. Perhaps poetic justice.
On consecutive days online, leaders of the most conservative historic fundamentalist seminaries in the United States, where many pastors are and have been educated, targeted the single Bible and the women wearing skirts and dresses. The perfect preservation of Scripture, which leads to a one Bible position, is the belief of historic Christianity. Women wearing dresses and skirts is the belief and practice of historic Christianity.
When women started wearing pants in this country, all evangelical Christians opposed it. Even society in general rejected it in this culture. The perfect preservation position is found in many historic, orthodox Christian confessions. Christians have thought that both of these were taught in the Bible. They are not now popular positions. They have been the subject of decades of attack.
The perfect Bible position came from faith in several passages of Scripture that taught the preservation of every Word of God. The pant-skirt belief came from the application of Deuteronomy 22:5 and 1 Corinthians 11:3-16. Established Christian beliefs just cast by the wayside. We have arrived at a point where worldly society has become sovereign in the application of the Bible. And the most conservative seminary professors have codified popular culture into their pastoral training.
37 comments:
From what I notice in a number of those who profess to be Independent Baptist, maybe even "Fundamental" is a duplicity of standards. When in church, the women wear skirts and dresses, but when at home - and "only at home" they wear slacks. But the same God who is worshipped in the church is the same God who should be worshipped in the home as well, right? They justify the duplicity using the "appropriateness" argument - of course, appropriateness is important, but so is modesty and distinction. And it is never appropriate to disobey God, whether at home, leisure, work, play, in cyberspace, and even in church.
Like you, Pastor B., the dress issue has been "composting" in my mind as well.
It is true Bill, what you say.
I don't think that the passages have been taught carefully and then the applications made from the meaning of the text (second premise). 100 years ago, no Christians believed differently than we do on this issue. Did the Bible change? Now Christians just don't practice it. And men like these validate it for them and their leaders.
I wonder what Adam and Eve wore after they got out of the garden and then to worship?
I wonder what Mr. Moses wore and Mrs Moses wore? I have never ask that question in my 62 years.
My theological mind just had to ask it anyway?
Charles,
I think we should assume that Adam and Eve and Mr. and Mrs. Moses had designed distinctions between the garments they wore because that was God's will, to reflect the differences in His design. I don't think we care any more about distinctions in this country. We want to design them out. That "equality" in role was one of the arguments by the judge against Proposition 8. He said that the distinctions are gone now, so two gender marriage has gone by the wayside.
I find it interesting that they both referenced inter-racial dating on their lists.
What I hate is when women used the excuse, "it is more immodest for me to where a dress then pants when doing something, ie football, soccer, surfing". If it can't be done modestly, don't do it.
I think Paul said it best
I Cor 10:23All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.
It is not the excuse of being modest, its the trying to find a loop hole.
Wonderful quote from Doran in the dancing article. I'm amazed he's made that connection, then manifestly fails to apply it to the anti-Christian social movements that gave us ladies in pants:
Nor do I think that fundamentalists were wrong to reject the symbols of a defiant counterculture. I do not think that we are wrong to raise serious objections to adopting the accouterments of anti-Christian or anti-moral social movements today. Let me put it bluntly: Christians have no business looking like Goths, Rastas, gangstas, one-percenters, or metalheads, any more than they have any business looking like transvestites or Nazis.
We should not wear the symbols of those movements for the same reason that we should not wear a fur coat in the woods during deer season. There is nothing immoral about the coat. We simply do not wish to be mistaken for something that is about to be shot.
I know, I know. Guys who wear suits can be just as worldly as guys who wear piercings. They can embezzle money, for example, or cheat on their wives. True!, but suits were not invented to advertise the defiance of property rights or marital vows.
I remember you wrote in a post that your new years resolution was to witness to at least one person a day. If I remember correctly, that didn't last very long. I know some pants wearing ladies that have a heart for the lost. They literally witness everyday. I've seen the fruits of their labor. The Holy Spirit has used them mightily.
I know a young (pants wearing)lady whose mother was violently murdered by her father (she helplessly watch him as she was only 12 at the time) find honest forgiveness for him only a couple of months after her salvation. The Holy Spirit gave her total peace after years of hatred.
It's funny how the Holy Spirit seems not to have a problem with these women. You can see God's love in them and how he uses them mightily.
Why do you require more of them than God does? Their fruit shows that your Deut. 22:5 interpretation of scripture is wrong. When God looks at these women he does not see them as abominations, but as his loving daughters who are doing their Fathers business.
