Actscelerate.com

PART I: Is the internal cultural Reformation sweeping through the COG, good or bad in your opinion?

Acts-celerate Owner Posts: 6957 **7/11/17 10:10 pm**

Since the 1970’s, the COG organization has been in a major cultural “Reformation” concerning what is proper conduct for members and proper attire for women. Younger ministers and members have probably never seen, nor heard about what was then called, “The Practical Commitments.”

Let there be no doubt. They were clearly-defined commitments. Women who joined the COG then, even if they did not agree with the requirements, understood that to be accepted and welcomed into all fellowship circles of the COG, they would not wear lipstick, cut their hair short, or wear certain forms of jewelry. They would not paint their nails, wear sleeveless blouses or dresses with hems that came above the knee. And God forbid if a COG woman wore pants.

This no-women-wearing-pants policy was based on Deuteronomy 22:5. The KJV proclaims, “A woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.” (Deuteronomy 22:5)

NIV states, “A woman must not wear men’s clothing, nor a man wear women’s clothing, for the LORD your God detests anyone who does this.” Those are not my words. Since there is so much confusion, and sometimes heated conversation about it, I’m sharing what the Bible actually says.

PROBLEM IS, for those who are opposed to women wearing pants or slacks, to my knowledge, there is nothing in Scripture against it. How can one say that after sharing Deuteronomy 22:5? Because when Deuteronomy was written, men were wearing robes, not pants as we know them today. So, women were not to wear a man's robe, nor a man the more delicate fabric of how women dressed.

Some say it was actress Katherine Hepburn in the 1940’s who popularized women wearing pants. I don't know when the trend began but it seems to be modern fashion, not from the Old or New Testament days.

In my opinion, the purpose of Deuteronomy 22:5 quoted above, was to signify that God wanted a clear distinction maintained between masculinity and femininity. Possibly the viewer has input and observations as to why this would be so important to God. Why would God care if a woman put on a man's clothes?

"Abomination" in context is an incredibly strong word, and "detest" does not come across any softer.

Evidently, there was a problem that brought about the quote from Deuteronomy. If not, why address it? However, at least back then, there was no controversy over which restroom a woman wearing clothes that “pertaineth to a man,” would use. At that time, there was only one restroom for the entire world; it was called “outside.”

Those “Commitments” spoken of above, were not just in the COG. From the time I was 12 years old until 16, our family lived in Boulder City, Nevada (19 miles from Las Vegas), and then moved to California. And yes, Pentecostal women in Vegas and California also adhered to those “Commitments.” So did numerous Baptist churches.

So, it was not just a COG thing. Those standards of dress for women, were basically accepted across the Pentecostal Movement and in many other Christian circles. However, just because something is “accepted,” is not the same thing as it being Scriptural.

The “Commitments” were not just about how women dressed. There was also an emphasis for potential members to practice Restitution; “to make things right” if they had stolen from someone or cheated them. Restitution is a Biblical concept that is seldom ever mentioned these days.

Even when smoking was totally popular with society, the Commitments signified a strong stand against smoking and drinking. Goodness gracious. Think of the thousands of people whose lives were saved because they had to quit smoking to join the church.

UP FRONT: Whether one agreed with the “Commitments” or not, the person wanting to join the Church, knew up front what they were getting into. And to be make absolutely certain they did know, those seeking membership, were asked to stand before the congregation as the pastor read the Commitments out loud. The potential member was asked publicly if they agreed to follow them. The pastor would then ask the congregation to give a voice-vote as to whether the person should be accepted into membership.

END OF PART I
_________________
The largest room in the world is the room for improvement.

Golf Cart Mafia Consigliere Posts: 3147 **7/19/17 10:42 am**

In my opinion, the 40 years or so since the cultural revolution in Pentecostal/Charismatic circles began has been a backlash against the whole "we'll tell you what to think instead of 'how' to think" mentality of the authoritarianism of the centralized government. What they taught wasn't necessarily wrong when it was first constructed, i.e. the only pants that were manufactured in that day and age were actually for men. But why not take the time to teach the scripture (don't wear what makes you look like the opposite sex), instead of a man-made interpretation (don't wear pants)????

Its a shame that handing down a rule instead of knowledge has lead to the opposite ditch that many have fallen into.