We’re Purple Pants People!

Saturday, July 18th, 2015

©2015 Stan Hallett

Jesus said “My yoke is easy and my burden is light”. We are no longer under the covenant of the law, no more than we are under the covenant Adam had in the Garden, or the covenant that Adam’s offspring had, or the covenant that Noah’s offspring had, or even the covenant that Abraham and his offspring had (there were six covenants in all).

Those of us that have obeyed the gospel (Acts 2:38, 1 Corinthians 15:1-4), have repented, have been baptized in Jesus’ name for the remission of sins, and have been filled the the Holy Ghost, are in the New Covenant.

Many of us that are led by the Spirit of God may be led in one direction or another in many areas. It may be in our speech and how we communicate with others. It may be in the ways that we conduct ourselves and our actions. It may be the in the way that we dress, or in other ways. It is birthed in us by being sensitive to the Spirit of God.

As we walk with the Lord He will bring about changes in us as we become more like Him. As parents we should also teach our children how to conduct themselves. Likewise it is also good that we are an example to others. However that is where it should stop.

To impose our convictions on others as some sort of rule, requirement, or law, is to place a yoke of bondage on them. The truth be told if they do not do a thing that we believe is right, and we cause them to do it by constraint or cajoling, have we fixed anything?

If for example someone that begins attending services smokes, or dresses somewhat immodestly, and we impose our rules upon them, have we brought them into a closer relationship with God? No we have not. The problem is not the smoking or the immodest dress, the problem is the heart.

If they have yet to repent, be baptized in Jesus’ Name, and be filled with the Holy Ghost, will any rules that we impose help them? No, in fact often times the rules and legalism only serve to drive many away from the Church, and from God.

If for example the Holy Spirit led you to wear purple pants, it would naturally follow that all that were led of the Spirit would wear purple pants. But if a newcomer came for a few services wearing blue jeans, should you take him aside at some point and explain that we’re purple pants people?

It sounds humorous I know, but some of us do just that! If the person’s heart was in the right place they may conform to your rule, but have you brought them into a closer walk with God? They may be wearing the right color pants but they’re still going to hell if they do not obey the gospel and walk with the Lord.

We have a lot of people that come to church services that have the right look, use the right lingo, and act the right way, but if it’s just an act to be accepted by a legalistic Church what will become of them? We have too many that go along to get along, but in reality their homes and their lives are not right.

God said that man looks at the outward appearance but God sees the heart. We better start seeing people as God sees them if we are going to win souls. Are we soul winners or fashion police?

I’m not talking about losing our personal standards. I’m talking about saving souls. Our assemblies should be Spiritual hospitals for the Spiritually sick that need to be healed. I have no problem seeing people attending our services with green hair, tattoos, and pierced eyebrows. Once they are converted they probably won’t stay that way!

Far too many of our assemblies look like a club for members only. All the women have extremely long hair, all wearing dresses and skirts, and no make-up. This stands out like a neon sign to many visitors (especially women) to the point that they feel out of place and uncomfortable. It says that; “we are not going to accept you until you conform and look like us”.  That is a heavy yoke for many, and it serves to push people away.

Do I think that women should wear skirts or dresses?  Yes, if they are modest, and not too short or too tight, but not for the reason you may think. I believe that dresses properly fitting are more modest than slacks. Slacks, or pants typically fit more closely to the women’s shape therefor are less modest in most cases.

The scripture that many use to justify outlawing pants-like clothing for women (Deuteronomy 22:5) is NOT applicable to this.  First, it was under the law.  If we are going to be under the law then we need to be under the whole law and not just the parts that some like.  We are under grace!

Secondly, Deuteronomy 22:5 has to do with a women dressing up to appear as a man or a man dressing up to appear as a woman. It does not have to do with the cut of the cloth that covers us.  If that was the case then all were in sin when the scripture was written, because all wore very similar clothing and no one wore pants.  The only difference was that a woman’s was slightly longer, and therefore more modest, may have been more colorful, more ornamented or been of a finer material. No one wore pants, purple or otherwise.

What I have seen in many assemblies is that the pastor will set so called “holiness standards” for his assembly, and preach it from the pulpit.  This is a yoke of bondage that does much more harm than good. Over time the ones that conform will remain, and the others will leave.

What happens is you have an assembly where everyone looks the same making newcomers uncomfortable because they don’t fit in. Many will see it as weird (because it is) and leave. Because this is taught as a requirement many in that assembly will look down on anyone that does not look like them, and judge them as unsaved, or rebellious.

I have seen assemblies that are close in proximity who preach the same gospel message, yet the one with these “holiness standards” will not accept the other as brethren because of these standards that they adhere to as requirements, and the other assembly gives liberty and does not.

The word will be spread: “You know, the pastor’s wife over at that assembly cuts her hair” or, “I’ve seen some of their women wear pants”, “They don’t have any holiness standards over there”.

This teaching comes from ignorance of what God’s Word really teaches concerning these matters.  I touch on some of them on this site, like Hair for example.

These so-called “holiness standards” cause great harm. Should we be covered and modest in our dress? Yes, of course we should. But we need to give grace, love people right where they are at.  We should set an example, but that is where it should stop.

