Jump to content
Online Baptist
  • Welcome Guest

    Tired of all the fighting that goes on in facebook groups? Are you ready for a community where you can talk about things of God and the Bible without getting branded a heretic? Well, we are glad you found us. Why don't you give us a try and see how friendly and different we are. - BroMatt

WVPastor

Can We Reclaim This Dress Standard?

Recommended Posts

How did this ever get to be an issue to begin with?  Should we accept defeat in this battle?  Is this a dead issue or an issue of the past?  Before the fight began in America the only issue we had to preach on much was modesty.  The idea of a woman wearing pants was as unthinkable to the church member as a man wearing a dress.  All a pastor had to preach was that it is an abomination for a man or woman to wear that which pertains to the opposite gender, and the issue was settled.  
 
What changed?  
 
Who changed?
 
Somewhere the pressure from carnal women in the church became more than the preachers could survive.  Somewhere in time church members began deciding to get up and walk out of church services at such offensive preaching.  Somewhere church members decided to move their membership over this one subject.  Somewhere it became too costly for preachers to defend any longer.  Somewhere it  became impossible for a pastor to get a church unless he would let go of his conviction.  How did this happen?  When did right preaching become wrong?  When did Godly standards become legalism?  Somehow we have been conned into thinking that if these last few preachers will just drop the issue, it will just go away.  Our US Attorney General is taking the same approach to homosexual marriage.  Eric Holder has encouraged state attorneys general not to defend their states' gay marriage bans in hopes that they will go the way of the old laws which are still on many state's books regarding adultery and fornication.  But right and wrong do not just fade away with the memories of past generations.  God still lives, and He still makes the rules.  God will hold me accountable for what I neglect to preach just as He will hold you accountable for what you neglect to heed.
 
Do the arguments not make sense anymore?  Of course they do; we are just willing to suspend them in favor of being accepted by the lost we seek to save.  The ungodly have made a very successful run at blurring  the distinction between gender specific garments.  Women's garments are more masculine and men's garments are more feminine than ever.  That is by design, a design to prove God wrong about the differences between the roles of men and women.  I know the masses do not move by their own design, but they are being moved by someone's design.  Why do we want to surrender this argument to the world so badly?  Should we not be  more concerned than we are about defending God's position regarding the roles of men and women?  The same arguments are made here that are made with music about garments or genres being neutral.   The professionals in both the design and music worlds both acknowledge that this is not true.  Why have church members created this argument for themselves?  It is to justify their desire to be worldly without leaving the church.
 
Did we get beaten or did we surrender?  Can we reclaim this ground?  For the sake of all the church members who cannot figure out why their families are falling apart, can we not help them to reclaim their proper roles at home and begin to repair the broken structures of their families?  What is the connection?  Different clothes emphasize the differences between the genders.  God made an issue of that, so it must be important to him.  That's right!  God made an issue out of gender-specific clothing, because it is important to acknowledge to differences between the genders and the roles that He designed for them.  That is why the devil wants to minimize the contrast.  Do we want to be on the wrong side of that?  Is it that important?  
 
The modern independent, fundamental church has lost most of its influence, and the presence of God's power is less prevalent than the presence of pride.  In my area of the country (northern WV) there is no understanding among church members of how to salvage or preserve the Christian home.  Every man and woman does that which is right in his own eyes and excuses the results because everyone seems to be going through these struggles these days.  The point is that we should not be, and we do not have to be.  Does it all hinge on what the women are wearing?  No, it hinges on an attitude of submission to God's idea of what our roles are.  Men refuse to submit to their role in leading, and women rebel against the men.  The fact that pants have become the common garment is the evidence that we have surrendered to the world whether on purpose or not.  It is a symbol of the success of the feminist movement in America.  If you do not believe this, try changing into a dress from now on and see what reaction you get, ladies.
 
What do I think should happen?  What do you think should happen?  What should you do about this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
Somewhere the pressure from carnal women in the church became more than the preachers could survive.

 

 

I can't agree with this statement, I think it falls squarely in the lap of boys; NOT men, mind you, it is the fault of boys. If they were men following scripture and leading their houses the way God had intended then it might have been delayed. Here's the bad part, fingers are pointing back at me in this admonishment. Turning a ship that has lost steerage isn't an easy task. At sea, it can become impossible and calls for a tow from another ship going the same way.

