|
Post by pinkflipflop on Dec 5, 2010 16:54:04 GMT -5
Could someone please explain why women are not allowed to wear trousers in meetings or if they belong to 2x2? Whilst on the subject; why no make-up or tv?
|
|
|
Post by DumSpiroSpero on Dec 5, 2010 17:57:15 GMT -5
because that is the rules
|
|
|
Post by quizzer on Dec 6, 2010 16:19:14 GMT -5
pinkflipflop, I believe that if the 2x2s had men wearing kilts to Sunday morning meetings and Wednesday night meetings with the same rigidity that women have to wear skirts and dresses, the 2x2s would either be running for the exits or have women in pants immediately. Just thinking it would be fun to have the shoe on the other foot for a bit, quizzer
|
|
|
Post by irvinegrey on Dec 17, 2010 5:23:13 GMT -5
It would be interesting to read the Scriptural support against women wearing trousers. It is not peculiar to the 2x2s, many other evangelical and fundamentalist denominations support this rule.
|
|
Claire
Senior Member
Posts: 489
|
Post by Claire on Dec 17, 2010 7:12:20 GMT -5
The Independent Methodists, for one. They also allow short hair, but the women have to wear hats in church.
(added with nothing other than observation of a life-long friend as my guide)
|
|
|
Post by irvinegrey on Dec 17, 2010 8:03:15 GMT -5
The Free Presbyterians have the same rule including hats. As do the Brethren
|
|
Claire
Senior Member
Posts: 489
|
Post by Claire on Dec 17, 2010 8:33:02 GMT -5
The Free Presbyterians have the same rule including hats. As do the Brethren Are there (still) Closed Brethren in Belfast? Or at least I presume that's what they were -- they started wearing head scarves about (gosh) 20 years ago, had to let their hair down rather than put it up as they'd done before ... (couldn't eat with 'outsiders' ...) I seem to remember seeing them in the Newtownabbey area ... c
|
|
|
Post by irvinegrey on Dec 17, 2010 8:59:18 GMT -5
There are still closed Brethren halls dotted all over Northern Ireland. Open Brethren would still be in the minority. Not that many years ago I suggested to a Brethren friend that we meet for lunch at a golf club and added 'it is owned by Christians' and his response was, 'Christians don't play golf'. I attended a Brethren mission in Co Armagh two years ago and heard the evangelist state, 'you can't follow Christ and follow football'. Not a lot changes quickly in this little province.
|
|
Claire
Senior Member
Posts: 489
|
Post by Claire on Dec 17, 2010 13:01:28 GMT -5
Could someone please explain why women are not allowed to wear trousers in meetings or if they belong to 2x2? Whilst on the subject; why no make-up or tv? Sorry for derailing the OP. When I was a 2x2 I was rather thankful the Workers didn't take it into their heads one year to "change the rules" like the Brethren seemed to have done -- or move the "accepted dress style for women" back in time so that ankles weren't to be visible. The rules seemed arbitrary enough for random change to be entirely possible ....
|
|
|
Post by apple on Dec 17, 2010 13:45:41 GMT -5
I attended a Brethren mission in Co Armagh two years ago and heard the evangelist state, 'you can't follow Christ and follow football'. Not a lot changes quickly in this little province. Such a belief is not exclusive to just the Closed Brethren in Northern Ireland.There was some incident a while back in Belfast where some sporting event was moved to a Sunday and some Protestant clergy immediately began to condemn the event.I'm not sure if they succeeded in their mission. I confess I was in an agreement with them.
|
|
|
Post by apple on Dec 17, 2010 14:04:32 GMT -5
Could someone please explain why women are not allowed to wear trousers in meetings or if they belong to 2x2? Whilst on the subject; why no make-up or tv? Not wearing make up is based on 1 Timothy 2:9-10 & 1 Peter 3:3. Women not wearing trousers is based on Deuteronomy 22:5. Not having a TV would come under Romans 12:2 under the understanding that a TV can have a bad influence on people and can bring unGodly, worldly things into the family home.
|
|
|
Post by irvinegrey on Dec 17, 2010 16:59:27 GMT -5
Deuteronomy 22:6 can not be applied to trousers. These were not part of the clothing of either male of female in the Ancient Near East. Of course I support the proper application of the text that a woman should not wear a man's garment or a man a woman's garment.