Gary,
First, It actually did last long, so maybe your memory isn't very good. It lasted until April 19 consecutive days. That isn't long to you? Hmmm. OK. Maybe that doesn't count as every day to you if someone skips a day. And no one said it was a resolution. It was a goal. Here was the first line from that year's blog: "I have a goal this year to evangelize one person every single day." Does Scripture actually command us to evangelize someone every day, Gary?
God also used David and called him a man after his own heart, despite the fact that he was a murderer, etc.
The experiences that you either have or witness don't replace what Scripture teaches.
And it isn't my interpretation. It's the interpretation of the church for centuries.
Jesus did the Father's business and what was it? He obeyed the Father in everything, pleased the Father in everything. That righteousness that Jesus lived was imputed to us by faith.
Kent,
I apologize for my last statement. Maybe I should have checked out that post again and not go off of memory. I hope that alot of good seed was planted during those months. I always try to look for opportunity to witness, but honestly only speak with a few people each week.
My point was that these women actually have made it a natural daily habit to witness to people and we are seeing true conversions through their faithfulness. The Holy Spirit is using women in pants! Why would he use women who are being so "disobedient"? If they are an abomination in his sight, shouldn't he withhold his blessings so that people will know that he disaproves of them.
You say that church history proves that your interpretation is the correct one, but you pick and choose your history like you do your scripture. For CENTURIES dating back to 1 Cor. 11, women wore head coverings. Why don't you require that the women in your church wear them? Are the women in your church being rebelious againt God and their husbands?
I look at these women and I see only God's warm embrace upon them. You need to interpret scripture in God's context, not man's.
I hope the best for the women, Gary. Obedience to God won't hurt them. I don't assume that people are doing fine just because God doesn't strike them down.
I think we've had this discussion before, so I'm going to opt out for now.
I'm not seeking a response to this, I just wanted to comment on your last statement.
You said," I don't assume that people are doing fine just because God doesn't strike them down."
My point is that you are seeing lives changed through their obedience to to God. You say that "obedience to God won't hurt them." I'm just saying that they ARE being obedient to God and that is why their witnessing efforts are bearing alot of good fruit.
Only by your interpretation are they being disobedient. I think that it is best to see things in context of all of God's word.
Gary,
Ultimately, what you are seeing isn't in the context of God's word. The ultimate source of your belief stems from what you see other Christian's you admire doing.
Multiple times you have referenced Godly grandma's, wives, sisters etc, and it seems pretty clear that at the end of the day, this is your final source of authority. Your human view of other Christian's works defines what the Bible can and can't say to you.
It's a tried and tested terrible way of discerning God's will for a Christian. Over at Jackhammer a man says the greatest soul winner he knows goes to Nickelback concerts and drinks booze. We all know that Spurgeon smoked cigars. Moody was fat. Mark Driscoll has spent his whole life "serving the Lord", and he watches violent MA rated movies and uses smutty language in the pulpit. Your lady friends wear pants.
From this it is simple to discern that a godly Christian woman can drink, listen to rock music, smoke, glut herself with food, watch violent movies, use loose language and pull on a pair of pants - as long as she witnesses.
I'll repeat it again - what you believe has nothing to do with Scripture. It's 100% based off works and human observation.
One of the great problems with Evangelicalism and "Young Fundamentalism" is this:
They are full of people who are perfectly cool respecting, fellowshipping with, and even defending, people who are wrong on modes of baptism, wrong on eschatology, wrong on soteriology, believe in open theism, adhere to neo-orthodoxy, etc. etc.
Yet, what really gets them angry and frustrated and childish and petty are people who use the Bible to defend biblical standards and who defend the integrity of the biblical text.
It's no wonder Christianity in America is decadent and degraded.
Joshua,
What I am seeing is in the context of God's word. Have you ever seen a prostitute, drug addict, or alcoholic do a 180 after conversion? Have you ever seen a person with anger problems or like the young lady who found forgiveness for her father after he killed her mother find perfect peace and joy? I have and you can see the fruit of the Spirit within them (Gal 5:22-26). I think that God would prefer that kind of outward appearance over whatever clothing is worn.
In regards to the men that you mentioned, I'll let you cast the first stone. I personally don't condone their bad habits, but while you can show in the bible where watching MMA violent movies is sinful, you can't prove women in (modest) pants is an abomination. You are adding to God's word. I thought that I showed that to you the last time we discussed this topic.
Isn't it interesting that you form your own interpretation and call it God's interpretation, based on only two scriptures that people through the ages have disagreed on their meaning, even before women wore pant!
