|
|
Post by Nikkol on Jun 11, 2010 6:55:09 GMT -5
What I was saying had nothing to do with the wearing of pants and etc. and yes, it is the tradition of men that cause to many to fail because they can't stand to the many requirements that have been placed on them. Matthew 23 has some pretty interesting things to say regarding that. I think for some it's a matter of discipline. Some churchess have stricter disciplines and I believe that some things work better for that particular ministry. That typically falls under a church's standard. Nothing wrong with church's having specific standards. As well as believing that if you (general) join up with that ministry you should be able to follow the standard. OFF THE TOPICAlso, I don't know if for many things it's that they can't stand to many of the requirements but moreso that they don't want to..... eg. there are MANY females in Philadelphia that dressed not so modest and would fight you tooth and nail if you told them they should cover up more or give them a sheet to put over them who became Muslim and now cover from head to toe where the ONLY thing you can see is their eyes... I think it's more based on what you find important and what you're willing to give or not give up...not perse because it's wrong but because that is what the particular ministry is called towards. |
|
|
|
Post by anointedteacher on Jun 11, 2010 7:25:56 GMT -5
The problem is that they made no pants, head covering, no make up part etc. part of the faith and not standards or house rules.... even down to their visitors..... This what caused ppl to rebell against such yokes.... that what it are, Yokes.... I believe in reasonable house rules for the members and extra for those who serving as minister, but it should clear that it is house rules and not a sin.
|
|
|
|
Post by krazeeboi on Jun 11, 2010 11:37:05 GMT -5
^I agree AT. I also think that we need to start putting more emphasis on spiritual maturity. Too many believers have the mindset that they can do whatever as long as it's not a sin. We ought to get past that point and realize that some things I do or don't do are about growing up in Christ, not because I'm scared of going to hell.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nikkol on Jun 14, 2010 6:54:29 GMT -5
The problem is that they made no pants, head covering, no make up part etc. part of the faith and not standards or house rules.... even down to their visitors..... This what caused ppl to rebell against such yokes.... that what it are, Yokes.... I believe in reasonable house rules for the members and extra for those who serving as minister, but it should clear that it is house rules and not a sin. I've NEVER seen a female go into a Mosque without their head covered....as a matter of fact, when one young lady (who was a Christian) went to a Mosque, she was given the whole garb to put on. I believe that when you go to a synagogue, even the vistors have to put something on their head.... It's really called that when it comes to the church, most ppl will rebel against things that they feel is bondage...but if someone feels that not wearing make-up, pants, and wearing a head covering is "bondage", that's REALLY sad.... I mean....does it really hurt to have to do certain things? Do "things" really make you, "you"? I'd love to see the church ppl going to an upscale restaurant where flip flops can't be worn, men not only need shirts but shirt jackets and them decide their not going because they feel like the restaurant is putting them into "bondage" because they should be able to wear what they want..... it really isn't a big deal... And certain things may not be sin....but if you know that something would be considered offensive to your brother/sister and you CHOOSE to not do it because you don't want to be in "bondage", I think that that's an issue. I mean, I go some places that may not want a woman to show her arms.....I may not have a problem with short sleeves but if I know that that is their standard, I'm not going to wear something different just because "Jesus set me free"....for in me doing that, I'm not showing my "freedom" at all. |
|
|
|
Post by anointedteacher on Jun 14, 2010 10:09:28 GMT -5
The problem is that they made no pants, head covering, no make up part etc. part of the faith and not standards or house rules.... even down to their visitors..... This what caused ppl to rebell against such yokes.... that what it are, Yokes.... I believe in reasonable house rules for the members and extra for those who serving as minister, but it should clear that it is house rules and not a sin. I've NEVER seen a female go into a Mosque without their head covered....as a matter of fact, when one young lady (who was a Christian) went to a Mosque, she was given the whole garb to put on. I believe that when you go to a synagogue, even the vistors have to put something on their head.... It's really called that when it comes to the church, most ppl will rebel against things that they feel is bondage...but if someone feels that not wearing make-up, pants, and wearing a head covering is "bondage", that's REALLY sad.... I mean....does