 

Men refuse to submit to their role in leading,

 

 

Now I'm right with you on this part, it is the man's (boy's) fault.

 

Why isn't there more of this...

 

Somehow we have been conned into thinking that if these last few preachers will just drop the issue, it will just go away.  Our US Attorney General is taking the same approach to homosexual marriage.  Eric Holder has encouraged state attorneys general not to defend their states' gay marriage bans in hopes that they will go the way of the old laws which are still on many state's books regarding adultery and fornication.

 

 

I'm so tired of hearing the 'evolving' crowd say, you can't win them if you offend their tender sensibilities; "God loves all of us the same," (TRUE) but, homosexual practice is a SIN God calls an abomination and God hates abominations! We aren't winning them by placating their SIN and enabling their sinful lust, if we were then headlines would read:

 

San Francisco, Boston, New York City, and Miami experiencing Christian revival! : Homosexuals renounce their acts as self-serving personal preference sin, repent, and follow Christ.

 

Come on now, we've been throwing in the towel to placate this sin since (1973) when homosexuals invaded the APA's annual conference forcing a change to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM). That is nearly 40 years of telling them God loves them and their abominable sin. 'Love Must Be Tough,' again to win them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i just want to say if john the baptist came to your church what would you think the man had long hair and bread and dress in camel's hair and leather girdle.  i come form i poor family you didn't wear shoes only to school or church. but we went to church back in the 60 and 70 wearing blue jean. even god say to come as you are. i'm not saying that women should not wear dress they should if they can buy then that all. i'm more like john the baptist then you guys i could live in the wilderness and live off the land. and i do live off the land.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I once went to a IFB pastor with a bag of pants.  I had called in advance and asked if he could use some pants and he said Yes that he really could use some more pairs of pants.

 

On the appointed time I arrived and I let him go through the bag.  One by one he pulled them out and reached for another before all of a sudden he exclaimed "these are all womens pants!"

 

I paused and said then what is wrong with letting the women wear these to church if they are womans clothing?

 

He wife smiled.  He snarled and I went on home with a bag of woman's pants to give away to the poor.

Edited by AVBibleBeliever

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, just to preface my remarks, let me say that I almost exclusively wear skirts, and I consider a decent skirt to almost always be more modest than the 'best' pair of pants (the exceptions being skiing and sledding). They are definitely more feminine and encourage feminine behavior much more so than do pants.  I have a strong prejudice against women wearing pants (not sure why, as I don't seem to believe that it is a sin).  That being said... I honestly believe that the 'not wearing that which pertaineth unto a man' argument can no longer be used against women's pants in this culture. Yes, when they first came in, they were a product of rebellion (and some practicality) and pushed by the feminists. At that point they were men's clothing. However, after - what, 70 years? - of pants being worn by women, the rebellious, feminist association has been all but forgotten. Clothing styles do change over time - there was a time period when hose was worn only by men! Do we forbid the wearing of hose because men wore them in the late Middle Ages? In this generation, pants may be women's clothing or men's clothing. Much as I would like a winning argument like the above to use against women wearing pants, it is no longer a feasible statement.  I think that when pastors use that argument, they're arguing from a couple generations ago, and it falls on deaf ears for young people that can see the logical fallacy of 'pants being men's clothing' in this day and age, and gives them an excuse (which they're probably looking for) for rejecting the entire idea of women wearing only skirts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Clothing is an issue of externals.  The obedience of a child of God is not measured by what clothing we wear but by our Christian walk.  We neither live by legalism nor by license but by grace.  The issue is of modesty and should be a matter for the woman's own conscience before God, not pants versus dress.  A Godly woman should adorn herself with humility, Godliness, sobriety and good works.  Women's pants these days are designed specifically for woman and sold in the woman's department, therefore it is woman's clothing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

 

How did this ever get to be an issue to begin with?  Should we accept defeat in this battle?  Is this a dead issue or an issue of the past?  Before the fight began in America the only issue we had to preach on much was modesty.  The idea of a woman wearing pants was as unthinkable to the church member as a man wearing a dress.  All a pastor had to preach was that it is an abomination for a man or woman to wear that which pertains to the opposite gender, and the issue was settled.  
 