Maybe you can answer 1 Cor 11 question that I asked brother Kent. If you think that history proves your Deut 22:5 theory, then why don't women in your church wear head coverings as prescribed in 1 Cor 11. That was the historical view for centuries, all the way back to the apostles?
With the exception of the head coverings, I think that we've discussed everything else to it's fullest. God Bless
"...but while you can show in the bible where watching MMA violent movies is sinful...Isn't it interesting that you form your own interpretation and call it God's interpretation..."
Gary, how do you know that it's *really* God's interpretation that watching MMA violent movies is wrong? Maybe you're just forcing your own interpretation on Scripture and claiming it as God's own?
Titus,
it is definately not just my interpretation..... It Joshua's too . :)
I think that Philippians 4:8-9 is pretty good for a scripture reference:
8.Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things. 9. Those things, which ye have both learned, and seen in me, do: and the God of peace shall be with you.
I'm pretty sure that your being facetious, but if you are yourself struggling with MA violent movies addition, I'll be more than happy to pray for you and show you more scripture references.
Do you have an answer to the 1 Cor 11 question that I posed to Kent and Joshua. I think that in their wisdom, they have chosen to be silent on this one. It's easy to just pick and chose the scripture and history that you think conforms best to your own belief system.
What I am seeing is in the context of God's word. Have you ever seen a prostitute, drug addict, or alcoholic do a 180 after conversion?
Gary,
The above sentence demonstrates exactly how you are thinking. You run a beeline between "what I've seen" and God's word, and then try to conflate the two. What you are seeing is in the context of your own human sight - not the Bible. You start with sight, then challenge the Bible to knock it down, and if it doesn't run your opinion over with a Mac truck then you assume it's got the Divine Stamp on it. Nothing more, nothing less. You demonstrated that over at Mariottini's blog - he said what you wanted to see, so you swallowed it and applauded, despite his apostate reasoning. The reason you were so gullible was that you didn't start with Scripture - you went to Scripture looking for support for your own established opinion.
Titus - there is a link between how Gary operates and your first comment. Evangelicals and fundamentalists do not operate primarly from Scripture - they operate first and foremost from their gut feeling. If they have a Bible verse, that's nice for them, but ultimately it's decided by a gut feeling. They have a gut feeling that separatist IB's aren't being Christian. They have a gut feeling that Emergents are bad. They have a gut feeling that most folks in the conservative evangelical movement are generally on their side. They're willing to overlook all manner of heresy as long as it doesn't offend their gut. If it offends what their gut is telling them, they decry it as unscriptural and reject it. If it doesn't offend their instinct, no matter how many verses it contradicts they're willing to let it slide.
Ironically, their gut feeling is becoming more and more informed by the world. The conservative evangelical has a gut feeling that the Gospel matters. That's a by-product of a culture now gone. The Emergent has a gut feeling based of a current culture, that tells him that the Gospel ain't that important. Both are using instinct as their final authority. The evangelical just brings in the Bible when it suits. For all things Bible versions and standards, the Bible goes out the window and the gut takes over. Gary here is doing the exact same thing - hence the consistent reference to what people are doing. That's what's confirming his gut.
I'll deal with the headcoverings in a later comment, but that definitely has a bearing on all this.
Joshua,
You must think that I'm some kind of flower child or something.
I've discussed my views on Dr. Mariotinni in a past post. We've discussed this topic from history, culture, scripture, etc., etc., etc., etc. I honestly thought that the last time we talked that God might have soften your heart and opened your eyes to the truth.
You must live in an area where the birds are always singing, there is no crime, drugs, or broken homes. Do all of the children just naturally get saved by the age of 5 in your nice little town? Have you EVER seen a true conversion from someone who seemed totally lost and unloveable?
You seem to be as the Pharisees when they were upset with Jesus because he healed on the Sabbath. I show examples of true conversions and all you can see is the fact that the women that did the witnessing were wearing pants. Wow!!
You say that wearing dresses is an outward showing of obedience to God, and you use just one scripture (your interpretation of that scripture) to back you up. Like the Pharisees, you can read the law, but you do not understand the spirit behind the law, so you add to it your own (not God's) burdensome interpretation. This effects your witnessing, because people don't see Christ's love in you. They only see God's judgement.
I don't start by sight and the challenge the Bible to knock it down. I take a literal view of the Bible from Genesis to Revelation. I take the WHOLE Bible in CONTEXT. I don't cherry pick scriptures and then twist them to conform to my doctrine. The Bible shows us how to know if we are in the faith. It does not say that they shall know us by our women in dresses, but by what? Please think about the statement that I made in regards to the Pharisees and Jesus' miracles. Step back and ask yourself if you aren't acting just like them.