it really hurt to have to do certain things? Do "things" really make you, "you"? We are not muslim/nation of Islam, we are not Jewish or any other religion or cult... We are Christians... When the converted Jews in the Book of Acts try to made the converted Gentiles get circumcised and keep the Law in order to be saved. A letter had to be sent out telling then these things are not necessary... What is necessary is to abstain from meat offered to ldiols, blood, things strangled and fornication... the things that I listed, no pant, head covering and no make up are unnecessary and do nothing for the spirit man.... If you read my post, I said REASONABLE house rules for it members... Church is NOT a cult, where they control and put ppl in bondage. I feel the church need to focus on the spiritman to bring ppl into maturity and help them fulfil their call, not legalism, and un-necessaries rules.... I feel that their should be some rules, but it should bring spiritural and phyiscal discipline, not a bunch dos and don'ts... My former church used to have 6am, noonday and 6pm corporate prayer, weekdays, ministers were required to participant in one of those prayer.... Choir prayed every Monday evening, P&W and Dance min.every Saturday... and Ministers every Sunday Morning before service... Minister, Choir, Dance min. and P&W, were told not to go to the movies... because there were many spirits, and most of ppl didn't know how to pray them off.... My Apostle always knew when one of the P&W or choir went to the movie when they minister, she should stop them right in the middle of a song, and sit the whole choir or P&W down in service... There were other rules, but was for spiritual growth or for keep peace in the House of God.... Women are allowed to wear pants in those places... You notice all these dumb rules are toward women? no pants, head covering, no make up, etc.... 30 or 40 years ago, yes it will be offensive to those who were brianwashed to believe certian things are sin.... ppl have grown up and know better now... more ppl are reading their Bible and know what is sin and what is not.... what is bondage and what is not... Here in Miami, 93 degree... I wear my bare arm, fat arm lol and don't care if someone have a fit... I am hot!!! I don't go to church bare armed, I do go to the store or outside my apartment. ... Some of the yokes church put on ppl is nonsense. |
|
|
|
Post by Nikkol on Jun 14, 2010 12:27:10 GMT -5
We are not muslim/nation of Islam, we are not Jewish or any other religion or cult... We are Christians... When the converted Jews in the Book of Acts try to made the converted Gentiles get circumcised and keep the Law in order to be saved. A letter had to be sent out telling then these things are not necessary... What is necessary is to abstain from meat offered to ldiols, blood, things strangled and fornication... the things that I listed, no pant, head covering and no make up are unnecessary and do nothing for the spirit man.... Question: who decided if those things would be necessary? It was the CHURCH. And just like the CHURCH decided that certain things were to be followed and certain things are not necessary, the same goes for these things as well. There are Do's and don'ts no matter where you go. Additionally, what you may consider "unnecessary" may actually be necessary. I've learned from my own eyes that there are certain standards that ppl have which actually are very beneficial to them and when they were told, "that's bondage" "you don't have to do that" "that's just a religious spirit", etc. I have seen those ppl end up getting beat up by the enemy...and those ppl that were telling them about how they needed to come out from that bondage are nowhere to be found. This is why I become more passionate esp about this particular issue. It hurts me to no end when I see ppl demeaning and degrading other churches (esp when the church is the bride of Christ -- and I've learned that even natrually, it's not good to talk bad about someone's wife. :-) ), specifically because they believe that since they've studied the language and have come to the conclusion that certain things that weren't allowed should be allowed that makes them better. Back in the day, this was never an issue....women wore hats, women didn't wear pants, there was a greater amount of families (man/woman/kids) in the church. Why was this not an issue? Because the Church (just like they did in the book of Acts) decided for/against certain things. Even if it was just for the reason of understanding that with ppl, you give them an inch and they'll take a mile. Example....women can wear pants now...but now you find women that are wearing skin tight pants leaving nothing to the imagination.... women now were shirts were not only their arms are bare but you can now see cleavage...and middriff....and God FORBID you say something about it because now you're trying to put them in bondage. Yet we know that scripture was very clear as to what the aged woman were to teach the younger. Granted most ppl think that that means the church is "behind the times", etc. But I think that the role