Pentecostal women dress style

[Forealzchola]

hi i visited a apostolic pentecostal church last sunday...was bombarded however by how the women were dressed..either all skirts and dresses..and long hair either hanging crazy long or high on their heads..and no makeup..what is up with this? I got home and research some sites on apostolic beliefs..and they believe its a sin for women to cut their hair..and women cant wear makeup or jewlery and that they cant wear pants...which could never work for me because i do all of the above..and cant wear a skirt as a cop!! i also heard they dont believe in putting oneself in a situation where they might have to kill someone even if it were to be self-defense...so they try to petition out of having to serve on the battlefield during activity duty in the military or they leave all togher...which will never work for me either as cop..can someone explain this to me?? because the church was good 100 percent word of God...it was a majority white church but the way they dressed almost made them look like foreigners like...russian or some other different type of european..like the duggard family on tlc...it was very different for me

 

[WannaWitness]

hi i visited a apostolic pentecostal church last sunday...was bombarded however by how the women were dressed..either all skirts and dresses..and long hair either hanging crazy long or high on their heads..and no makeup..what is up with this? I got home and research some sites on apostolic beliefs..and they believe its a sin for women to cut their hair..and women cant wear makeup or jewlery and that they cant wear pants...which could never work for me because i do all of the above..and cant wear a skirt as a cop!! i also heard they dont believe in putting oneself in a situation where they might have to kill someone even if it were to be self-defense...so they try to petition out of having to serve on the battlefield during activity duty in the military or they leave all togher...which will never work for me either as cop..can someone explain this to me?? because the church was good 100 percent word of God...it was a majority white church but the way they dressed almost made them look like foreigners like...russian or some other different type of european..like the duggard family on tlc...it was very different for me

I think I can tell you why they stress that. They base that on Scriptures that talk about being modest and dressing feminine, and for some reason, they don't think pants "fit the bill". But that isn't limited to churches within the Pentecostal sect; Some Independent Baptists churches have been known to practice similar rituals, too.

I, however, believe that a lady can wear pants, and be dressed very appropriately. Pants, of course, outline the shape of the legs, but on both genders, and not just women. So long as they aren't skin-tight, there are plenty of pants out there that are just as modest (if not moreso) than many skirts. There are also skirts that are modest, as well as immodest. As for the issue of "pertaining to men", it seems like they only think of pants, but think nothing of sneakers, boots, or sweaters which, like pants, were worn by men first. Yet all are made in women's styles, making them fall in the "generic" category. I think as long as a lady is not deliberately dressing to come off as a man, then I think that's okay.

I fully understand that wearing only skirts can be a legitimate conviction of some women. If that is the case, then there's nothing wrong with that, as long as they remember that this conviction is not for everyone (look to Romans 14, which uses the eating of meat as an example, but any controversial topic within the Christian realm can be applied here).

You may find the following links somewhat helpful:
Does the Bible Say It's a Sin for Women to Wear Pants?
Holiness, Standards and Sin

God bless you.

 

[Forealzchola]

yea my sister talks about other cultures..and how women in indian cultures have been wearing pants for thousands of years...and God didnt have a problem with it

 

[stormdancer0]

Plus, if you think about it, men of the middle east, then and now, wear a dress-like garment. The admonition is for men to wear men's clothing, and women to wear women's clothing.

Clothing is symbolic sometimes as authority. When a rich man took off his robes and put on sackcloth, he was symbolically giving authority to God, assuming none for himself. This may be something similar. I never studied that scripture very deeply.

 

[Miss Elly]

hi i visited a apostolic pentecostal church last sunday...was bombarded however by how the women were dressed..either all skirts and dresses..and long hair either hanging crazy long or high on their heads..and no makeup..what is up with this? I got home and research some sites on apostolic beliefs..and they believe its a sin for women to cut their hair..and women cant wear makeup or jewlery and that they cant wear pants...which could never work for me because i do all of the above..and cant wear a skirt as a cop!! i also heard they dont believe in putting oneself in a situation where they might have to kill someone even if it were to be self-defense...so they try to petition out of having to serve on the battlefield during activity duty in the military or they leave all togher...which will never work for me either as cop..can someone explain this to me?? because the church was good 100 percent word of God...it was a majority white church but the way they dressed almost made them look like foreigners like...russian or some other different type of european..like the duggard family on tlc...it was very different for me

Well, all I can say is if they feel would be committing a sin by doing any of these things, then they are condemned by God. I have very good friend who was a United Pentecostal and she dressed like that as well. Fortunately for her she was very beautiful, had glorious long hair and wore tasteful clothing, although very very modest. One day at the office her workers hounded her until she allowed them to put make up on her face. I saw her in the restroom, she told me about it and she was upset and disgusted with herself and them. I couldn't resist saying "Charlene, what if Jesus comes back right this second and you have that makeup on, you won't go up in the rapture! She immediately started to scrub her makeup off. I felt bad about teasing her then. I'm thankful God loves me with my make-up on, pants on, etc. etc. And I was brought up in a strict pentecostal church. I don't want to offend the die hards with my "freedom", but neither are they going to lay a guilt trip on me with their traditions either. God bless and just talk to God about your own convictions.

 

[Forealzchola]

Well, all I can say is if they feel would be committing a sin by doing any of these things, then they are condemned by God.

See this one statement and pratice in some churches of the body of Christ is what made my twin sister leave to go to islam...there is no consistency..God is the same...sin is sin...sin isnt sin for one and then not the other..that is not biblical...God is not issuing out sin convictions on a personal level..its like people that say well God hasnt convicted me for watching inappropriate content so it "must be ok for me" and the other well God convicted it for me...so its condemned by God " for me" that isnt biblical.