What changed?  
 
Who changed?
 
Somewhere the pressure from carnal women in the church became more than the preachers could survive.  Somewhere in time church members began deciding to get up and walk out of church services at such offensive preaching.  Somewhere church members decided to move their membership over this one subject.  Somewhere it became too costly for preachers to defend any longer.  Somewhere it  became impossible for a pastor to get a church unless he would let go of his conviction.  How did this happen?  When did right preaching become wrong?  When did Godly standards become legalism?  Somehow we have been conned into thinking that if these last few preachers will just drop the issue, it will just go away.  Our US Attorney General is taking the same approach to homosexual marriage.  Eric Holder has encouraged state attorneys general not to defend their states' gay marriage bans in hopes that they will go the way of the old laws which are still on many state's books regarding adultery and fornication.  But right and wrong do not just fade away with the memories of past generations.  God still lives, and He still makes the rules.  God will hold me accountable for what I neglect to preach just as He will hold you accountable for what you neglect to heed.
 
Do the arguments not make sense anymore?  Of course they do; we are just willing to suspend them in favor of being accepted by the lost we seek to save.  The ungodly have made a very successful run at blurring  the distinction between gender specific garments.  Women's garments are more masculine and men's garments are more feminine than ever.  That is by design, a design to prove God wrong about the differences between the roles of men and women.  I know the masses do not move by their own design, but they are being moved by someone's design.  Why do we want to surrender this argument to the world so badly?  Should we not be  more concerned than we are about defending God's position regarding the roles of men and women?  The same arguments are made here that are made with music about garments or genres being neutral.   The professionals in both the design and music worlds both acknowledge that this is not true.  Why have church members created this argument for themselves?  It is to justify their desire to be worldly without leaving the church.
 
Did we get beaten or did we surrender?  Can we reclaim this ground?  For the sake of all the church members who cannot figure out why their families are falling apart, can we not help them to reclaim their proper roles at home and begin to repair the broken structures of their families?  What is the connection?  Different clothes emphasize the differences between the genders.  God made an issue of that, so it must be important to him.  That's right!  God made an issue out of gender-specific clothing, because it is important to acknowledge to differences between the genders and the roles that He designed for them.  That is why the devil wants to minimize the contrast.  Do we want to be on the wrong side of that?  Is it that important?  
 
The modern independent, fundamental church has lost most of its influence, and the presence of God's power is less prevalent than the presence of pride.  In my area of the country (northern WV) there is no understanding among church members of how to salvage or preserve the Christian home.  Every man and woman does that which is right in his own eyes and excuses the results because everyone seems to be going through these struggles these days.  The point is that we should not be, and we do not have to be.  Does it all hinge on what the women are wearing?  No, it hinges on an attitude of submission to God's idea of what our roles are.  Men refuse to submit to their role in leading, and women rebel against the men.  The fact that pants have become the common garment is the evidence that we have surrendered to the world whether on purpose or not.  It is a symbol of the success of the feminist movement in America.  If you do not believe this, try changing into a dress from now on and see what reaction you get, ladies.
 
What do I think should happen?  What do you think should happen?  What should you do about this?

 

Yes, I believe that the principalities, powers, and rulers of darkness of this world, through the feminist movement and other things has succeeded in blurring the lines between the roles men and fwomen. We have way too many girly boys with many who want to be "gay" and way too many girls wanting to do things like drive pickup trucks, wear jeans, deer hunt and even fornicate with other girls. It's more destructive than we can even imagine. And where is a man's identity as a man anymore if the girls are taking it over?

 

For over two years now, I've been attending a SBC where the women wear pants and even the men will wear shorts to church. My Wife and daughter still wear dresses not only in church but out of church. But how long will that last? My Wife has said she wanted to wear pants on our farm but I told her that she couldn't; how long will I be able to hold out where I don't have a separated church for a 'support group'? In my former IFB church, women would wear dresses to church but out in the world you would bump into most of them in Walmart wearing their pants. Some of the dresses they wore at church would have low cut tops and long slits which definitely weren't modest. At least the SBC folks don't seem to dress one way at home and another way at church, but that's very little consolation to me. This is my conviction and I'm supposed to the the head of my home.