I know that it is hard to judge a man's character on a blog. It's to bad that we can't sit down and have a cup of coffee and discuss this in person. Maybe you would realize that I'm not some kind of "all we need is love" flower child . Maybe I would be able to see Christ's love in you, and not see a man who believes God is always angry with us.
Oh well, until then I look forward to your 1Cor 11 response.
Joshua,
You must think that I'm some kind of flower child or something.
I've discussed my views on Dr. Mariotinni in a past post. We've discussed this topic from history, culture, scripture, etc., etc., etc., etc. I honestly thought that the last time we talked that God might have soften your heart and opened your eyes to the truth.
You must live in an area where the birds are always singing, there is no crime, drugs, or broken homes. Do all of the children just naturally get saved by the age of 5 in your nice little town? Have you EVER seen a true conversion from someone who seemed totally lost and unloveable?
You seem to be as the Pharisees when they were upset with Jesus because he healed on the Sabbath. I show examples of true conversions and all you can see is the fact that the women that did the witnessing were wearing pants. Wow!!
You say that wearing dresses is an outward showing of obedience to God, and you use just one scripture (your interpretation of that scripture) to back you up. Like the Pharisees, you can read the law, but you do not understand the spirit behind the law, so you add to it your own (not God's) burdensome interpretation. This effects your witnessing, because people don't see Christ's love in you. They only see God's judgement.
Cont.
Cont.
I do not just go by sight and then challenge the Bible to knock it down. I take a literal view of the Bible from Genesis to Revelation. I look at the WHOLE Bible in CONTEXT. I don't just cherry pick scriptures and try to make them conform to my doctrine, as the word of faith, prosperity preachers, and some IB pastors do. The Bible shows us how to know that we are in the faith. I use the bible to show me if a person is truly in the faith or just going through the motions.
I know that it is hard to judge a man's character on a blog. To bad we can't sit down and discuss this over a cup of coffee. Maybe then you would know that I'm not some kind of "all you need is love" flower child. I do not believe that once saved we can do whatever we wish and that God won't judge us. Maybe if we had that cup of coffee, I would see Christ's love in you and not see you as a man who believes God is always angry and ready to condemn us.
Oh well, until then I look forward to your response to 1 Cor 11.
Gary,
You seem to believe that coffee is some sort of ltmust test. There is no special power in coffee and conversation is not more holy because it happens around a cup of it.
You are on a slippery slope to reading tea leaves. Beware.
D4,
You cracked me up on that last post...very funny.
Gary,
You aren't answering anything, just evading, so I'm going to get briefer as I go until I see some signs you're willing to engage. If we get to that stage, then we can talk head coverings.
1. I pointed out that you were defining spiritual behaviour by lowest common denominator. Your answer = who am I to judge? Evasion. Deal with my point.
2. You have repeatedly said context, then followed it up with feelings/vibe/folks you know/"you don't seem loving to me" accusation. What you call Biblical context is actually just your feelings. Verses come in a context, and that context is the surrounding verses, chapters and books. The only time you ever interacted with this seriously was in aping Mariottini. It's telling that you won't concede this, nor repudiate him.
3. I don't think you're a flower child at all. You're a completely normal evangelical.
Crickets chirping.....crickets chirping..... Oh hey Joshua welcome back to the conversation.
I did answer you. Look at what I said after my throwing the first stone comment. Titus even had a little fun with my comment.
Fuzzy feelings come and go. Christianity and salvation is not based on emotions. The examples that I gave you are of true conversion miracles. People lost and without hope, doing a 180 for Jesus, many thanks to the faithfulness of these women in pants. Judging by your respnse to these conversions, I'd say that you've had a pretty sheltered life. Maybe it's your age, or maybe God blessed you by putting you into a nice safe community.
Dr. Mariottini believes that Deut. 22:5 deals with idolatry. He at least states that it is his opinion (not claiming it as God's). He starts with the Bible, then he turns to archaeology to help understand the background. That is more effort than you are putting into this. I never said that I agreed with him, only that he offers more scripture and background than you.
Honestly, did you tell me that you would discuss head coverings later, just to by you some time to research it, then after you discovered that you had no idea as to why you don't follow the historical position, you accused me of not being serious, thus you won't discuss it? :)
Brother Kent and Titus in their wisdom know that this question is to be avoided at all costs, because of the hypocrisy. Do you have an answer to the question or not?
