NOTE::: WAY LONG POST ON CONTROVERSIAL TOPIC FOLLOWS--PROCEED WITH CAUTION
--YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED:::
Often, when I run across interesting articles, ads or poems that I'd like to either keep or share here...or both, I'll clip them and put them here on my computer desk.
Mostly, the bits of paper are uplifting or encouraging, but right now the two particular papers I laid here today couldn't be more different from one another.
One is just a clipping containing only 8 lines, a poem. It is entirely encouraging. I wish I'd written a date on it because I know I've had it for many years, but it'd gotten lost in the clutter on my dresser. I found it today and I'm so glad. I'll share it with you later because I've never seen it anywhere again and it's really a very good bit of sunshine to have around when you've had a very disappointing day.
The other paper is actually a quad-fold pamphlet. It's pink, I assume because it's directed at women and aren't all us women drawn to pink? (not this one) It's a very discouraging lot of hogwash that I was given sometime during the 3 months we attended that very legalistic church I have mentioned on occasion. It condemns, confuses and confounds the Word of God.
It made me so angry the second time I read it. The first time, it left me dumbfounded.
I'll share some about it with you right now.
First, a disclaimer::: This post is liable to offend some. That is not the intention, but if my prior experience with others on this topic is any indicator, offense is likely. I have a suspicion though, and a faith, that the people who read here are much more spiritually mature than the folks who saw to it that I have this little pink pamphlet.
The name of this darling little handout is Double Minded Women: dressing to please God or Man??? Yes, there are three question marks at the end. This appears to have been printed from a computer and copied onto the trademark pink paper, but I could be wrong. I assume I'm not though since it was written by the wife of the speaker man who had these on his table for distribution to the needy.
[ASIDE--yes, I'm being a tad sarcastic here and I apologize. even though it's been almost 4 years since our family was almost torn apart by the people who gave me this information, I am still raw from the experience. I'll try not to get nasty about it, but be patient. perfect, I'm not.]
THIS JUST IN::: This pamphlet has been renamed, folks, to Schitzphrenic Women. Welcome to the world we barely escaped, where any difference in opinion is considered a psychotic illness. The address for the online version is www[dot]fbbc[dot]com[forward slash]messages[forward slash]rwpants[dot]htm I haven't read through it completely, so if it has been changed, other than the title, I'm not aware of it. Read on...
As you might (or might not) imagine, this informational paper is about dresses. No, not poly-blends versus cotton or fitted versus loose. It's all about how women should wear dresses. And dresses only.
Not only does it say that, it tells us why and uses lots of scripture, most of it out of context, to support this belief.
The lady who wrote this helps her husband run a home for "troubled girls". I have no doubt in my mind that their definition of 'troubled' and yours is extremely different. The way it was presented, it seemed to be considered and run as a deprogramming type of thing. And as I think about it now, that's probably exactly how they see it as well.
I found a link to their website. Have to say, I'm shocked they have one when from listening to the rhetoric, you'd assume they thought anything that is outside their control should be considered evil, but they have a site. I don't know whether I'll link it here or not. I really don't want to be targeted by these people and yes, I do think they'd make a target of me. I have had enough heartache because of this type of people...I'm not going looking for more, but we'll see how I feel about the link later.
Okay, so back to my beef about this paper...It starts out in the very first sentence talking about how controversial the "pants issue" is and proceeds to then claim just two sentences later that "A woman who is causing problems in the body of Christ is either not dressed properly (I Timothy 2:9) or not under the submission of her husband or father (I Timothy 2:11-14)." I'll get back to the scriptures they use later.
Now, that is a direct quote. And even though I believe fully that respecting the God-given roles with regard to men and women is very important, and I even believe there is a right and wrong way to dress, my heart just tightens and my nerves rankle at the tone that is set from the get-go in this publication.