 

But another thing I've seen is church leadership usurping the men's leadership in their homes. There are those sermons on Mother's Day which praise mothers but when Father's Day rolls around, the men are beat down like they are worthless no matter how hard they've tried. Isn't this kind of "preaching" what our modern world does? Doesn't this wicked world make our dads look like evil, unfaithful, silly buffoons in front of the wife and kids?   Are the men of the church so much worse than the ladies simply because of their gender?.......while visiting preachers and pastors take turns praising one another. Then we wonder why the ladies get more excited about church than the men do. Men are often chided about "not taking the lead" with very little of being SHOWN HOW; like discipleship? Hello?  Also, Is it right for a pastor to bypass the man of the house and go directly to the man's wife or daughter to give them assignments?  I've witnessed a pastor do this AFTER he had told the congregation NOT to do so with HIS wife! Is that helping to reinforce the rightful order in homes? Because the Bible says that a woman's husband is her "head" and it says a woman is supposed to obey and submit to her OWN husband; not some other man.

 

As long as the man is disrespected and bypassed, after the manner of this world system, his wife and kids will pick up on it and it will make it harder for them to have the right order in the home. There will be no joyful families and joyful churches who WANT to "live right, dress right and spit white" if there is no order and no JOY in it. Without the Joy of the Lord it is all just dead legalism. Honor the women in your church, yes, but honor the husbands and fathers too who have the  grave responsibility of leading their homes, and SHOW them how to lead instead of just telling them to. 

 

Romans 12: 9Let love be without dissimulation. Abhor that which is evil; cleave to that which is good.10Be kindly affectioned one to another with brotherly love; in honour preferring one another; 

 

We are now in a SBC church because our former pastor grossly overstepped his authority over our home. The only other IFB church, in our area, has a pastor who is divorced and re-married and, as I understand it, is unqualified to preach.. Please pray for me and my family because we are still not happy in a church which uses CCMother versions, corrects the King James, and has little or no dress standards.

Edited by heartstrings

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the biggest problems is calling abominations a "Standard".

In the KJV, it says : Deu 22:5
5 The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment:for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God.

It doesnt say that you commit an abomination, it says you are one.

The second, is the lie that the Word modest, in the KJV, means "Long and flowing", or covering, or any such nonsense.

1Ti 2:9
9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;

It means "not costly, or gawdy...not drawing attention".

If I make a modest living, I'm doing ok, not"Long and flowing".

Anishinaabe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, just to preface my remarks, let me say that I almost exclusively wear skirts, and I consider a decent skirt to almost always be more modest than the 'best' pair of pants (the exceptions being skiing and sledding). They are definitely more feminine and encourage feminine behavior much more so than do pants.  I have a strong prejudice against women wearing pants (not sure why, as I don't seem to believe that it is a sin).  That being said... I honestly believe that the 'not wearing that which pertaineth unto a man' argument can no longer be used against women's pants in this culture. Yes, when they first came in, they were a product of rebellion (and some practicality) and pushed by the feminists. At that point they were men's clothing. However, after - what, 70 years? - of pants being worn by women, the rebellious, feminist association has been all but forgotten. Clothing styles do change over time - there was a time period when hose was worn only by men! Do we forbid the wearing of hose because men wore them in the late Middle Ages? In this generation, pants may be women's clothing or men's clothing. Much as I would like a winning argument like the above to use against women wearing pants, it is no longer a feasible statement.  I think that when pastors use that argument, they're arguing from a couple generations ago, and it falls on deaf ears for young people that can see the logical fallacy of 'pants being men's clothing' in this day and age, and gives them an excuse (which they're probably looking for) for rejecting the entire idea of women wearing only skirts.

I agree a nice skirt is better than pants.  But I wont judge them as "usurpers of authority" if they are wearing pants.

 

I know men who wear hose now and it is about comfort and warmth especially during cold snaps like we have been having

 

Modest appraisal as pertaining to godliness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The obedience of a child of God is not measured by what clothing we wear but by our Christian walk.  