 

[breadandbutter]

Not all Pentecostals/Apostolics are opposed to women's pants. New research and study has brought about enlightenment on the relevant scripture texts, and the issue appears to be controversial among their ranks.

So far as the history of pants goes, pants were not invented for men, and neither were men the first to wear pants. Pants were invented by the Medes & Persians in the 4th century B.C., where they were worn by BOTH sexes, but some historians say women were the first to wear them, being worn by Queen Medea. They were invented for warmth and for riding horses. Princesses in the royal court of King Darius wore pants and rode horses. You may like to read, "Pants A History AFoot", by Laurence Benaim.

The issue of pants is simply one of CULTURE. The word "skirt" appears 12 times in the Bible and each time refers to the skirt of a MAN. "Skirts" (plural) appears 7 times and is used of both men and women. What is considered "masculine" and "feminine" in clothing styles is a matter of culture--not Biblical mandates--and varies with nationality and historical era. If men could wear men's skirts in the ancient Biblical cultures of the Hebrews, Greeks, and Romans, women today can wear women's pants.

Pants did not take on male association until 1340, and only in Europe while Europe was greatly influenced by the Catholic Church, who issued denunciations against women wearing pants, and by the end of the 17th cen. a person could be hanged for wearing clothes of the opposite sex, as so defined by the Catholic Church.

Our European forefathers brought the cultural idea of pants symbolizing male (abusive) authority to our country, and laws based upon the inferiority of women were put into place in America.

It was during the abolitionist movement in our country that women became empowered to throw off male authority symbolism invoked upon pants, during the Middle Ages, and adapted a female version of pants. Elizabeth Smith Miller, an advocate of dress reform, introduced feminine pants into our culture, by contriving an outfit made of Turkish "harem" pants, or pantaloons, underneath a short skirt, and Amelia Jenks Bloomer was featured wearing the freedom dress in her magazine, "The Lily," in 1851. Women all over the country began wearing the outfit. Women did not copy men's wear, but simply "borrowed" from another CULTURE and country where pants had no male association.

Our country's first "feminists" tried to educate the public on the historical origin of pants, viz. Persia, in newspaper and magazine articles. The bifurcated bicycling outfit became immensely popular with the invention of the bicycle. Women found pants more practical and safer for riding bicycles than long, entangling skirts.

In light of history God had absolutely nothing at all to do with the separation of men in pants and women in dresses. The first "feminists" destroyed the concept, and pants are no longer a strictly male garment in our culture.

 

[stormdancer0]

Not all Pentecostal churches have a problem with women wearing pants and makeup. I am a pastor in a Pentecostal church, and wear pants, even when preaching sometimes. But my clothing is modest and appropriate for church. I would rather a woman wear a nice pair of slacks than a skin-tight dress.

 

[breadandbutter]

I would also like to add comments on the passage of 1 Cor. 1-16, which is used to teach against women cutting their hair (any length). I am the author of a booklet and several tracts dealing with this scripture passage and the hair issue.

The subject of the passage is veiling, but the Oneness Pentecostals, such as the UPCI, fail to acknowledge this, which causes their doctrine to be quite peculiar. Their teaching is that the "covering" of vv4,5,6,7 is the long (uncut) hair of v15, but this is linguistically impossible, and "long" hair is not necessarily "uncut".

Daniel Segraves, UPCI author of "Hair Length in the Bible", states on p23, "It is wrong to say that the verb cover means veil. ...Katakaluapto does not mean "veil." But Strong's Lexicon defines katakalupto #2619 as, "cover with a veil." It is a compound word of kata, meaning "down" and kalupto, meaning "to cover up." This covering that hangs down is best described by the English word, "veil." If author Segraves knows something the lexicographers, who wrote the Greek-English dictionaries, do not know, he fails to present the correct definition anywhere in his book.

In v4 the expression translated, "having his head covered", literally means "having down on a head." In Esther 6:12 most manuscripts of the Greek OT read that Haman went to his house "mourning down on a head"--a way of saying he put something over his head to show his mourning. Obviously, Haman did not grow long hair.

Plutarch in his "Sayings of the Romans," speaks of Scipio the Younger walking through Alexandria "having the garment down the head" (kata kephales), meaning that he concealed his head with part of his toga to avoid being recognized by the people. In v4 Paul uses the exact same phrase: kata kephales echon ... also meaning a garment covering the head--not having long hair. The word group, which includes the words translated, "cover" and "uncover" in vv5, 6, 7, and 13, is used in the Greek OT to refer to an external FABRIC covering over 80 times and never once to long hair.

I found the UPCI to be deceitful in citing the word definitions imperative to understanding the passage, along with skipping over the crucial element in its historical/cultural background. Segraves states on p37 that "long, uncut hair is given to a woman instead of a veil." He states the word, for, translated from the Greek, anti, means "against" or "instead of", and references Gingrich's Shorter Lexicon of the Greek New Testament. But, on p17 of this particular lexicon, anti is actually defined as, "for, AS, in place of." Segraves totally leaves out "AS" in the definition, which is the correct meaning in light of the context.

In the Greek OT anti is most often used in matters of compensation--one object's value being compared to a different object's value, such as, "an eye for an eye; a tooth for a tooth." Anti is a word of comparison. In Eph. 5:31 Paul uses anti in speaking of the church's relationship to Christ. A man and woman becoming one flesh in marriage is anti to the body of Christ. The Apostle, like Jesus and the Prophets, used SYMBOLISM. A veil is LIKE long hair, or is COMPARED to long hair; being unveiled is LIKE, or COMPARED to, having hair cut short, or shaved. Strong's states katakalupto signifies that "hair that hangs down is too long for a man, and consequently hair that does not hang down on a woman is too short."