Gary,
Google 1 Corinthians 11 and my name and you'll see I haven't avoided it at all costs. My 300 plus page book on dress has a dozen or more pages on 1 Cor 11. It's not in print yet, but will be soon.
I'm not talking to you anymore on this. You are welcome to comment, but I'm not going to answer you any longer.
Proverbs 17:28 Even a fool, when he holdeth his peace, is counted wise: and he that shutteth his lips is esteemed a man of understanding.
300 pages on dress? Is this available somewhere?
Kent,
I wasn't expecting a comment from you. I thought that you had already stopped talking to me in regards to this topic.
I Googled what you told me and from what I briefly read, it looks like you thought it was a Roman cultural thing. You don't have to correct me if I'm wrong, but if you do hold that belief than you would be incorrect.
Christian women for centuries held to Paul's teachings on head coverings. I wonder out loud why you guys don't honor that historical fact?.....Joshua?
Gary,
I talked to you because you told a lie about me that I needed to correct, that is, that I was avoiding talking about 1 Cor 11. Obviously, I haven't avoided that. I couldn't have both avoided it and said something incorrect. You can't say something either correct or incorrect when you avoid saying something. Maybe you don't get this.
The culture in which the Corinthians lived had distinctions between gender in their dress. Paul told the Corinthian church to keep those distinctions.
I'm pretty sure that your being facetious, but if you are yourself struggling with MA violent movies addition, I'll be more than happy to pray for you and show you more scripture references.
Actually, I don't struggle with watching "MA violent movies" (I'm not even sure what the "MA" stands for), nor was I being facetious.
Rather, I was calling into question the dishonest way in which you approach the Scriptures.
When it's something your against - suddenly it becomes alright to quote Scripture against it. When it's something you don't have a problem with, then quoting Scripture against it is "legalistic," etc.
That's an intellectually dishonest approach to Scripture.
Further, citing Phil. 4:8 against violent movies certainly applies - but even that Scripture is nowhere near as specific and unambiguous as are the verses Pastor Bloggenburg cites against pants on women (or, more properly, the maintenance of biblical gender distinctions in general).
Probably the main reason no one has bothered with your I Cor. 11 counterargument is because it is actually quite moot to the discussion. Whether a person (such as Pastor Bloggenburg) interprets head coverings as veiling or whether they interpret it (such as I do) as referring to the long hair women are supposed to have, either way - women are to have their heads covered in the church service. This is true, regardless of the time or culture in which that particular church exists. No "cultural" argument can really be made because in doing so, all you are doing is arguing fine gradations of head coverings, but not the *fact* of the *requirement* for head coverings on women - which are part of gender distinctions, btw.
Now, with the issue of pants on women - the Bible is very clear that women are not to wear men's clothing. THAT much is clear. The purpose of this is to maintain a distinction between the genders, as has also been clearly shown in times past from the Scripture. No argument FOR pants on women can really be made that overcomes the need for gender distinction. Even appealing to "women's styles of pants" is useless. It's about as truly legitimate of an argument as arguing for "men's styles of head veils." Merely changing a few cuts of cloth does not render an article of clothing "appropriate for the other gender."
Face it - speaking of "women's slacks" is just as silly as speaking of "a man's type of skirt."
So what of women who wear pants, yet are good witnesses, etc.? Well, that's fine and well that they're doing right in one area of their lives - but that doesn't give blanket approval to everything they do. It just means that they have an area of their life that they need to bring into obedience to the Lord, in line with the other areas where they are being obedient.
Kent,
To lie is to purposely mislead. I know that you have used 1Cor. 11 for your gender distinction argument, but I did not know (at the time of my statement) that you viewed that verse to mean Corinthian culture only and that's why you don't require head covering in your church.
Verse 16 proves that you are wrong on this. It was a apostolic tradition that was practiced in all of the churches. Paul was not trying to get the church to look like the Corintian culture.
Titus,
To say someone is dishonest is to say that they are being deceitful. I don't try to find scriptures to match up with my beliefs and disregard those that don't. I take all of scripture in context.
You were right to say that 1 Cor. 11 is not a cultural thing (as Kent suggests), thus it it must be practiced today.
Kent seems to believe that head covers are what is being discussed, but not for today. You think that it refers to long hair. You both are holding views that are relatively new to Christianity. Your views are not the historical positions.
It is funny that you both hold to the historical view when it suits you, but when the historical view disagrees with you, you are quick to explain it away. Please tell me if I'm wrong.