of the man and woman ARE different....not that one is better than the other but they are different. These are the things that we (and those older than I should be teaching the younger....and when all is said and done, these things will give a person "spiritual and physical discipline" (using your words) I would never go to someone's house and make a call at what standards are for spiritual growth and what wasn't because that's not my house....nor do I know the type of ministry that that church is dealing with. So just as you see that certain rules were for spiritual growth and for peace, things that other ministries are doing could be for the same reason. Because when I read that paragraph, it would appear that you're saying that your former church did things right and other churches do things wrong because they don't do things like your former church...but the same way that you can say that, someone would tell you that your church was in bondage for not letting their ppl go to the movies.....right? ;-) At some places.... Not sure that rules have to be "dumb" because I don't like it.... I mean some ppl may think it's dumb that the man is the head of the household....but just because they think it's dumb doesn't mean I shouldn't do it... Main point...if your leadership says to do/don't do certain things, you should do it. I mean, honestly, those specific things that you listed don't hurt you if you do it.... We could have a whole discussion just on "brainwashing"..... but suffice it to say that we should be washed by the Word. And if our leadership believe that God is calling us to be peculiar in certain things that we do/don't do, and it's not sin, there's no problem with doing it...... Also, the older I get, I understand more and more why they had certain rules. When I was younger, I fought it tooth and nail....called it bondage, etc....but really, I do believe that the things that the churches (since it wasn't just "holiness churches" saying these things) were telling us, although they didn't know the "why's" behind it were there for a reason....and when I see how "liberal" the church is becoming, it is now that we can see how some ppl have become so liberal that that in and of itself has bound them up.... |
|
|
|
Post by anointedteacher on Jun 14, 2010 21:40:51 GMT -5
Nikkol.... why add words to my post.... No pants, head covering etc... were set as doctrines and pants, bare head and arm are considered sin.... It ishould not be called sins.... PPl who visit a church may not be churched and may not know or understand House Rules... They should be respected and received as they are and not condemned... I never said other churches rules are wrong... I said it should not be called a sin.... All churches should have some form of house rules, but it should be made into a doctrine and called a sin... A friend of my moved the SC.... And visit a church with her kids... She wore a pant suit and she don't wear hats... (I hate hats, especially those big ugly ones). Well she didn't know the denomination at the time, just knew it was spiritfilled... She was approached by an angry member... telling her, she was in sin and she disrespected the house of God wearing pants and head uncovered. When the pastor of the church found out that someone approached her, he was very upset and apologized and welcome her back to the church.... Later a mother of the church was assigned to her as a mentor. My friend is a very well dress lady, she wear very expensive clothes. But when the mother of the church begin minister to her and asked her in love not to wear pants and to cover her head when coming to church, she did and respected their doctrine... The problem is that they believe wearing pants and not covering your head is a SIN, that's wrong... They also believe that you have to terry to speak in tongue to be saved..... This is a Holiness Penecostal church... Today I see women wearing tight skirt , more offen that pants to church, when the sit down, it is all the up to their seat.... they want to sit in the front roll  ... This have nothing to do with pants allowed, it is a lack of holiness being taught in the church. The preachers are now man pleasers and not God pleasers.... |
|
|
|
Post by Nikkol on Jun 15, 2010 7:31:53 GMT -5
Nikkol.... why add words to my post.... No pants, head covering etc... were set as doctrines and pants, bare head and arm are considered sin.... It ishould not be called sins.... PPl who visit a church may not be churched and may not know or understand House Rules... They should be respected and received as they are and not condemned... I never said other churches rules are wrong... I said it should not be called a sin.... All churches should have some form of house rules, but it should be made into a doctrine and called a sin... A friend of my moved the SC.... And visit a church with her kids... She wore a pant suit and she don't wear hats... (I hate hats, especially those big ugly ones). Well she didn't know the denomination at the time, just knew it was spiritfilled... She was approached by an angry member... telling her, she was in sin and she disrespected