Jesus said; “My yoke is easy and my burden is light”. He said that we “must be born of the water and of the Spirit to see the kingdom of God”. He did not say that all that do not conform to a pastors dress code will be lost.

Can you imagine being lost over the cut of the cloth of your clothing or the length of your hair? Perhaps you just got saved, and Jesus came but you were lost because you did not realize that you should not be wearing that pearl necklace or that lipstick you put on that morning!

The Church should be a hospital for the spiritually sick and wounded! I have often said that I don’t mind seeing people with things like pierced eyebrows and green hair in service. It means that perhaps God’s drawing them.  It means they are hearing the Word of God!  If they obey the gospel and begin to walk with the Lord, their appearance will change as their heart is changed.  It does not work the other way around.

Do you have questions?  Feel free to write to me via my contact form.

signature

Hair Doctrine?

Saturday, March 3rd, 2001

© 2001 Stan Hallett

Hair Doctrine?

I need to tell the truth in an effort to put an end to what I believe is false teaching, legalism and persecution in the Church.

I firmly believe that any Saint of God of that can separate themselves from the prejudices and man-made traditions for long enough to prayerfully study out what Paul was actually saying to the Corinthians, will see the truth of the matter.

1 Corinthians 11:6 – “For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.”

Some Church assemblies teach that this means a woman cannot “cut” her hair, ever.  Many teach that if she cuts her hair that is is condemned to hell.  This is ludicrous!

A close study reveals two things here.

1. Paul is speaking of a woman not being covered while praying or prophesying as shameful to a woman as it would be if she were shorn or shaven.

2. He is using the terms shorn or shaven as though they were the same or similar things and indeed they are.

Shorn = 3 times, Cut = 308 times

The word “shorn” is used only 3 times in the entire collection of books and letters we call the Bible. Each time it is used it is referring to, or relating to something as sheep are shorn. Paul uses “shaven” or “shorn” here as though they were similar or the same thing. Shaving is the removal of all hair to the skin’s surface by shaving with a sharp razor-like instrument. Shorn refers to removing all hair or wool by using sheers, cutting as close to the skins surface as possible therefore removing all the hair or wool possible.

Song of Solomon 4:2 – “Thy teeth are like a flock of sheep that are even shorn, which came up from the washing; whereof every one bear twins, and none is barren among them.”

This scripture refers to the evenness as when sheep are shorn because they are no longer wooly and uneven but shorn and smooth and even to the appearance having been shorn with all wool removed.

Acts 18:18 – “And Paul after this tarried there yet a good while, and then took his leave of the brethren, and sailed thence into Syria, and with him Priscilla and Aquila; having shorn his head in Cenchrea: for he had a vow.”

I think we can agree that in this passage Paul has shorn his head as sheep are shorn and therefore removed all his hair with sheers. I don’t think anyone would say that he simply trimmed his hair or cut off his split ends. No, he cut off all of his hair with sheers because of his vow.

1 Corinthians 11:6 – “For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.”

This is the third and last place this word shorn is used in the Bible. Any astute Bible scholar looking for the truth can see that Paul is using the terms or actions shorn and shaven as though they were the same or very similar things.

If we want to just find the definition we like that agrees with our own doctrine it is not hard to do. If you look up the word “shorn” in most modern dictionaries you will indeed find as one of the definitions that it means to cut. You can accept this as a vindication if you wish and say “see, I was right” but you would be wrong. Certainly cutting is being done, but the word shorn had a definite meaning in both the Old and New Testaments.

In the Old Testament the word shorn is translated from the Hebrew word “qatsab” pronounced kaw-tsab’. It’s meaning according to Strong’s means to cut down or to cut off as in the removal of all. In the New Testament the word shorn is translated from the Greek word “keiro” pronounced ki’-ro. It’s meaning according to Strong’s is 1) to sheer: a sheep 2) to get or let be shorn 3) of shearing or cutting short the hair of the head.

Shorn is used in the Bible 3 times, however the word cut is used in the Bible 308 times. If Paul meant that it was a shame for women to cut their hair in any fashion he would have said “cut”.

He was not speaking of cutting the hair. He was saying only that a woman should keep her hair long and that it was a shame for women to shave or sheer off all of their hair. Likewise it was a shame for a man to have long hair.

The question arises then, what is long?  I believe this is a very natural thing to for the individual saint to discern for themselves.

hair1Take this first silhouette. If a man’s hair would be this length, I think that we can all agree that we would say it is good.  However I think that most of us would also agree that it would be way too short for a woman.

hair3

 

In this silhouette, again I think we would all agree that it would be way too long and effeminate for a man, but long and very appropriate for a woman.

 

 

hair2How about this one?  I think for most of us would say that it is too long and effeminate for a man.  Yet, it would also be considered short, and not long as Paul instructs, for women making a fairly wide and distinct, natural separation. It’s really a very natural thing for a Spirit filled saint of God to discern for themselves without imposing any rules or laws.

Do you have questions?  Feel free to write to me via my contact form.

signature