Another deceitfully cited definition is that of the Greek verb, keiro, translated into the English, "shorn" in v6. Much of the debate over whether a woman has the scriptural right to cut her hair any length, lies in the definition of this one little word, "shorn". According to Strong's Expanded Dictionary of the Bible Words, Thayer and Smith, "The NT Greek Lexicon", the King James Dictionary, Vine's Expository Dictionary, "shorn" and keiro are defined as, "to shear: a sheep"; cutting SHORT the hair of the head; to have one's hair CUT OFF; having the hair or wool CUT OFF..." Throughout the Greek OT the meaning of keiro is that of shearing sheep, and when applied to the human head in the NT (Acts 18:18; 1 Cor. 11:6) it bears the same meaning. It imples a very short cut. There are other Greek words for simply "to clip" or "to trim."

Although "to cut" without specifying any length is ONE, modern English definition of "shear," it is NOT the original Greek meaning of keiro! Keiro and xurao (shave) are closely related, etymologically, and used synonymously at times.

The Greek comic poet, Menander, wrote a play called Perikeiromene, which illustrates the literary use of the verb, keiro. The title is a combination of the Greek words, peri (around) + keiro (shear) + mene = woman who = the Woman Who Was Shorn All Around. The plot of the play is that a Corinthian soldier named Polemon has a lover named Glykera... One day Polemon sees the next-door neighbor, Moschion, come up to Glykera and give her a kiss, and she does not resist him, because she knows he is her brother... In a fit of jealousy Polemon then cuts off all her hair, which was an embarrassing situation for Glykera, because a shorn woman was quite frowned upon in Greco-Roman antiquity. The play's title gives the right idea--A Woman Shorned.

But, what does Segraves do? He defines keiro as "to have one's hair cut without specifying how much is cut off." In Segraves' footnotes one finds he is supposed to be citing from The Shorter Lexicon of the Greek NT, by F. Wilbur Gingrich. But, this dictionary does not present complete definitions. In the preface it states, "Emphasis is placed on the bare meanings of words; for more information the user must consult BAGD [Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, Danker] or other works." But, the author does not refer to any other lexical works than this ONE to define keiro. Strong's Expanded Dictionary of Bible Words is the most complete, up-to-date Greek dictionary available and has been cross-referenced to all the leading lexical works.

The Greek verb, komao, translated "have long hair" in vv14, 15 has more than one meaning, depending upon the context, but the UPC chooses the definition of "let one's hair grow." Komao is also defined as "to wear tresses of hair," in Strong's and "to let the hair grow long" in other sources. The verb can have a general meaning referring to a measurement of length. Komao does not mean one has never cut his or her hair; hair could be cut some and still be within the bounds of the meaning of this word. Totally uncut hair is another Greek word--akersikomes.

The earliest usage of komao is found in the Greek poet, Homer, in reference to the soldiers that destroyed Troy. The Greek soldiers are known by the formula komoontes Achaioi where komoontes is just the participial form of komao. This is translated as "the long-haired Achaeans." Although they had "long" hair, they would CUT OFF SOME OF IT and leave it at tombs in honor of the dead (like most Greeks did throughout antiquity, including at the time of Christ.)

The meaning of UNSHORN hair was hair not cut SHORT. The ancient Greeks did not really have the concept of "trim". Generally, the only length into which hair was cut in the ancient Roman Empire was SHORT. Trimming split, damaged ends is a modern day innovation.

Ancient Greeks regarded losing one's hair as a sort of death, and to sympathize with the dead they would cut all their hair off at times. The playwright, Euripides, in Orestes, speaks of Helen of Troy, who rather than shearing (keiro) her hair to mourn the death of her sister, Clytemnestra, simply "trimmed" it. The verb, used by Euripides, is apeqrisen. In line 128 Electra, speaking of Helen, says, "Did ye mark how she cut off (apeqrisen) her hair only at the ends, careful to preserve its beauty?" Helen then sent these "tresses" to the tomb by her daughter and attendants. Although Helen "cut" her hair, she still had "long" hair, or komao. The Greek verb, apeqrisen, is defined as "to cut off" and is also used of objects.

The Spartans, the Greek soldiers who fought in the Persian Wars, had "long" hair, or komao, which they favored at shoulder-length.

The passage of 1 Cor. 11:1-16 is based upon culture--not salvation. "Long" hair did not differentiate between pagan women and Christian women. ALL women of the Roman Empire, who were free, had "long" hair, and men wore short hair cuts--the Ceasarcuts--after the Emperor. This was the norm throughout the Empire, not just the church at Corinth. It was not a "holiness standard." The Greeks had a long standing tradition of homosexuality, and the Romans considered it to be highly chic. But, beginning with Emperor Augustus, who had stern morals, people of the Empire began thinking their way out of homosexuality, and by the 1st century long hair on men and short cut hair on women came to be viewed as sexual inversions. The meaning given hair length in the Roman Empire does not exist today in our culture. Female slaves were recognized by their short hair cut, called the kepos, cut to the cheek or the jaw. Slaves were abundant in the Empire, and many slaves became Christians. If growing long hair were a requirement for salvation, how could a female slave have been saved?