 

The obedience of a child of God is not measured merely by what clothing we wear, but by our Christian walk - conversation - which includes what we wear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The obedience of a child of God is not measured merely by what clothing we wear, but by our Christian walk - conversation - which includes what we wear.

that is true the "conversation" is the whole walk i.e. speech, clothing, eating, how we speak and treat one another,  etc. . .

 

something all of us are currently still learning like Paul said, Php 3:12 -16Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus.   Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before,  I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.   Let us therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus minded: and if in any thing ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you.   Nevertheless, whereto we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule, let us mind the same thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The obedience of a child of God is not measured merely by what clothing we wear, but by our Christian walk - conversation - which includes what we wear.

I understand.  What we wear should be modest.  Can a woman be modest wearing pants?  Can a woman be immodest wearing a dress?  Should dress versus pants mark us as Christian or non-Christian?   What about unsaved women who wear dresses?  How would we look different from them if we are judging by our clothes?  I'm not directing these questions at you specifically...just for anyone who wants to ponder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing that does tend to be overlooked in this argument is that for a woman to wear a dress is an easy thing and doesn't mean anything for what is inside.
A change of clothes is easy, but someone without a changed heart can change their clothes.
Someone with a changed heart may not immediately change their clothes - it may take some time for the working in their heart to shine on the outside.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most of these arguments are very worn and tiresome.  

 

It is not unusual to use a good thing the wrong way.  

 

Of course the work that God does in our hearts will result in changes on the outside.  

 

Pastors have a responsibility to reprove, rebuke, and exhort; if these conflict with beliefs inside someone's home, so be it.  My emphasis is on the connection with feminism.  

 

Modesty is a very broad term with more than one application, and context determines the exact application.

 

Feminism is by no means a dead movement even though younger women may be participating unwittingly.  

 

My point here is that it is our job as preachers is to lay open before people what is happening so they do not walk in darkness.

 Witnessing does not make a sinner lost, it warns him that he is lost and presents an alternative.  It is our job to confront and expose sin to the end that we can bring people to repentance.

 

I am reading your responses with great interest.  Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't disagree with your premise - but I know some who are more concerned with conformity that conversion (if you will excuse the alliteration :) )

These are such that make whited sepulchres.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Curious if anyone here has an example in the apparel differences between men and women when Deuteronomy was penned?

 

Curious why one would think Deuteronomy would apply to your Christian walk during this time of the Gospel of Grace?

 

Shifting gears a little from the above. My contention with women's clothing and modesty is far more in the fit of the clothes and not the type of clothes.

 

Why I am just as fully capable of lusting after a women in a snuggly fitted dress/skirt as I am when she wears a snuggly fitted pair of jeans

Edited by wretched

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Curious if anyone here has an example in the apparel differences between men and women when Deuteronomy was penned?

Curious why one would think Deuteronomy would apply to your Christian walk during this time of the Gospel of Grace?

Shifting gears a little from the above. My contention with women's clothing and modesty is far more in the fit of the clothes and not the type of clothes.

Why I am just as fully capable of lusting after a women in a snuggly fitted dress/skirt as I am when she wears a snuggly fitted pair of jeans

Depends. Do you want the Renaissance painter's version, or do you want to look at what they still wear now, in the Middle East?

Anishinaabe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Depends. Do you want the Renaissance painter's version, or do you want to look at what they still wear now, in the Middle East?

Anishinaabe

 

I suspect it is neither but don't know for sure, curious if anyone would have a reliable and accurate description. I am guessing there was not much difference and seriously doubt pants even existed but am not sure so a sincere question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've read and heard pastors preach about the difference between the robe men wore and robe women wore was more a matter of ornamentation than anything else. The robes themselves were basically the same.

 

In more modern terms it would be akin to a married couple having two robes of identical style, but hers is pink with a flower design and his is camouflage with a deer design.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most of these arguments are very worn and tiresome.  

 

It is not unusual to use a good thing the wrong way.  

 

Of course the work that God does in our hearts will result in changes on the outside.  

 

Pastors have a responsibility to reprove, rebuke, and exhort; if these conflict with beliefs inside someone's home, so be it.  My emphasis is on the connection with feminism.  

 

Modesty is a very broad term with more than one application, and context determines the exact application.

