The Seriousness of the Symbolism for Male Headship (part two)
“Scorched-earth” is a military strategy of devastating all land and buildings in the course of advancing or retreating troops so as to leave nothing salvageable to the enemy. The strategy transfers to other types of endeavors, including legal defense, the goal being to discredit the prosecution and its investigation in every way possible so as to create reasonable doubt in the mind of the jury. This scheme was used by the O. J. Simpson lawyers to win that infamous murder case. As they say, he got away with murder. Scorched-earth is very often also what pants-on-women proponents use to defend their position. I found a proof-text for their methodology.
And when the sun was up, they were scorched; and because they had no root, they withered away.
They don’t have to offer a single explanation themselves for Deuteronomy 22:5 or 1 Corinthians 11, but they must cause enough doubt in the teachings of these texts to allow whatever kind of dress they want to have. They present seventeen kwabillion different other possibilities that the passages could say. They find almost everyone that offers a different meaning than what a majority historically have said. The scorched-earther is looking to cause reasonable doubt.
After the scorched-earthers are done inducing the doubt, then, “you know, it really is not something clearly taught in Scripture, so we need to give latitude to disagreeing Christians, look for unity, try to avoid dissension among the brethren, prunes are good for you, the gravitational force of the earth, and what about dem Cubs?” And on top of that, “snicker, snicker,” and “ROFL” (where’d they pick up how to scoff?). And “do you really believe that?” When they face God? Well, they’re saved already, and a lot of people believe just like them, and how could God expect me to practice something that is so unclear?
They’ve got their bases covered. Will it fool God? Of course not, but that’s not the point with traditions and vain philosophies anyway. They’re to supply credible replacements for obedience and enough built-in excuses to make them look orthodox.
Problem: we can spend decades obliterating what a passage says to do, but we’re still required to obey it, because man shall live by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God (Mt. 4:4). And by the time we pass our fraudulent beliefs and practices down to our children, they’ll still be responsible to obey what God said too, even though we’ve made it exceedingly more difficult for them with our massive cover-up.
The Position of the Scorched-Earthers (like they say it)
- Deuteronomy 22:5 is ceremonial law, something we don’t keep today, any more than we refrain from wearing “a garment of. . . . woolen and linen together” (v. 11). Big smiles and periodic mad scientist laugh.
- The “thing that pertaineth unto a man” is armor and “man” is a “soldier.” I’m against women wearing military stuff! (Not actually in real life because we’ve got two enlisted women on our prayer list that have different shaped and sized camoflauge.)
- You’re a fundamentalist, aren’t you?!?! (“Um, n..) Thought so!! Well, well, you’re like that!! (“Like w…”) Legalistic!!
- The passage is like telling us that men and women are to look different. I, chuckle, don’t think, chuckle, that you would say that, bigger chuckle, my wife and I, giggle, look like each other, repeated giggles, when we both wear pants.
- Women wear hats and socks!!
- Scottish men wear kilts!!
- Barry Bonds wears an earring! I dare you to tell him he looks like a woman!!! (Long, loud hyena laughter)
- It’s not saying that! (“Saying what?”) Whatever it is that you are saying that it’s saying? (“I haven’t said yet.”) It doesn’t matter; it isn’t.
- Both men and women wore robes in Bible times, so as long as she has on women’s pants, then she’s all set. (“How do you know they’re women’s pants?”) They have a different size and cut. (“You mean they’re tighter?”) No, just cut different in the hips, you know, because women have different hips than men. (“Fascinating. And so what if a woman put on a pair of loose fitting men’s pants, does that violate the verse?”) Well. I guess it would, so she probably shouldn’t do that. (“And that’s what an abomination to God is?”). But they both wore robes. That’s my point.
- Men who teach women-wear-pants have treated women badly.
- Women started wearing pants during World War 1 when they worked in the factories. They were more comfortable.
- Everyone wears underwear!
- You’re not going to say that John MacArthur, John Piper, Bob Jones, Dave Doran, Kevin Bauder, Mark Dever, Larry Oats, and Tim Jordan are, well, all an abomination to God are you?
- The Caananites utilized transvetitism in their worship and God was forbidding Canaanite worship by saying this.
- Moses and Paul both were chauvenists!
- This is forbidding homosexual-type cross-dressing.
- You’re making a major issue out of something that is minor. That’s only in the Bible one time!
- You just want to keep women bare-foot and pregant!
- Men who believe like you do have called women “whores!”
- A lot of women’s skirts are much more immodest than pants!
- Man looks on the outward appearance, but God looks at the heart!
- My grandmother wears pants and she’s the most Godly woman I know!
- You use the King James!
For a number of reasons, men who take a position on this like I do often are stereotyped as people who don’t look closely at Scripture. My experience in this debate has been that the women-wear-pants men refuse to look at the actual text to get their position. On these passages, they are shallow and self-serving.
I covered Deuteronomy 22:5 like I do all others and when I did, the words of the verse strongly contradicted my former position, which was that pants were permissible for women, if not the best. What I saw in the text was that “the thing that pertaineth,” was something of distinct design. The assumption was that it was designed within a Godly culture, such as God intended Israel. That thing designed for men alone was not to be worn by women.
The idea within Deuteronomy 22:5 wasn’t that men and women were to look out into the culture and find out what it wore as a guide, so that if the society changed in its practice to something Scripturally indefensible, believers were free to change with it, because this was intended only as a cultural issue. The articles designed for men were not to be worn by women, and vice-versa. The articles had a design. That didn’t mean that you could take the male article, dye it pink, and that then it would be female, or that you could make it more form-fitting and that then it would be female. Of course, when women started wearing pants, they weren’t designing a new article for women. Women were simply taking the male article and wearing it. At first Christians argued against that, and finally they just capitulated. Now they argue for the unisex apparrel.
The woman wearing the male garment is an abomination to God. She rebels against God’s design. The man that wears the female garment also is an abomination to God for the same reason. This conforms to the teaching in Romans 1. At the root of man’s rebellion is his trouble with God as Creator. For that reason, men take on characteristics of women and women of men. They suppress truth in the most basic fashion, worshiping and serving themselves (they’re own comforts, leisure, recreation, fads, purposes) rather than God’s.
The Point of the Symbol
At the root of a refusal of the symbols is a rejection of God’s goodness. God made us and it was good. He made male and female and it was good. We should subject to and trust in that goodness. God knows what is good for us better than what we do. What we think is comfort ultimately will not be if it is in violation of God’s good will.
Families break down when the roles break down. The dress issue is a role issue. God knows that boys and girls grow up learning their roles by what they see. When they don’t see clear support of what God has done, we get role confusion. We now see this chaos all over the United States and the rest of the world. We Christians, God’s salt and light, must let the world see our good works so that men might glorify God in heaven. If we are not willing to praise God’s design on earth, why would the world be interested in His heaven?