From a purely practical viewpoint jeans or trousers that are made for a male would be completely the wrong shape for a woman and vice-versa.
|
|
|
Post by irvinegrey on Dec 17, 2010 17:24:51 GMT -5
I will think a little more on the remainder of your post!
|
|
|
Post by apple on Dec 17, 2010 18:36:33 GMT -5
Deuteronomy 22:6 can not be applied to trousers. These were not part of the clothing of either male of female in the Ancient Near East. Of course I support the proper application of the text that a woman should not wear a man's garment or a man a woman's garment. From a purely practical viewpoint jeans or trousers that are made for a male would be completely the wrong shape for a woman and vice-versa. It's true that trousers did not exist in biblical times.However in the West trousers were/are viewed as mens' clothes and skirts/dresses ladies.This may differ in other countries like Pakistan but in Europe and America a woman in trousers was not acceptable until WW2, and a man in a skirt is still viewed as peculiar.So for those of us in the Western world, trousers are men's garb and skirts ladies' garb. In Asia, the Middle East and Africa it will be different.
|
|
|
Post by irvinegrey on Dec 20, 2010 12:01:32 GMT -5
We have in Deut 22:6 a prohibition on women wearing a man's garment and vice versa. This is neatly tucked in amongst a number of other Prohibitions and commands. In the interests of consistency we must decide what we obey and what we ignore! How should we treat 22:12? 'You shall not wear cloth of wool and linen mixed together' or 13 'You shall make yourself tassels on the four corners of the garment with which you cover yourself'.
I seriously think you re taking this down a cultural route and then we must decide if culture dictates practice or does Scripture. By getting into whether a woman should wear jeans or trousers manufacture for the female sex which means they would be manifestly unsuitable for a male, we are getting into the area of non-essentials and legalism.
While I do not dispute the concept of the verse I would feel that if it was as important as many have implied we could expect guidance and teaching in the New Testament other than one obscure verse amongst a lot of others that seem to ignored without a thought. Apple this may an issue that I may just have to continue to disagree on but isn't that what makes life interesting
|
|
|
Post by JO on Dec 20, 2010 12:37:26 GMT -5
I think of Paul's approach to the convictions of individual believers:
Romans 14 The Weak and the Strong 1 Accept the one whose faith is weak, without quarreling over disputable matters. 2 One person’s faith allows them to eat anything, but another, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. 3 The one who eats everything must not treat with contempt the one who does not, and the one who does not eat everything must not judge the one who does, for God has accepted them. 4 Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To their own master, servants stand or fall. And they will stand, for the Lord is able to make them stand.
5 One person considers one day more sacred than another; another considers every day alike. Each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind. 6 Whoever regards one day as special does so to the Lord. Whoever eats meat does so to the Lord, for they give thanks to God; and whoever abstains does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. 7 For none of us lives for ourselves alone, and none of us dies for ourselves alone. 8 If we live, we live for the Lord; and if we die, we die for the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord. 9 For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living.
10 You, then, why do you judge your brother or sister? Or why do you treat them with contempt? For we will all stand before God’s judgment seat. 11 It is written:
“‘As surely as I live,’ says the Lord, ‘every knee will bow before me; every tongue will acknowledge God.’”
12 So then, each of us will give an account of ourselves to God.
13 Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in the way of a brother or sister. 14 I am convinced, being fully persuaded in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for that person it is unclean. 15 If your brother or sister is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy someone for whom Christ died. 16 Therefore do not let what you know is good be spoken of as evil.
17 For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, 18 because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and receives human approval.
19 Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification. 20 Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a person to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble. 21 It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother or sister to fall.
22 So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the one who does not condemn himself by what he approves. 23 But whoever has doubts is condemned if they eat, because their eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin.
|
|
|
Post by apple on Dec 20, 2010 15:53:31 GMT -5
We have in Deut 22:6 a prohibition on women wearing a man's garment and vice versa. This is neatly tucked in amongst a number of other Prohibitions and commands. In the interests of consistency we must decide what we obey and what we ignore! How should we treat 22:12? 'You shall not wear cloth of wool and linen mixed together' or 13 'You shall make yourself tassels on the four corners of the garment with which you cover yourself'. I seriously think you re taking this down a cultural route and then we must decide if culture dictates practice or does Scripture. By getting into whether a woman should wear jeans or trousers manufacture for the female sex which means they would be manifestly unsuitable for a male, we are getting into the area of non-essentials and legalism. While I do not dispute the concept of the verse I would feel that if it was as important as many have implied we could expect guidance and teaching in the New Testament other than one obscure verse amongst a lot of others that seem to ignored without a thought. Apple this may an issue that I may just have to continue to disagree on but isn't that what makes life interesting I understand your point Irvine.I quoted the Deut verse to explain why Two by Twos do not believe in women wearing trousers.I once asked a worker about the trouser rule and he gave that verse. The NT does require modest dress- and for me, wearing trousers is immodest because I feel exposed in trousers.Everyone can see everything!!! I do wear trousers though when farming (with a great big ankle length apron) for health and safety reasons.