 

Feminism is by no means a dead movement even though younger women may be participating unwittingly.  

 

My point here is that it is our job as preachers is to lay open before people what is happening so they do not walk in darkness.

 Witnessing does not make a sinner lost, it warns him that he is lost and presents an alternative.  It is our job to confront and expose sin to the end that we can bring people to repentance.

 

I am reading your responses with great interest.  Thank you.

You should preach against all types of sin, including immodest dress. And you should encourage and exhort. Doing so will HELP the home.

Edited by heartstrings

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

How did this ever get to be an issue to begin with?  Should we accept defeat in this battle?  Is this a dead issue or an issue of the past?  Before the fight began in America the only issue we had to preach on much was modesty.  The idea of a woman wearing pants was as unthinkable to the church member as a man wearing a dress.  All a pastor had to preach was that it is an abomination for a man or woman to wear that which pertains to the opposite gender, and the issue was settled.  
 
What changed?  
 
Who changed?
 
Somewhere the pressure from carnal women in the church became more than the preachers could survive.  Somewhere in time church members began deciding to get up and walk out of church services at such offensive preaching.  Somewhere church members decided to move their membership over this one subject.  Somewhere it became too costly for preachers to defend any longer.  Somewhere it  became impossible for a pastor to get a church unless he would let go of his conviction.  How did this happen?  When did right preaching become wrong?  When did Godly standards become legalism?  Somehow we have been conned into thinking that if these last few preachers will just drop the issue, it will just go away.  Our US Attorney General is taking the same approach to homosexual marriage.  Eric Holder has encouraged state attorneys general not to defend their states' gay marriage bans in hopes that they will go the way of the old laws which are still on many state's books regarding adultery and fornication.  But right and wrong do not just fade away with the memories of past generations.  God still lives, and He still makes the rules.  God will hold me accountable for what I neglect to preach just as He will hold you accountable for what you neglect to heed.
 
Do the arguments not make sense anymore?  Of course they do; we are just willing to suspend them in favor of being accepted by the lost we seek to save.  The ungodly have made a very successful run at blurring  the distinction between gender specific garments.  Women's garments are more masculine and men's garments are more feminine than ever.  That is by design, a design to prove God wrong about the differences between the roles of men and women.  I know the masses do not move by their own design, but they are being moved by someone's design.  Why do we want to surrender this argument to the world so badly?  Should we not be  more concerned than we are about defending God's position regarding the roles of men and women?  The same arguments are made here that are made with music about garments or genres being neutral.   The professionals in both the design and music worlds both acknowledge that this is not true.  Why have church members created this argument for themselves?  It is to justify their desire to be worldly without leaving the church.
 
Did we get beaten or did we surrender?  Can we reclaim this ground?  For the sake of all the church members who cannot figure out why their families are falling apart, can we not help them to reclaim their proper roles at home and begin to repair the broken structures of their families?  What is the connection?  Different clothes emphasize the differences between the genders.  God made an issue of that, so it must be important to him.  That's right!  God made an issue out of gender-specific clothing, because it is important to acknowledge to differences between the genders and the roles that He designed for them.  That is why the devil wants to minimize the contrast.  Do we want to be on the wrong side of that?  Is it that important?  
 
The modern independent, fundamental church has lost most of its influence, and the presence of God's power is less prevalent than the presence of pride.  In my area of the country (northern WV) there is no understanding among church members of how to salvage or preserve the Christian home.  Every man and woman does that which is right in his own eyes and excuses the results because everyone seems to be going through these struggles these days.  The point is that we should not be, and we do not have to be.  Does it all hinge on what the women are wearing?  No, it hinges on an attitude of submission to God's idea of what our roles are.  Men refuse to submit to their role in leading, and women rebel against the men.  The fact that pants have become the common garment is the evidence that we have surrendered to the world whether on purpose or not.  It is a symbol of the success of the feminist movement in America.  If you do not believe this, try changing into a dress from now on and see what reaction you get, ladies.
 
What do I think should happen?  What do you think should happen?  What should you do about this?

 

You give up at Fighting fundamental Forum, so you brought the debate here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online   2 Members, 0 Anonymous, 9 Guests (See full list)



×