 

[atapia94]

hi i visited a apostolic pentecostal church last sunday...was bombarded however by how the women were dressed..either all skirts and dresses..and long hair either hanging crazy long or high on their heads..and no makeup..what is up with this? I got home and research some sites on apostolic beliefs..and they believe its a sin for women to cut their hair..and women cant wear makeup or jewlery and that they cant wear pants...which could never work for me because i do all of the above..and cant wear a skirt as a cop!! i also heard they dont believe in putting oneself in a situation where they might have to kill someone even if it were to be self-defense...so they try to petition out of having to serve on the battlefield during activity duty in the military or they leave all togher...which will never work for me either as cop..can someone explain this to me?? because the church was good 100 percent word of God...it was a majority white church but the way they dressed almost made them look like foreigners like...russian or some other different type of european..like the duggard family on tlc...it was very different for me

hi, I found your questions really interesting. I myself am Pentecostal. Most people are very surprised by the way us Pentecostals dress. The reason why we do not cut our hair is because the bible tells us that (not direct quote, just paraphrased) "a woman's long hair is her glory, and that a razor should never touch upon her head". That is the reason why we do not. And we wear skirts because "a woman should not wear what pertaineth to a man" same goes for a man, that he should not wear what pertaineth to a woman.

I read a post in here, and the man said that he would prefer a woman to wear nice pair of slacks rather than a tight dress, I say this. Each pentecostal church has it's on standards. basically they are all the same. Some allow formfitting dress, whilst some churches(including mine) do not allow it. Some churches are allowed to watch television, while most pentecostal churches aren't. I'd say only 20% of churches allow their saints to watch tv.

And about 95% of churches do not allow they're women to wear make-up, because many passages in the bible talk about it, as how ungodly women wore it and they were led astray from God. Such as Jezebel, she was so evil & wicked and she always wore make-up. I think they see it as a symbol or reference to evil and ungodly things. Also as a form of vain & trying to change one's appearance.

"And you, O desolate one, what do you mean that you dress in scarlet, that you adorn yourself with ornaments of gold, that you enlarge your eyes with paint? In vain you beautify yourself. Your lovers despise you; they seek your life."

And as for conviction, the bible says that we should pray for God to give us conviction, and allow it. Personal convictions is more along the lines of, say a woman will not wear shiny beads or fake jewelry on her clothing or her hair pieces, even though she is allowed to. She might find that as distracting, or maybe as giving a man the wrong idea, or too much attention to a certain part of her body.

Another thing is clear nail polish. We are not allowed to wear colored nail polish. Kind of like make-up to us. But yet some people believe it is wrong to even wear clear nail polish, and some don't. I personally don't think it is wrong. It makes my nails look nice and clean, still plain, and strengthens them.

I think I've covered mostly everything in this forum. Anymore questions I will be more than grateful to answer. If you would like direct scripture for anything I have told you, I will get them for you. As I do not remember each individual scripture, but I will look them up. I know scripture but not all, I am only 17 lol

 

[lilmissmontana]

I didn't post on this two years ago purposely, because I wasn't as confident in things then as I've become ... with that said ...

I'm quite weary tonight and a little on the down side, so please bear with me ...

the whole hair thing just irritates the hoohaw out of me ... seriously ... no one's going to hell because of the length of their hair ... that's a flesh teaching ... flesh and blood don't enter the kingdom ... there's no grace in teaching the hair as a law ... I'm too tired to go fish up all the info at the moment, so here it is as food for thought ... nothing is an absolute quote ... I don't have that good of a memory ...

rightly dividing the Word = seperating the flesh teaching from the spiritual teaching ...

spiritual teaching = covering = keep Christ over your head ... which means make sure you work and breathe to His favor the best your able ... and don't go lusting after the ways of the world ... don't forsake your first love and don't go whoring around with the enemy ... His blessings are sweet ... but woe to those who walk against Him ... He won't play second fiddle to any thing, person or god ...

... in the times to come that is a very important scripture to understand ... many will be deceived ...

balance in all things is what we should strive for ... the Lord's yoke is easy and not a burden ... seems to me it's quite a burden to have your Christianity placed on trial over hair ... some churches teach that kind of thing ... and some don't ... no different than any thing else in the world ...

all that said, I know there was a time hair did play a role ... Nazerites maybe, if I remember right ... and may still in some cases ... another subject ...

may the Lord bless you on the way
lilmiss

 

[stormdancer0]

hi, I found your questions really interesting. I myself am Pentecostal. Most people are very surprised by the way us Pentecostals dress. The reason why we do not cut our hair is because the bible tells us that (not direct quote, just paraphrased) "a woman's long hair is her glory, and that a razor should never touch upon her head". That is the reason why we do not. And we wear skirts because "a woman should not wear what pertaineth to a man" same goes for a man, that he should not wear what pertaineth to a woman.

The problem with this interpretation of the scripture is at the time it was written, men wore dress-like robes, as did women. There were differences in hats/veils/turbans, but for the basic dress, all people wore tunics. Also, I see no correlation between a razor not touching a woman's hair, and her being allowed to cut her hair. I can cut my hair and it still be long.

I read a post in here, and the man said that he would prefer a woman to wear nice pair of slacks rather than a tight dress, I say this. Each pentecostal church has it's on standards. basically they are all the same. Some allow formfitting dress, whilst some churches(including mine) do not allow it. Some churches are allowed to watch television, while most pentecostal churches aren't. I'd say only 20% of churches allow their saints to watch tv.

I have never in my life heard of a church (Pentecostal or otherwise) who say that their members are not allowed to watch TV. We should be very careful and thoughtful of what we watch, but there's no Biblical support for such a command.