the house of God wearing pants and head uncovered. When the pastor of the church found out that someone approached her, he was very upset and apologized and welcome her back to the church.... Later a mother of the church was assigned to her as a mentor. My friend is a very well dress lady, she wear very expensive clothes. But when the mother of the church begin minister to her and asked her in love not to wear pants and to cover her head when coming to church, she did and respected their doctrine... The problem is that they believe wearing pants and not covering your head is a SIN, that's wrong... They also believe that you have to terry to speak in tongue to be saved..... This is a Holiness Penecostal church... Today I see women wearing tight skirt , more offen that pants to church, when the sit down, it is all the up to their seat.... they want to sit in the front roll ... This have nothing to do with pants allowed, it is a lack of holiness being taught in the church. The preachers are now man pleasers and not God pleasers.... I'm not putting words in your mouth....however, if in one paragraph, you start by talking about how church is a cult when they have certain rules...and then the next paragraph talks about what your church did and that it was for "spiritual growth and keeping peace" (your words). It would give the appearance that you're saying that churches that have one set of standards (your former church) is fine while a church that has more "old school standards" is a cult. (you do see how you have indicated on time and time again that ministries that have certain standards are a cult/in bondage/etc, right?) I'm not sure where you are so I can only talk about the NJ/DE/PA but I see more pants than skirts. It actually surprises me (still) when I see it. I know that our church have "lap covers" so if someone does come with a very short skirt, I politely hand them one to put over their legs......I will say though that when I've talked with ppl (unsaved) about coming to church, they would say that they didn't have anything to wear.....ie they don't have any skirts or they don't have skirts that are long enough....so if even the world can notice that something doesn't look right in church we sure as Christians should know what to/not to wear...... short skirts shouldn't even be an issue. I will say that with anything if a person is passionate about something it can come off the wrong way (especially if you're a "feeler"). And the reason why some churches believe in tarrying services (I personally don't have a problem with them) is because for many, that is how they received the HG. Yes, there are those that received it in other ways....but we don't want to demean them or the organization because they tarry.... Because if I was unlearned about organizations, if I found out a church was a "Holiness Pentecostal church", I would stay away from it like a plague based on what you just said in that one paragraph. Words can do a LOT of damage..... A natural example is when you go on different boards and they talk about how their purse was stolen on an elevator by an AA male and that their friends had the same thing happen to them. Now, when anyone else goes on the elevator, based on a few instances, they clutch their bag closer if they see an AA male come on the elevator. Words can damage a whole group of ppl.....make sense? Question: Can the church say (based on what's going on in the world and no "black & white scripture") come to a concensus and say that something is "sin"? And of course if leadership is telling you to do something and you don't do it, that would be disobedience....which of course is sin. |
|
|
|
Post by anointedteacher on Jun 15, 2010 11:52:48 GMT -5
I'm not putting words in your mouth....however, if in one paragraph, you start by talking about how church is a cult when they have certain rules...and then the next paragraph talks about what your church did and that it was for "spiritual growth and keeping peace" (your words). It would give the appearance that you're saying that churches that have one set of standards (your former church) is fine while a church that has more "old school standards" is a cult. (you do see how you have indicated on time and time again that ministries that have certain standards are a cult/in bondage/etc, right?) There a different in a church making RULES and DOCTRINES and expect everybody in and out of the church to live by it.... Like wearing pants is a sin, because of the interpretation law of Moses and a woman head in covered, because a misinterpret of the scripture... You in sin wearing red.. etc.... these are Not house rules... they are apart of the church doctrine.... Big different.... House Rules are not imposed on others, like visitors, guest ministers etc... House Rules are for spiritual growth, discipline, housekeeping, security, order and peace with in that church.... I have been condemned for wearing pants and was told I wasn't saved. Believe it or not it affected me for a long time... I temporarily stop wearing pants till the Lord dealt with me.... I never been to those ppl church, it happen