|
|
Irish2
Junior Member
Posts: 87
|
Post by Irish2 on Dec 21, 2010 4:57:59 GMT -5
[The NT does require modest dress- and for me, wearing trousers is immodest because I feel exposed in trousers.Everyone can see everything!!! I do wear trousers though when farming (with a great big ankle length apron) for health and safety reasons.[/quote]
Excuse me Apple but are your trousers see through? or is it that you are ashamed that people can see you have two legs? Surely trousers are more immodest on a man for the reason you state.
With my own ears I have heard a worker clearly say we don't live in the old testament. Besides if Salvation for a woman depended on whether she wears a piece of material wrapped around both her legs or it being sewed into two pieces, I am quite sure Jesus would have made it very clear rather than leave it to chance that some obscure verse in the old testament (which could be interpreted in different ways) dictated what a woman should do.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 21, 2010 9:03:54 GMT -5
Apple, over here one uninformed worker took a young professing girl to task when he caught her wearing trousers. She was quick to reply "these trousers are jeans !"
The worker apologised and said "I thought they belonged to a guy !"
|
|
|
Post by apple on Dec 21, 2010 11:53:36 GMT -5
[The NT does require modest dress- and for me, wearing trousers is immodest because I feel exposed in trousers.Everyone can see everything!!! I do wear trousers though when farming (with a great big ankle length apron) for health and safety reasons. Excuse me Apple but are your trousers see through? or is it that you are ashamed that people can see you have two legs? Surely trousers are more immodest on a man for the reason you state. With my own ears I have heard a worker clearly say we don't live in the old testament. Besides if Salvation for a woman depended on whether she wears a piece of material wrapped around both her legs or it being sewed into two pieces, I am quite sure Jesus would have made it very clear rather than leave it to chance that some obscure verse in the old testament (which could be interpreted in different ways) dictated what a woman should do.[/quote] I don't think our salvation is dependent on wearing skirts (although I would say that true believers will feel a desire to dress with modesty).The workers however seem to think this is the case judging by the comments they make about those who do not dress according to the 2x2 standards. "She wears earrings.Her heart is not in the right place." I'm sure you have heard those nice little stories workers love to tell at convention about converts from other faiths ditching their trousers/TV/jewelry on account of "the holy spirit working in their hearts". I don't wear trousers because they reveal every curve and I'm not comfortable with that.I did grow up wearing skirts most of the time, skirts are what I am accustomed to.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Dec 21, 2010 22:14:39 GMT -5
Good gracious woman, if you were farming for me the apron would have to go - a real OH&S problem. In fact, any loose clothing that has the potential to be caught in machinery is a textbook no no. What sort if farming do you do that requires an ankle length apron, or is it only to hide the fact that you are in trousers? I can understand a woman feeling exposed in a skirt or a dress, but in a sensible pair of loose fitting trousers .......... there's something I'm not getting here.
|
|
|
Post by irvinegrey on Dec 23, 2010 12:32:38 GMT -5
With Apple it is culture and for Fred it is Agriculture!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 23, 2010 14:09:35 GMT -5
Good one "Irv !" Maybe it's more like "Your Cult" and "Agriculture ?"
|
|
|
Post by apple on Dec 23, 2010 16:34:30 GMT -5
Good one "Irv !" Maybe it's more like "Your Cult" and "Agriculture ?" Oh I hope that you do not think that the Two by Twos are my cult!! I am no Two by Two loyalist, I just had the misfortune of being born into a Two by Two home.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 10, 2011 18:07:02 GMT -5
I missed your reply apple. No I wasn't thinking that at all. I was just doing my usual fooling around with words again. However, I do consider the following remark to be very selfish of you.
"I don't wear trousers because they reveal every curve and I'm not comfortable with that."
|
|
|
Post by 2 on Jan 10, 2011 18:56:38 GMT -5
I missed your reply apple. No I wasn't thinking that at all. I was just doing my usual fooling around with words again. However, I do consider the following remark to be very selfish of you. "I don't wear trousers because they reveal every curve and I'm not comfortable with that." well, maybe i should consider wearing a kilt. eh? ;D
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Nov 19, 2017 10:35:39 GMT -5
Bump
|
|