And about 95% of churches do not allow they're women to wear make-up, because many passages in the bible talk about it, as how ungodly women wore it and they were led astray from God. Such as Jezebel, she was so evil & wicked and she always wore make-up. I think they see it as a symbol or reference to evil and ungodly things. Also as a form of vain & trying to change one's appearance.

I don't agree that this is a blanket ban on makeup. Of course, there's make up that enhances, and then make up that entices. Enhancing is okay; enticing is not.

"And you, O desolate one, what do you mean that you dress in scarlet, that you adorn yourself with ornaments of gold, that you enlarge your eyes with paint? In vain you beautify yourself. Your lovers despise you; they seek your life."

And as for conviction, the bible says that we should pray for God to give us conviction, and allow it. Personal convictions is more along the lines of, say a woman will not wear shiny beads or fake jewelry on her clothing or her hair pieces, even though she is allowed to. She might find that as distracting, or maybe as giving a man the wrong idea, or too much attention to a certain part of her body.

Another thing is clear nail polish. We are not allowed to wear colored nail polish. Kind of like make-up to us. But yet some people believe it is wrong to even wear clear nail polish, and some don't. I personally don't think it is wrong. It makes my nails look nice and clean, still plain, and strengthens them.

I think I've covered mostly everything in this forum. Anymore questions I will be more than grateful to answer. If you would like direct scripture for anything I have told you, I will get them for you. As I do not remember each individual scripture, but I will look them up. I know scripture but not all, I am only 17 lol

I am glad that you are taking your walk with God so seriously at 17. The Lord knows that I was not so inclined at that age. But we must be careful not to be MORE restrictive on our lives than Jesus intended. He came to set us free, not put us in bondage to a bunch of rules and regulations. The Pharisees were big on rules, and Jesus denounced them.

I would imagine that the fact I am a woman pastor would probably not sit well with your church, either. And that's okay. Our church concentrates heavily on inner holiness, not so much on the outward holiness. We do not encourage inappropriate clothing or makeup in our services, but "inappropriate" is in the eye of the beholder sometimes. We would rather a hooker come in and learn about God than for someone to turn her away at the door because her make up and clothing were not suitable.

 

[LinkH]

See this one statement and pratice in some churches of the body of Christ is what made my twin sister leave to go to islam...there is no consistency..God is the same...sin is sin...sin isnt sin for one and then not the other..that is not biblical...God is not issuing out sin convictions on a personal level..its like people that say well God hasnt convicted me for watching inappropriate content so it "must be ok for me" and the other well God convicted it for me...so its condemned by God " for me" that isnt biblical.

Look up I Corinthians 8 and Romans 14. There are some things that are sins outright. One of those is to perform actions for which you do not have a clean conscience. The case in Romans 14 is if someone eat something and his conscience is condemned if he does it, but he does it anyway, he sins.

So there are things one person can do without sinning and another person can't do without sinning. But there are also plenty of things that are outright sins. If someone doesn't feel guilty if he murders people, that doesn't mean it isn't a sin. But one person might be able to dance or wear pants without sinning, but another person raised in the UPC or certain independent Baptist church might not.

On UPC dress codes, back when the Pentecostal movement started at Azusa Street and/or a little before it, people in the movement came from a variety of backgrounds. Many of them, like Seymour and some of the other leaders, were from Holiness backgrounds. Plenty of early Pentecostals emphasized dressing simply. Some of them were quite legalistic about it. In Church of God or Assembly of God churches 60 years ago, you'd probably see women dressed kind of like these UPC folks you are talking about.

When pants came into fashion for women in the US, some preachers in really conservative churches, like some of the Pentecostal churches independent Baptists, etc. quoted verses in the OT about women not wearing men's clothes. Of course, these are women's pants we are talking about, not men's. In some countries, pants have historically been women's clothes.

(And for the folks on the other side of the pond, that other pond I'm not in the middle of, by pants I mean trousers.)

I've heard some street or campus preachers preaching against women wearing pants. I think its ridiculous with all the real sins that go on. It's usually guys who are concerned about it. If a man is bent out of shape about this, I'll ask him if they fit, would he wear women's jeans. He'll usually say no. He wouldn't want to wear women's clothes. Which defeats the whole argument against women wearing pants.

The Oneness movement split off from the Pentecostal movement within about a decade of the Azusa Street revival. if I remember my history right, Seymour preached that people needed to be 'saved, sanctified, and filled with the Holy Ghost.' The idea of sanctification as a one time experience that happens to you all of a sudden doesn't have any scripture to back it up, really. So that didn't sit well with a lot of new Pentecostals. The Holiness folks already believed in sanctification that way. One Pentecostal preacher from the Midwest, Durham, toured parts of the country, including LA, teaching the 'finished work of the cross.' I think he may have ministered at a church that wasn't the Azusa Street mission there in LA. They didn't believe in sanctification as a one-time experience like the Holiness folks were preaching.

After Durham died, some folks started claiming God gave them a revelation about the name of Jesus, that you had to say the name of Jesus at baptism. They started teaching that Jesus is the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. They didn't believe in the trinity. The Assembly of God split over this issue, with less than a quarter, I think, joining the Oneness movement. If I am not mistaken, the church Durham was a part of got caught up in this after he died. They might have been at the forefront of it.

The biggest group of Oneness are the United Pentecostal Church. They and lots of Oneness folk believe you have to be water baptized in the name of Jesus to be saved, and that if you haven't spoken in tongues, you aren't even saved. Most Pentecostals in the US don't consider speaking in tongues to be a test of salvation.