That was my main reason for bringing up 1 Cor 11. We've discussed your other points to death on previous posts.
"for her hair is given for a covering." (1 Cor. 11:15b) So, her hair is her covering. Simple.
Questions for discussion:
Bro. Hardecker, if hair is "the covering" then, by the looks of your picture, wouldn't you be disobedient to v.4?
Further, hair as the covering would make v.6 say, if the woman has no hair then she should have her head shaved.?
Long hair doesn't really work either.
All, would you ask a man to take off his hat to pray if he came into your church? Why or why not?
Blessings
John Gardner
Bill,
You can see the reason why Kent thinks that you and Titus are wrong on his Nov. 14, 2007 post titled: The seriousness of the symbolism for male headship (part one).
Kent tries to argue his anti women's pants position by stating that his position is the historical one. I was just bringing up the FACT that his 1 Cor 11 position was not the historical one. His Corinthian culture only and your long hair, no head covering necessary views are the new views. Kinda like the women in pants view.
Cherry picking scriptures and history= corrupt human thinking. Everything in context please.
I really do not have an "agenda" to defend. If I am convinced from Scripture that I am wrong, then I would want to switch views in accordance to the Bible.
In the case with Pastor Brandenburg's view of veils as coverings, and certainly the commentaries have something to say about the culture - we practically end with the same position (I think, but I could be wrong). I wouldn't have a problem with a woman who desires to wear an artificial veil in the church service. I live in the southeastern PA region. Lots of Amish and Mennonites, hence lots of artificial headcoverings around here. What is funny (if not sad) are the ones who do wear a head covering, but also wears pants - and worse, are observably bossy. Now that is pure satire.
I do believe that for a woman, her hair is given to her for a covering (because that's what the verse says). John posed two questions about fitting that interpretation to verse 4 and 6. V.4 deals with men and how that men should not have his head covered - I don't believe that God gave man hair for a covering, he gave that to women. The covering in verse 4 is artificial. V.6 is practically covered (no pun intended) by v.15. Her long hair is her veil.
I will need to examine Pastor Brandenburg's view on this, I tried to skim through the Jackhammer article that Gary mentioned. If I am wrong in my views then I am wrong. I would want to hold to the right view.
Some other things to ponder on 1 Cor. 11:1-16.
Creation is invoked in v. 9. Men, rightfully, teach that a woman is not to teach nor usurp the authority of the man from 1 Tim 2:9-15. Because creation is invoked, we understand it as a universal. Here are a well-known, conservative evangelical's words on 1 Tim. 2:13-14: “This is not a cultural issue, friends. This is not a cultural issue. Those people who say, "Well this was just some bias." This is not any Pauline bias. This is not some rabbinical gloss. This is Genesis. This is creation. It isn't temporary and it isn't cultural. Adam was first formed, then Eve.”
Creation is clearly invoked in 1 Cor. 11:8-9, so why universal/not cultural in 1 Tim 2 and not in 1 Cor. 11?
Secondly, were angels present only in first century Corinth?
Thirdly, is man the image and glory of God and woman the glory of man only in first century Corinth?
On a personal note, I don’t require my wife to wear a head covering. Forced obedience is not really obedience. She doesn’t wear one to my knowledge but is aware of my stance on the issue. She sometimes wears headbands and I notice. I deserve dishonor. Honor is not demanded. Jesus Christ on the other hand, is obviously a different story. When I preach or teach, I require men to remove their hats during prayer. I don’t require women to cover their heads even though I wished they would. I have been around men (meals, etc) who've prayed with hats on. I wished I could say I always made them take it off, but I haven't.
I would be interested to read a commentary before say 1850 that descibes the head covering as cultural.
Just some questions/comments to spur your thoughts.
Thanks to you guys for growing me in the Lord.
Blessings
John Gardner
Hi,
I want everyone to know on all the pant/skirt posts that I've done -- from here on in, I will only be posting those who are clearly not anonymous. Sure, someone could fool me, but I want some kind of traceable evidence of who the person is, who is commenting. I'm done with the faux bold anonymous comment. They're as bold as they can get, and the person speaks like he has absolute authority and knows he can come back with the same spirit, and can do it anonymously. You won't do it. That includes the last comment that was posted, which is wrong, again. He said the issue was about cross-dressing. That is the biblical position there, he says. And his main argument was that women wore t-shirts, so if you think pants are a male garment, then a t-shirt must be too. He (or she) said it with more attitude though in order to take on the form of ridicule.
Post a Comment