Something Just Doesn't Add Up

This post is really a followup to the post Say What You Mean and Mean What You Say. I intend to go into some depth on a few items that I either glossed over or skipped altogether in that earlier post because I was trying to keep to one subject without wandering. I also want to make a note that some people might find some of the language in this post distasteful. I apologize in advance and actually suggest you just skip this post entirely and read this one instead. I'm only using the words that I've heard, and while that is not a defense for crassness, unfortunately we as a group have been dealing with some of the baser issues that men and women face today. If you do find anything in this post offensive, I remind you, you have been warned.

There has been some interesting things that people have said or done in regards to how Bro. Steve Farmer is now teaching dress standards, especially in when it concerns women wearing pants. The problem with what I've heard though is that people are employing very weak logic or none at all when making their arguments. Here are a couple of examples.

I recently heard that a lot of time and research went into finding a story in a very old book where an experiment was performed to determine whether or not it's sinful for women to wear pants. In this experiment women were paraded in front of a group of men twice, one time wearing skirts or dresses and the other time wearing pants. The viewers were then asked to identify what drew their attention each time. When the women were wearing skirts, the men said they were drawn to their beautiful faces, but when the women were wearing pants, the men said their attention was drawn to their crotches. The conclusion derived from this experiment is that women should not wear pants because doing so draws attention to their crotches and that would be a sin. This experiment was used as an argument to establish that Bro. Farmer was out of order based on how he is teaching standards.

When I heard that this story was actually used to make an argument it actually made me laugh out loud. I ask myself how this experiment could possibly apply in today's world unless we were to live a completely cloistered life. Just about everywhere I go, with the exception of church, I see women wearing pants all the time. I understand that in the past when women wearing pants was not mainstream there could have been a considerable shock factor influencing these men in this experiment, however I question whether or not these same men today would still be drawn to women's crotches whenever they see a woman wearing pants. Additionally, to use this story against the Nashville assembly seems to imply that the only women that anyone in our group would ever encounter wearing pants would be those under the direct influence of Steve Farmer and just how silly is that?

To insinuate that the women in this experiment are guilty of some sin and not the men is ludicrous. It is however a very common male psychological pattern to blame women for their faults. How is this different from the man who is physically abusive to his wife and blames his abuse on her or another man who blames the women in his life for the poor choices that he's made and is incapable of manning up and taking the responsibility for his own actions? What is happening in each of these cases is that the man is seeking justification for his actions by blaming someone else; he's not really being a man. Is there really any difference in these examples and the experiment referenced above? If there is, please point it out because I fail to see it.

I've also heard recently that there are some ministers who have been alluding without quite saying it in so many words that women who wear pants are lesbians, cross-dressers or transvestites. I won't say who because I have not actually heard this directly from them yet myself, but still I've heard this too often from too many sources for me to ignore it completely (Matt 18:16). The logic behind this statement is that if a woman dresses in a "man's garment" that could only signify that that woman is trying to take over the role of a man, and that a sexual attraction to other women must be the reason behind it. If I try really really hard I can see the progression of this logic, but it certainly overlooks a lot of simple truths.

First of all, stating that pants are exclusively a male garment is just no longer true. The average woman today wears pants much more than they do skirts, and pants have become every bit as much a female garment as they are a male garment. Just look at the women's department in any clothing store and you will see that this is true. While it is true that in the past trousers were designed as an article of clothing for men, ever since the 70's pants have become a normal article of clothing for women. Decades earlier some women did wear men's pants when they had to do a job where a skirt just would not be appropriate and because there just weren't women's pants available, but over the past forty or more years, women's pants have been made differently from men's pants and there is a clear distinction between the two. A man trying to wear pants made for a woman would not look right and vice versa.

If someone really believes that women who wear pants are lesbians, cross-dressers or transvestites, then that logic would also imply that person also believes that the vast majority of American women today are lesbians, cross-dressers or transvestites. Following this logic, you could derive that Scottish men who wear a kilt are gay, cross-dressers or transvestites as well because kilts are merely a different name for a skirt, which of course is a female garment. I even know of a couple who when they were first married used to share sweaters on occasion. Would that make them bisexual?

What is happening here is someone is judging women based on their own view of what society should be and not taking anything else into account. To illustrate what I'm saying here, some of the leading brethren have stated that they wouldn't impose Western dress ideals on people in a foreign field when those ideals clashed with local culture as long as the clothing that was worn remained modest. Hence it would not be a sin for women to wear pants in Asia because it is culturally acceptable there, though it would still remain a sin for women in North America to wear them. Other leading brethren disagree with this completely and see the dress standard as a teaching that should be universal. What neither group seems to be willing to accept is that what is and is not culturally acceptable is based on society and society here in North America has been changing. What we are told instead is that we should just discount our own society because the world is sinful. We seem to have forgotten that many of the "dress standards" in our group are merely derivatives of 1950's Mid-Western American social norms or in other words what was considered modest half a century ago and not derived directly from the Bible. If this were not so, we would all be wearing the same clothing worn by our first century brothers and sisters, tunics (undergarments) and mantles (essentially robes). How it really seems to me is that there are some of the leading brethren who think they are able to dictate culture and others who think something is sinful or not based on where you are. Both viewpoints are flaky in my mind.