The Pentecostal movement was also known as the Apostolic movement early on. Seymour had a newsletter called The Apostolic Times that went out from Azusa Street for a year or two. In the US, 'Apostolic' got associated with the Oneness Movement. But some of the missionaries had already used the label for trinitarian churches in other countries, like John G. Lake in South Africa, so internationally a Pentecostal trinitarian church might call itself Apostolic, but in the US, that title is generally associated with Oneness Pentecostalism.

 

[LinkH]

Btw, I didn't realize the UPC was pacifist. Lots of early Pentecostals were. The AOG leaned that way and so did the COG (Cleveland) at first. It changed gradually over time.

 

[atapia94]

The problem with this interpretation of the scripture is at the time it was written, men wore dress-like robes, as did women. There were differences in hats/veils/turbans, but for the basic dress, all people wore tunics. Also, I see no correlation between a razor not touching a woman's hair, and her being allowed to cut her hair. I can cut my hair and it still be long.

Mmm yes the time that this scripture was written.. that's what a lot of people say. Times change, but what God meant doesn't. How our we supposed to tell the difference between God's people and the world? If we all look the same? People can tell I am different by the way I am dressed and present my self. You don't see people walk up to a young lady that is wearing pants, make-up, jewelery, short hair(not that there is anything wrong with it unless a woman came to God like that and therefore doesn't cut it afterwards), a bad attitude and a fowl mouth and ask her "Are you Pentecostal?" No you don't. At least I haven't nor heard of it. But I have people come up to me and ask me all the time.

A razor referring to anything sharp. Not just an actual razor. Yes you can cut your hair and it still be long, but the point isn't just having long hair. It's to obey the scriptures by not cutting your hair period. I know plenty of girls who have never cut their hair but yet it is not long, due to their hair not growing fast or similar situations.

I have never in my life heard of a church (Pentecostal or otherwise) who say that their members are not allowed to watch TV. We should be very careful and thoughtful of what we watch, but there's no Biblical support for such a command.

Ahh but there is. "I will set no wicked thing before mine eyes: I hate the work of them that turn aside; it shall not cleave to me." Psalms 101:3
People make up all sorts of excuses for that one. Like you did, "we should be very careful.... of what we watch". Yes we should, but why risk the chance you being tempted to watch the ungodly things on tv? Such as adultery, stealing, lying, fornication, fowl mouths, ungodly references(dirty talk), gossip, presentation(the way the look may tempt us to change ourselves), and all that. Almost every show has at least one of those things.
Sure we all sin, we aren't perfect, we make mistakes, but some shows such as soap operas, make it seem like it's ok, and perfectly natural. Actually same thing goes for computers. We are allowed to have them, but we should be careful what websites we go under. But i believe computers are not as bad, since you have to type in where you want to go. You have control of what websites you go under, unlike tv, whatever these directors throw out there, is there to watch.

I don't agree that this is a blanket ban on makeup. Of course, there's make up that enhances, and then make up that entices. Enhancing is okay; enticing is not.

You don't think make-up representing ungodly things, and evil things, makes it a ban? I'm sorry you feel that way.. But make up entices no matter how little you put on. It a facade. That's what it is, sort of a lie. No, not sort of. It is a lie.

I am glad that you are taking your walk with God so seriously at 17. The Lord knows that I was not so inclined at that age. But we must be careful not to be MORE restrictive on our lives than Jesus intended. He came to set us free, not put us in bondage to a bunch of rules and regulations. The Pharisees were big on rules, and Jesus denounced them.

So we are just to run around without any rules at all? And do whatever we please? No. the government has rules, Jobs have rules, Stores have rules, everything has rules. There needs to be boundaries. And the rules that we have aren't man made, they're the rules god set for us in the bible. We merely follow them. Sure God didn't say exactly in the bible, Thou shalt not watch television, because it wasn't invented back then. We have to adapt to the technology and new things that are coming out to what god means. There is scripture for everything, we don't just make up rules because we feel like it.

Jesus didn't denounce them for rules, he called them hypocrites. Cuz that's what they were. They didn't practice what they preached.

I would imagine that the fact I am a woman pastor would probably not sit well with your church, either. And that's okay. Our church concentrates heavily on inner holiness, not so much on the outward holiness. We do not encourage inappropriate clothing or makeup in our services, but "inappropriate" is in the eye of the beholder sometimes. We would rather a hooker come in and learn about God than for someone to turn her away at the door because her make up and clothing were not suitable.

No you probably wouldn't sit well. We don't believe that woman should hold that authority of a pastor. A pastor's wife, sure, but not a pastor. I am a girl myself, and I don't believe any woman should be given that position.

Yes there's another thing people make excuses for. "God says he loves you for the inside, not the outside. So it shouldn't matter how we look" Yes that's correct in some ways. God doesn't care what race we are, what color eyes, hair, and skin we have. whether we have a skin disease or anything.

We do not turn away visitors or even frequent visitors just because the way they are dressed. I never implied that. We welcome them with open arms, we love them just as we should, just as god loves them. But if one were to become a member and want to follow the ways of god, we wouldn't encourage them to look the same. we wouldn't condemn them, just merely show them the scriptures.

And god does look on outward holiness. He wants us to be modest and appropriate, not just inwardly wise, but also on the outward. If we are holy inside, should it not should on the outside of us? I read a website and this person makes a good argument, he says this.

"Many people will say, "Well, God looks on the heart. God doesn't care what you look like on the outside. God just looks on the heart." That is true. God does look on the heart, but man cannot see the heart. Man can only see the outer. Not only that, the outer appearance is usually a pretty good indicator of what is in a person's heart. Although it is possible to look right on the outside and be wrong on the inside, it is well nigh impossible to look right on the outside and be right on the inside. What is on the outside comes from the inside. That is why Jesus said, "out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh"

And I couldn't have said it better myself.