If you haven't been around long enough to read my occassional posts on the awful experience we had in this kind of legalism, then let me explain that we only attended this church for a few months, but those few months almost tore our family apart, specifically our marriage, (but obviously, the kids were involved, too) as the church with the pastor's approval and active participation, sought to drive a wedge between Tommy and me and this issue of "proper women's dress" was the chisel that made the first chasm, being pounded in by the hammer head of legalistic, so-called gospel.
In this pamphlet, the writer who is, remember, this pastor-slash-troubled-girls-ministry-founder's wife, goes on to tell us how she used to be a double-minded woman. How she used to be "haughty, masculine and rebellious". She even tells us how, asserting her embarrassment at revealing it, she got her husband by those very dress and actions she is now condemning. Hmm. She says she dressed for men, desired to be noticed by men, etc., etc., ad nauseum.
Yes, in that she is merely "confessssing" her past transgressions. But that's not the only confession she makes.
Years later, after having started this home for troubled girls, when she is alone in the house for the day, she tells how she WENT AND "DUG OUT" (her words) her pants and put them on to see "what would happen". Here's what she says...
"I could not believe myself. Soon I felt bold, hard, haughty, and unfeminine. I was very unsubmissive [to whom? she was there alone, but she was unsubmissive?] and I grew worse as the day progressed. As soon as I took them off, I changed my personality inasmuch as I felt softer, more meek, feminine and gentle. I was conscious of how I walked and sat. That same year I tried something else. Those were the days of ungodly provocative 'let's go to bed' look fashions. These fashions included the miniskirt. I again pulled out one of my miniskirts [this begs the question :what was she doing holding on to all these unGodly clothes?:] and my shiny black boots [!!??!!] and immediately felt like a strange woman, and I desired to dance and prance. Perhaps you have worn these and did not desire those things. That is wonderful, but you were just as guilty because you caused a man to lust or attempt to control over his vision."
People, my mouth just fell open when I read this paragraph. That is about 10 paragraphs into this printed reproof of women and the tone was already judgemental, accusatory and almost mean. Here, it got just plain ridiculous. I mean, WHY did this woman have these clothes still stored away??? WHAT WAS THE PURPOSE??? And also, what does it say about a woman (or a man, for that matter) that has no more control of her emotions/desires/behavior than to "immediately" feel like a prostitute (that's what a strange woman is in biblical terms) and desire to dance and prance?!?! Good grief!! It tells me that this woman had better not be swept over by a hurricane and survive because more than likely, she might be left without a stitch of her own clothing to her name, and God forbid she may have no choice but to put on a pair of pants from the Red Cro$$ or whatever. She will be completely gone to the devil in a handbasket, right? According to her own admission, she will be completely helpless and will proceed to flag down johns from her position on the street corner.
Now, I realize this is just one (of many just like it from these people) position and not all people who feel convicted to dress (or eat or live) a certain way are so legalistic and judgemental about it. I'm not saying that at all. The church we were attending, that supported this 'teaching' and promoted it with a vengence, was only about 20 members strong. As time went on, we heard from the pulpit phrases like "we got rid of them real quick" referring to people who just wanted to have the church to fall back on but didn't want to live by "the rules" and instances of rebuking people from the pulpit (not in private, as the bible teaches) for doing various rule-breaking activities. We finally learned why our children weren't allowed to sing with the other kids (their mother wore pants during the week!) and why I was only encouraged to sign up for cleaning duties within the church, but never to fill in as pianist (that happened once while the preacher was gone...he must have pooped a brick when he found out)...nay. It was far better to do without music at all than stoop to allowing a "strange woman" to sully their sacred piano.
These people were forever saying things like "We're praying for you, Brother Tommy." or "We're praying for Geannie." Once they even went so far as to tell him they were praying that I'd "give up my pants" soon! All that sort of thing did was to drive a wedge between the two of us.
For awhile, I tried to be this dress-wearing holy woman the rest of the church women did. But very quickly I found out that they were really very ugly, gossipy (always in the form of a prayer request, of course) and that they'd take petty disagreements to the high pastor, who would them mention them from the pulpit!!! It was a horrific experience and I had no desire whatsoever to be like them!