on a college campus in the Student Center lounge... Yes, they are like a cult. They impose their false doctrine on others that not even apart of their ministries. It cold in NJ, PA,DE in the winter.... I hate wearing dresses/skirts in the cold... down here... they wear both... Why not let ppl be and allow God to change them... you focus on wearing skirt/dresses instead of dressing modern... nice dress pant or pants suit... or whatever they have... Some of the floor workers is better off wearing loose pants with big shirt and tight tank top underneath. If the wearing a straight skirt, they can move around good and show their pantie line when benting over or have trouble getting back up from the floor when they caugth or minister to ppl. The other type skirt, if too long, they step on the bottom trying to get up from the floor after ministring to a person or not long enough they show the seat.... pants in the best We need to stick to the Word... they believe a person must speak in tongue to be saved, that not the Word... One guy I met in college, said he was tortured in his church... as hard as he try to speak in tongues, he was never consider saved and wasn't allow to sit with those who spoke in tongues... he said pastor hit him so hard in the head during terrying service, that just start crying, it happen when he was a young boy. I know most churches are not like that... you're not saved unless you speak in tongue, that not scriptured. You shouldn't impose you house rules on others that not apart of your ministry. We are know what is sin and not is not... We have the Holy Spirit that convict us when we are in sin... And there are things that is ok for you, but a sin to me... I can't impose what a sin to me on you.... There should be boundary in church, it depend on what the leader is telling you to do or don't do.... Some churches break up marriage and family, by imposing too much responsibilities on one of the spouse and the other is unsaved.... There are time where a person have to say No... Some of these leaders will turn you into slaves... cleaning their house, washing their clothes, running errors and don't consider the person have a husband and children to care for. Health reasonable rules are necessary in the church... and there should be boundaries between the leader and it members.... |
|
|
|
Post by krazeeboi on Jun 16, 2010 11:32:10 GMT -5
I think we might have gotten off track a bit with the subject of tarrying, speaking in tongues, etc., but let me say this. While I don't believe that a woman wearing pants is a sin and a woman who doesn't wear a headcovering in church is in sin (although headcoverings are biblical), I think a more pertinent issue is how much we in the church allow secular culture to influence us. Now I'm not suggesting that we should be Amish by any means, but this trend of us revising our theology and teachings as the culture changes is disturbing to a certain degree. This is why I believe it's only a matter of time before the church starts accepting homosexual lifestyles as a "normal" alternative lifestyle and in the years to come, we'll be saying the same thing about that as we say now about other issues, i.e. our prior position was based on an ignorant misinterpretation of scripture.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nikkol on Jun 16, 2010 12:31:01 GMT -5
I think we might have gotten off track a bit with the subject of tarrying, speaking in tongues, etc., but let me say this. While I don't believe that a woman wearing pants is a sin and a woman who doesn't wear a headcovering in church is in sin (although headcoverings are biblical), I think a more pertinent issue is how much we in the church allow secular culture to influence us. Now I'm not suggesting that we should be Amish by any means, but this trend of us revising our theology and teachings as the culture changes is disturbing to a certain degree. This is why I believe it's only a matter of time before the church starts accepting homosexual lifestyles as a "normal" alternative lifestyle and in the years to come, we'll be saying the same thing about that as we say now about other issues, i.e. our prior position was based on an ignorant misinterpretation of scripture. Good point, KRAZEE. And Lord KNOWS I could be as rebellious as the rest....but the older I get, the more I understand what the seasoned saints were saying.....I still look at things myself and am surprised at how although they didn't always know why, they had GREAT wisdom and it's sad that most don't follow in that anymore....and what's even worse is that there aren't many of those old seasoned saints anymore and so it's important for us (general) to grab hold of that wisdom so that we don't lose it. |
|
|
|
Post by anointedteacher on Jun 16, 2010 16:12:56 GMT -5