"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;But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works." 1 Timothy 2:10 KJV

"And I want women to be modest in their appearance. They should wear decent and appropriate clothing and not draw attention to themselves by the way they fix their hair or by wearing gold or pearls or expensive clothes. For women who claim to be devoted to God should make themselves attractive by the good things they do." NLT

Another words, dress modest, not wear immodest things that draw attention. So if you don't encourage inappropriate clothing or makeup in your service, does that mean you allow it to happen outside of your church? doesn't make sense. How are people to know the difference from the people in your church, your religion, than from the people of the world?(meaning the people who do not follow god) Seems like they're just playing the part. I don't dress and act one way at church, then dress and act differently outside of my church, I am the same. Just because my pastor isn't watching me, nor the people of my church, doesn't mean I do what I want. God is still watching me, I need to be an example for him.

Standing in a garage doesn't make you a car, anymore than going to church makes you a christian.

 

[atapia94]

The problem with this interpretation of the scripture is at the time it was written, men wore dress-like robes, as did women. There were differences in hats/veils/turbans, but for the basic dress, all people wore tunics. Also, I see no correlation between a razor not touching a woman's hair, and her being allowed to cut her hair. I can cut my hair and it still be long.

I do not know if you read my previous comments, but Pentecostal dress code (according to the bible) for ladies are, we wear skirts, at & below the knee, same goes for dresses. We wear elbow length shirts(some churches allow cap sleeves, while mine doesn't), and an appropriate coverage on our chest area. We do not show cleavage of any kind. the rule in my church is no more than 3 fingers skin exposure from our collar bone, 2 if low collarbone, 4 if high collarbone. people vary.

Most churches do not allow tightness of any kind, mine doesn't. But some churches are not so strict with tightness on the skirt area. We cannot wear see through material of any kind, unless we cover it with another material underneath it. We are not allowed jewelery of any kind, unless it is a wedding band/ring. We aren't allowed to wear make-up, colored or fake nails, or to color and cut our hair. I believe I have covered everything in the ladies area.

I wanted it to be clear so you would understand my reference about the "walking up to a girl with pants, make-up...and ask are you a Pentecostal?"

 

[atapia94]

I didn't post on this two years ago purposely, because I wasn't as confident in things then as I've become ... with that said ...

I'm quite weary tonight and a little on the down side, so please bear with me ...

the whole hair thing just irritates the hoohaw out of me ... seriously ... no one's going to hell because of the length of their hair ... that's a flesh teaching ... flesh and blood don't enter the kingdom ... there's no grace in teaching the hair as a law ... I'm too tired to go fish up all the info at the moment, so here it is as food for thought ... nothing is an absolute quote ... I don't have that good of a memory ...

No you are right, no one is going to hell because of the length of their hair. You are 100% right about that. But the way you actually mean it, not so much. If we disobey the word of god(Bible), and according to the scripture, allow a razor(of any kind, including scissors), to touch our hair, and we do it knowing it is wrong, and against the bible, then yes we will go to hell. Sin is sin. Anyway you look at it. Whether a woman cuts her hair, or whether she commits murder. It's against what God says in the bible, so it is wrong.

rightly dividing the Word = seperating the flesh teaching from the spiritual teaching ...

spiritual teaching = covering = keep Christ over your head ... which means make sure you work and breathe to His favor the best your able ... and don't go lusting after the ways of the world ... don't forsake your first love and don't go whoring around with the enemy ... His blessings are sweet ... but woe to those who walk against Him ... He won't play second fiddle to any thing, person or god ...

Yes we need to rightly divide the word of god. But if we are spiritual, and we should strive for that, the fleshly things such as the way the bible says to dress, and for women to not cut their hair, shouldn't be a problem. Regardless, we need both teaching, to keep us away from straying, and evil in this world. The bible says we need to separate from this world, "For we are in this world(physically speaking) but should not be of this world(spiritually and fleshy speaking)." We should not act or look like the world, we are to be different. How are people to know we are followers of God? If we do not show it. Appearance and attitude. Not just one.

We should not lust after this world, which is why we need God, and his word to help us along the way.

... in the times to come that is a very important scripture to understand ... many will be deceived ...
balance in all things is what we should strive for ... the Lord's yoke is easy and not a burden ... seems to me it's quite a burden to have your Christianity placed on trial over hair ... some churches teach that kind of thing ... and some don't ... no different than any thing else in the world ...

all that said, I know there was a time hair did play a role ... Nazerites maybe, if I remember right ... and may still in some cases ... another subject ...

may the Lord bless you on the way
lilmiss

It is not a burden in any way. Live for God, follow the bible. easy as that. But yet people make it so hard and difficult for themselves. Yes some churches teach that, and some don't. Pentecost does teach that however, which is the subject of this thread. And as I said previously, a woman cutting her hair, and her committing murder, is the same thing. sin is sin, no matter how you look at it, and compare it side to side. Sure we see it as committing murder is worse than a woman cutting her hair, but not according to god. that's not how he sees it. We see it with our fleshy eyes, but he doesn't. It goes against his word, so it is a sin. Simple as that.

 

[breadandbutter]

A "razor shall never come upon her head"? Do you think Paul put women under OT Nazarite vows? This phrase is worded like the vow of a Nazarite in Num. 6:2-16. Romans 6:14 plainly states "... ye are not under the law, but under grace."