Making a blanket statement that alludes that every woman wearing pants must be a lesbian, cross-dresser or a transvestite stretches the truth way past it's breaking point. Wouldn't this train of logic also imply that all women wearing skirts are straight? What about men? What article of clothing determines their sexual orientation? To me it would just seem simpler to let clothing be a matter of fashion, staying warm or just not being naked and let sexuality be a matter of sex (Gen 3:7).

The kernel of truth here is that women shouldn't try to be men and that men shouldn't try to be women and that includes how they dress. This is what's really at the heart of the scripture Deut. 22:5. Let me just say this too, if you see no difference at all between a real female transvestite who is trying to impersonate a man and a woman who is wearing a pair of slacks, I don't trust your judgment.

I also want to address the way that the Nashville church is being disfellowshipped because it has me greatly disturbed. Although I don't believe this to be the case, for the sake of argument let's assume that Bro. Farmer is completely wrong in how he is teaching modesty in his church. Given that, is disfellowshipping the church really a Biblically based, Christian way to handle the problem?

I'm reminded of the story of the shepherd who lost a sheep (Luke 15:4-7) and the story of the woman who lost a coin (Luke 15:8-10). In these stories the protagonist goes after what was lost. The shepherd didn't say, "Well, I've still got ninety-nine sheep, too bad about that other one. I'll just cut my losses and move on". The woman didn't say, "Well, I still have nine coins and I didn't really need that other one anyway, oh well". No, instead both of these people valued these things and diligently went after them. Right after these stories Jesus tells the story of the prodigal son (Luke 15:11-32), but nowhere in the story did the father kick the younger son out of his house, or did my translation miss something? One of the restrictions that is being imposed by the "leading brethren" means that if a pastor from another assembly was genuinely concerned about Bro. Farmer and the Nashville assembly and wanted to visit them and attempt to influence them to change with the same spirit evidenced in these stories, they can't without clearing it with the "leading brethren" first. Discarding the Nashville assembly this way shows not only a lack of value and love placed on that church and the people in it, in my opinion it creates a precedent of how to handle other churches that don't quite fall in line with what the "leading brethren" lay down. I wonder who will be next.

On a side note, I find it more than just slightly ironic that Jesus told these stories in response to the Scribes and Pharisees murmuring about Him receiving and fellowshipping publicans and sinners, and another of the accusations being leveled at Bro. Farmer is that he refuses to be exclusive enough in whom he chooses to fellowship (Mark 2:16).

Now I know that I Cor. 5:1-6 was being used when making the decision to disfellowship Nashville but I question the use of this scripture though because it refers to the sexual immorality of an individual and the issues that were stated as the reasons for "withdrawing" concern the doctrinal stance of an entire assembly. This just does not apply to the situation that is at hand and to say that it does implies that you are saying that preaching modesty is sexually immoral. More importantly if we use this scripture in regards to doctrinal differences, then we also imply that the assemblies in our group share a doctrinal cohesiveness that just doesn't exist. How else could a doctrinal issue separate a church from the fellowship unless there exists a doctrinal unity which that separated church violated?

I also want to talk about something that shouldn't need to be voiced but obviously does. I've heard from some of my friends in the Nashville church that there are many people with whom they've been friends for a long time who now all of a sudden won't even speak to them anymore. Does anyone out there really believe that these people whom we have known for years just changed overnight some time back in 2009 or perhaps January of this year and are no longer the same people that they were the entire time we've known them? To those who have drank the kool-aid and decided that the Nashville church and everyone in it have become some kind of pariah, I suggest that you read 1 Cor. 13:4-8 very carefully and pray long and hard about it.

The truth about what is going on with Nashville and the people there is that there is a campaign being promoted that diminishes the value of who they are. Every time we say or think "they aren't like us any more", what we are doing is dehumanizing them. What we are saying and what you are saying if you are buying into the party line is that we are better than they are. There's just way too much of this "better than them" mentality in our group and it needs to stop. If we were to just sit down and take a look at the people who are being effected right now, we'd see just how alike we are, not how different. I hear the cry of people who have been slandered ringing in my heart and I ask myself why it is we do this (Rom 3:7-9). Who are we anyway to set ourselves up as the standard against whom everyone should be judged anyway? Who among us qualifies (Rom 3:10)? Who among us has the right (John 8:7)?

Now I know that this post and my last one are going to rock the boat, but on occasion the boat needs to be rocked. And even if no one else will stand up and speak the truth, that will not deter me. An injustice has been done, and as Edmund Burke said, "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." I for one will not just sit and do nothing.