It was made even worse when Tommy got sucked deeper and deeper into the farce and the distance between us became wider and wider. I must have cried millions of tears during that time. I knew in my heart that they were very wrong. But nothing, not even scripture, could convince Tommy. I gave him lists of scripture showing their teachings to be against God's word. He never once even attempted to look at them. But he was forever asking people at work what they thought. GARHG!
The final straw was when after being asked repeatedly, my dad agreed to sing during a night service. Then, just after the opening of the service, during the usual handshake, the pastor pulled Daddy aside and asked if he'd be singing by himself. No, Daddy said, both us girls were there and he'd sing with us. Dad was then told that 'us girls' were not allowed to sing. Daddy slowly asked why and was told it was because we wore pants during the week, outside of church. Dad leaned over the pew to tell me we wouldn't be singing. I, suspecting nothing like this, asked why and felt as if I'd been smacked in the face when he told me why.
That was the very hardest church service I've ever, EVER, had to sit through. When we got home, Dad told how he'd also felt like he'd been smacked...how the preacher had assured him that he'd be allowed to sing a solo, of course. And how he, my daddy, told him no, in that case he wouldn't be singing either.
EVEN after this incident, Tommy would not budge. The heartache was unbearable. It has to be added here that at this same time, one of The Acceptable Families in the church, the husband, had become buddies with Tommy...and had gotten him into the whole sickening gokart racing thing, too. So Tommy felt as if everything was about taking his fun away, his so-called friends, etc.
Most of you know how that ended...before we finally broke free from that church - because of my insistance - how Tommy orchestrated a plan to be able to go be in the weekly races, even though it fell on our 17th anniversary. And how I didn't go with him because 1) I hated going (dirt, noise, raunchy people, liars and cheats? um, no thanks) and 2) I had cramps, uhkay? So, I stayed home and the boys went with him to the track two counties away...about 60 miles from home. And how that about midnight on our 17th wedding anniversary, I got a call telling me that Tommy's kart had flipped and he was being taken to the hokey county hospital.
Long story shorter...the man had broken his collar bone in two places, requiring surgery to put two metal plates and eleven screws in to patch him together, then spending a month off work then another month in therapy. I stuck by him the entire time, as hard as it was. Yes, I did bawl him out, but I stood by him. The man couldn't even go to the bathroom by himself, for cryin' out loud. And everytime someone asked what happened, the tone went from sympathy to "well, you deserved that then, didn't you?" and I was looked as like some idiot for staying with him.
Seriously. It just about ended our marriage. But thankfully, we didn't let a bunch of legalistic, devilish (what else do you call it when people try to put a husband at odds with his wife?!?!) people win a battle for satan. Only by the grace of God, of course, but we fought it out and stuck together.
So *deep breath* I don't know what prompted this whole post other than running across this devilish pamphlet today. But let me give you my take on these scriptures.
The references to I Timothy 2 ...verse 9 doesn't say at all that women must wear only dresses, and not just any dress, but very long, very loose, very layered (that was the high pastor's way of putting it...long, loose and layered) dresses with only long hair. No if's, and's or but's about it. I see this NO WHERE in this scripture. I DO see the admonission to dress modestly and be reasonable (sober, serious) and not have braided hair [!!] or wear gold, pearls or "costly array". Hmm...you'd die if you could see the jewelery the high pastor's wife wears. On another note, I found this 'explaination' of the hair thing on www.bibleexplained.com/epistles-p/1&2-Timo/1ti02.htm if you want to copy and paste and see for yourself...
9 - Broided Literally, something woven, twisted together, of braided. In the context hair (and other things) should not make a statement that is not in harmony with reverence for Christ. I have heard that the term is used for the practice of weaving strands of gold or silver into the hair.
Um, folks...this sounds like making some modifications to the scripture to me. Since I don't know the author of this personally, I won't put too much stock in what she says.