I think we might have gotten off track a bit with the subject of tarrying, speaking in tongues, etc., but let me say this. While I don't believe that a woman wearing pants is a sin and a woman who doesn't wear a headcovering in church is in sin (although headcoverings are biblical), I think a more pertinent issue is how much we in the church allow secular culture to influence us. Now I'm not suggesting that we should be Amish by any means, but this trend of us revising our theology and teachings as the culture changes is disturbing to a certain degree. This is why I believe it's only a matter of time before the church starts accepting homosexual lifestyles as a "normal" alternative lifestyle and in the years to come, we'll be saying the same thing about that as we say now about other issues, i.e. our prior position was based on an ignorant misinterpretation of scripture. The church failed to teach HOLINESS.... no pant, head covering is not holiness.... They teach everything but holiness.... PPL don't have to live holy to be in the choir, P&W, dance ministries etc.... anything goes.... Ministers don't have to be faithful..... I know a few tongue speaking, no pants and covering sisters that got pregnant in those holiness churches and that was over 30 years ago.... the old schools.... Holiness need to be taught not dressing up the outside appearance, but dealing with the heart.... Cause what in the inside, will be manifested on the outside. |
|
|
|
Post by krazeeboi on Jun 17, 2010 0:19:43 GMT -5
The church failed to teach HOLINESS.... no pant, head covering is not holiness.... They teach everything but holiness.... PPL don't have to live holy to be in the choir, P&W, dance ministries etc.... anything goes.... Ministers don't have to be faithful..... I know a few tongue speaking, no pants and covering sisters that got pregnant in those holiness churches and that was over 30 years ago.... the old schools.... Holiness need to be taught not dressing up the outside appearance, but dealing with the heart.... Cause what in the inside, will be manifested on the outside. Now let it be known that while external standards in and of themselves do not equal holiness, holiness DOES extend to how we dress. While some of the old saints may have gone overboard or put too much of an emphasis on the outside, what they have that we don't have now is a desire to be totally unspotted from the world on the inside and outside. The prevailing mindset today is how close to the world we can be and not be in sin, whereas the mindset back then was how close to God they could be and still be alive. What we lack in this modern-day church is spiritual maturity. We don't know that all things are lawful, but not all things are expedient. We don't know how to handle our freedom in Christ. We have not renewed our minds. We still very much have individualistic attitudes, thinking that our individual choices don't harm or affect anyone else and know absolutely nothing about discipleship and mutual accountability. Even when we might disagree on a certain subject in particular, like headcoverings or pants, instead of at least acknowledging that those who might disagree with us are only trying to be true to scriptural practice, they are instead derided for being "legalistic." While the Catholic Church has its issues, one thing I've always admired about them is that, for the most part, they don't change established traditions and doctrines just because society changes. We, the church, are entirely too beholden to worldly dictates to truly be effective agents of change. |
|
|
|
Post by anointedteacher on Jun 17, 2010 9:33:45 GMT -5
How ppl suppose to have a burning desire to be spotless, when the leaders are not spotless... How the ppl suppose to live holiness, when the leader committing adultery and fornicating. How the ppl suppose to move from the world when the leader bring in the world to win young ppl to Christ... Praise and worship and choir have became entertianment, ppl are not being led into the Holy of Holiness... no breakthroufh, no deliverance, no discipline, no rebuke, no repend, no teaching of holiness.... just come to church to feel good and listen to a good sermon that don't offend you... So I agree with you... over burden ppl with man made doctrine lead to rebellousness... Preaching the truth, discipline, rebuke and holiness bring change... Like I said, I am for reasonable house rules and standards especially for music ministries, ministers, dance and drama ministries... and standard for all members... that why every person should complete new members class before becoming a member and all rules, standard etc. should be lay out and repeated during church business meeting... It should be reasonable and not controlling and not violating certain boundaries...
|
|
|
|
Post by Nikkol on Jun 17, 2010 9:38:00 GMT -5
While some of the old saints may have gone overboard or put too much of an emphasis on the outside, what they have that we don't have now is a desire to be totally unspotted from the world on the inside and outside. The prevailing mindset today is how close to the world we can be and not be in sin, whereas the mindset back then was how close to God they could be and still be alive. Standing Ovation.... you hit the nail RIGHT on the head..... |
|
... This have nothing to do with pants allowed, it is a lack of holiness being taught in the church. The preachers are now man pleasers and not God pleasers....