Deut. 22:5 is used as an argument against women wearing women's pants, but this scripture is also invalid for today. This verse is not referring to cross-dressing in a CULTURAL sense, but it refers to CULTIC transvestitism--that is, cross-dressing in worship of heathen gods! "Abomination" is translated from the Hebrew word, to'ebah, and is defined as "something disgusting, espec. IDOLATRY." "Abomination" is commonly linked with the worship of heathen gods.

The surrounding pagan Canaanites practiced transvestite warrior dressing rituals in which women would put on men's battle gear, and warriors would put on women's clothes in an effort to summons the aid of their pagan god in time of war. Translators render "man" in this verse (geber) as "strong man, or warrior", and "pertaineth" (keliy) as "armor." This verse is used today in Israel in the debate over women being drafted into the military.

The Pentecostals and "holiness" churches never show Deut. 22:5 within its context. Read the surrounding verses and ask the question, "Can these other laws be applied to today?" Deut. 22:8 says that when one builds a new house, he is to make a "battlement"--a safety railing to protect someone from falling off the roof. Because, in Biblical times the roofs of houses were flat, and people spent time on their roofs and sometimes walked on them from house to house. This same situation does not exist today. V9 says, "Thou shalt not sow thy vineyard with divers seeds: lest the fruit of thy seed which thou hast sown, and the fruit of thy vineyard, be defiled." V10 says, "Thou shalt not plow with an ox and an ass together." Deut. 22:11 says, "Thou shalt not wear a gament of divers sorts, as of woolen and linen together." Why not put this verse into the NT? Deut. 22:12 says, "Thou shalt make thee fringes upon the four quarters of thy vesture, wherewith thou coverest thyself." This is speaking of the Jewish tallith men wore over their heads in prayer. Is this meant for today?

WITH THE CONTEXT of Deut. 22:5 in mind, we might ask, if these other things were never intended as laws for our time, why grab this verse (5) OUT OF ITS SETTING and attempt to build a NT doctrine on it? Pentecostal and holiness preachers better make sure their suits are not made of more than one kind of fibre and that they are wearing fringes on their prayer shawls!

 

[breadandbutter]

Concerning 1 Tim. 2:9-10 and 1 Peter 3:5 in reference to "modest" apparel...

Ancient Greece and Rome had SUMPTUARY LAWS that prohibited any woman the adorning proscribed in these texts except PROSTITUTES, of which there were thousands in Ephesus (where the Epistle of Timothy was directed) attached to Diana's shrine. Sacred prostitution was a part of the worship of Diana. The look of the hetarae was that of OSTENTATIOUSNESS--which means their look was way, way overdone. Their adorning was also IDOLATROUS--bringing honor and drawing attention to the Diana cult. No woman today adorns herself in this same context. We do not live in the pagan culture of the ancient Roman Empire.

These scripture texts were not written for all woman kind in all historical eras but were directed to church problems involving women of the 1st century. IN OUR CULTURE braids are considered dowdy, but in the culture in which the early church lived, braids were considered seductive. The hetaerae wore a multitude of braids, something like modern day cornrows, and would weave gold and pearls into their braids. The price of their clothing was way out of reach to most women today. The price of one costly garment was at a minimum 2 years' salary of the average worker. These scripture texts must be understood within their correct historical/cultural context without attempting to force them into a modern day church setting.

Christian women of the early church era did not stand out in their appearance and advertize their new-found faith in their clothes. They looked like the rest of the Roman Empire--but of course they were not to copy the look of the hetaerae. Christianity was illegal, and officials could have picked out the Christian women on their looks alone, if they had their own special clothes, separate from eveyone else's chiton. I have not found any historical evidence that clothing was ever entered as evidence of Christianity in court, and of course, Christianity had to be proven on a person. Evidence was in not worshiping the pagan gods!

 

[breadandbutter]

Atapia94...

I hope you read my post on the hair issue. It is not a "sin" to cut your hair! The Apostle, in v6, used the word, "shame", which is not synonymous with "sin" and does not denote a sinful condition before God, but one of wearing a public badge of infamy before an ancient society. The meaning of "shame" lies in CULTURE--not salvation. The passage of 1 Cor. 11:1-16 is based on culture.

The ancient Greeks and Romans, both sexes, wore long hair. There was a long standing of homosexuality in the ancient Greek world, and the Romans thought it was 'cool', but beginning with Augustus, who had stern morals, the entire Empire began thinking their way out of homosexuality. As a result, by the 1st century, long hair on men and short hair cuts on women came to be seen as sexual inversions.

In the OT era long hair on men was not "against nature" or a "shame." Had it been so, God would never have provided for the Nazarite vow. Samson's long hair was not seen as effeminate, but his strength, a manly virtue, was in his LONG hair. The Bible does not say Absalom wore long hair out of rebellion, Absalom was praised for his beauty, which included his long hair. A woman could also take a Nazarite vow, and at the end of the vow, her hair was all shaved off and offered to God on the altar as a sacrifice. Female captives taken in by male Hebrews had to have their hair shaved off. In none of these instances were women publicly disgraced for being shaven. But, by the NT era, long hair on men and short hair cuts on women were linked with homosexuality and lesbianism.

It was against the blurring of sexual differentiations existing in the Greco-Roman culture, not just the church at Corinth, the Apostle speaks out. He gives the Christian answer to the question that had even the pagan philosophers confused.

After the fall of Rome, longer hair on men came into vogue, having lost its link with homosexuality. Beginning in 1796 with the Titus cut in France short hair for women came into fashion, detached from lesbianism. The meaning of hair length that existed in ancient Greco-Roman CULTURE has long disappeared.