I will say, however, that the pastor's daughter often wore her hair in braids. She was a teen at the time, which would make one think that braids would have been all the more inappropriate for her according to the doctrine held by the church. The wife wore moderate amounts of makeup. Tasteful, I would call it. She was by no means a T@mmy F@ye, ya know? But jewelery and makeup, the woman had ample amounts of to be sure!
For verses 11-14, I will say I do believe that women should not teach anything in the church other than children's classes (if they teach Sunday School or whatever) or a women's class. I take these verses literally and the reference to Adam being formed first (he was) and Eve being the one who was first deceived (she was)...that just references where this teaching originates. We women are naturally more emotionally driven for the most part, and as such, are perhaps more apt to be led astray. That's my take. And that's all I'll say about the subject.
On making modifications to the very scriptures they use to 'prove' their legalistic teaching, high pastor himself seemed to make certain exceptions...for instance, he was very fond of quoting the Old Testament to prove that women should wear dresses and not pants...For instance, Deuteronomy 22:5 says basically a man shouldn't wear "that which pertaineth" to a woman and likewise for women. Now then, we can discover by simply reading that men wore robes and not 'pants' per se. High preacher even brought this one up himself, then went on to tell us that men wore 'britches' undeneath their robes and women didn't.
Correct. No argument from me. However, how would one know whether a woman hadn't snuck on her hubby's 'britches' under her robes just to feel all defiant and such? You wouldn't. Not that it wouldn't be wrong, since it's clearly stated in this scripture that it should not be done. BUT, my point is that looking at the outward appearance, no one would know except the woman and God, right? Besides, I really don't know any women that would even want to wear men's underwear (which is what the 'britches' amount to). Yick. ;)
Okay...now let's look at the clothing requirements for men, specifically preachers...specifically here. This is some very specific clothing requirements for the Old Testament priests, which high preacher considered himself. There's a whole list of specifics here...color, type of material, proportions, etc. There's no room for variant interpretation here, folks. But that was no longer required according to the preacher, even though the women's requirements were still in effect.
Hmm. Okay, I'm going to stop now. I'll leave you to investigate James 4 and see what it says about judging your brother (fellow believer)...and Romans 14 where Apostle Paul tells us not to assign our judgements of what is lawful or sinful for us to others where it's not clearly stated in the scriptures...and Matthew 6 (verses 1-2, 25, 28-29, 31, and 33) and 7 (verses 1-2, 12, 16-18 and 20) where Jesus Himself tells us not to do things (or wear things) so we'll be noticed by others and thought to be holy, that life is more than what we eat and our bodies more than the clothing we wear, that we should first be seeking the kingdom of God, then specifically to "judge not that ye be not judged...and that you will know them by their fruits". The church and pastor's fruit was judgementalism, gossip, exclusion, legalism, bullying, intimidation, active attempts to divide a couple and culling the congregation like cattle.
*long breath* Whew. This has been draining, but cleansing and a good thing, I think. I hope none of you have fallen over the keyboard or gouged your eyeballs out with a pencil. *heh*
Now you may understand some odd things about me that may not have made sense before? Maybe?
Nah. No way.
Never the less, it's been yet another excercise in the release of the hurt we experienced at the hands of some very misguided people. It breaks my heart to think of all the people who didn't have a firmer foundation (or none at all!) in the scriptures and have been set adrift to figure out what happened to them alone. I seriously weep when I think of it. It is a horrible shame and this pastor will have much to answer for when he's called before God.
As will we all, yes, but Lord help me to never purposely push someone away from You!
Anyhow, I'm open to discussion, that is civil, friendly discussion, which is all I'd expect of my exemplary regular readers, but if you're new, maybe you didn't know that. Now you do. That doesn't mean I'll have any answers to questions, any response to statements or any desire to participate in the discussion.
So then, if you've made it this far, you should win a prize!!! However, since I don't have any prizes to award, I give you my sincere appreciation. ;)
~hugs~
