A commentary on Oneness Pentecostal holiness standards

To anyone who has spent even a little time in a Oneness Pentecostal church, the words “Holiness Standards” probably hold certain meanings: skirts for women, pants for men. Uncut hair for women, short hair for men. No makeup for women. No jewelry. To some, it might even go farther, but these are the basics. The Oneness Pentecostal teaching is that it is the required duty of anyone who has received – or wishes to receive – the Holy Ghost. Not doing so is a willful sin that puts one’s salvation in jeopardy. (This, by the way, is all Oneness Pentecostal jargon. Most Christians have a different understanding of the salvation process.) They believe that these standards come from scripture, and they cite certain verse to make their case for each standard.  They take great pride in their adherence to the standards, almost to boastful levels.  They believe that by dressing this certain way, they will receive blessings from God.

Having spent 10 years in the Oneness Pentecostal movement, most of which either dating or married to a Oneness Pentecostal woman, I’ve had many discussions on the standards. I’ve seen how they are applied and when they aren’t. I’ve watched secular fashion change, and the standards adapt to match secular fashion. And in the end, two things have become clear to me about the standards. First, they are wholly unbiblical, misappropriating scripture out of context and cherry-picking verses. Second, when following the standards is inconvenient, they are willingly ignored. In this post, I will discuss these two points and demonstrate how the Holiness Standards are a legalistic hindrance to Christianity.

However, first, I must make a point that will surely be ignored by some. I will even bold and italicize it.

I BELIEVE THAT WE, AS CHRISTIANS, ARE CALLED TO LIVE HOLY AND MODEST LIVES, DEDICATED TO CHRIST AND THE MISSION OF SPREADING HIS WORD. I BELIEVE THAT WE ARE TO BE MODEST IN THOUGHT, WORD, DEED AND APPEARANCE. I DO NOT, HOWEVER, BELIEVE THAT THIS SHOULD MAKE US SUBJECT TO MAN-MADE LEGALISTIC DEFINITIONS OF WHAT MAKES A PERSON HOLY OR NOT HOLY.

Also, one might ask: “What does it bother you if they choose to live this way? They aren’t hurting anyone!” My answer is this: Who says they aren’t hurting anyone? If it were purely as simple as “I believe that I can be more modest by dressing a certain way, and I think this is  a good way that I personally can improve my witness”, it would be no problem. Admirable, even! The harm comes when pastors and ministers state, either implicitly or explicitly, that it is a sinful act to not abide by these rules and that doing so puts you in danger of Hell. Legalism of this sort will destroy the enthusiasm of the young convert and puts the faithful in the same shackles as the old Law. On top of that, it pretends to speak for God, a sin in and of itself. In short, I don’t believe that it’s wrong to dress a certain way in devotion to God, so long as it’s for the right reasons, and so long as you don’t attempt to force it on others and claiming it as sin to do otherwise.

With that being said, let us begin.

NO ‘SKIRTING’ AROUND  IT: THE PANTS ISSUE

The first point I’d like to make is in regards to whether or not the standards are scriptural. There are two Standards held up like the Holy Grail of Pentecost: Skirts and Uncut Hair.  First, I will address the idea that women are to only wear skirts. Oneness Pentecostals teach that women must not wear men’s clothing and vice versa. They cite Deuteronomy 22:5:

 A woman must not wear men’s clothing, nor a man wear women’s clothing, for the Lord your God detests anyone who does this. Deut 22:5 (NIV)

There are a few problems with the citation of this verse.  The first is that we need to look into the Hebrew behind the English. In Adam Clark’s commentary, he writes:

“As the word…geber is here used, which properly signifies a strong man or man of war, it is very probable that armour  is here intended; especially as we know that in the worship of Venus, to which that of Astarte or Ashtaroth among the Canaanites bore a striking resemblance, the women were accustomed to appear in armour before her.”

John Gill gives a similar explanation in his commentary:

“…and the word [keliy] also signifies armour, as Onkelos renders it; and so here forbids women putting on a military habit and going with men to war, as was usual with the eastern women; and so Maimonides illustrates it, by putting a mitre or an helmet on her head, and clothing herself with a coat of mail; and in like manner Josephus explains it, ‘take heed, especially in war, that a woman do not make use of the habit of a man, or a man that of a woman…’”

One additional source agrees, Rabbi Jon-Jay Tilsen. In his article entitled “Cross Dressing and Deuteronomy 22:5”, he writes:

“In another attempt to identify the quintessential ‘men’s items,’ Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob, quoted in the Talmud (edited about 800 C.E.), says, ‘What is the proof that a woman may not go forth with weapons to war?’ He then cites our verse [Deuteronomy 22:5], which he reads this way: ‘A warrior’s gear may not be put on a woman’ (B. Naz. 59a). He reads kli gever [geber] as the homograph kli gibbor, meaning a ‘warrior’s gear’.”

To sum up, a more specific translation might say:

“The woman shall not put on [the weapons/armor of a warrior], neither shall a [warrior] put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.”

It’s a reasonable conclusion to state this verse has more to do with women in the military than it does with pants and skirts. Jason Young synthesizes these arguments up in this way:

“Considering the sheer specificity of Deut 22:5 and the precise nature of those things that are forbidden, Deut 22:5 is most likely ceremonial law rather than moral law, which would mean that it would have little, if any, implications for Christians today.”

Lets’ assume, however, for the sake of argument that Deuteronomy 22 does contain laws for the modern Christian. Let’s look at some other verses in the chapter that are willfully ignored:

“8 When you build a new house, make a parapet around your roof so that you may not bring the guilt of bloodshed on your house if someone falls from the roof.9 Do not plant two kinds of seed in your vineyard; if you do, not only the crops you plant but also the fruit of the vineyard will be defiled. 10 Do not plow with an ox and a donkey yoked together.11 Do not wear clothes of wool and linen woven together.12  Make tassels on the four corners of the cloak you wear.” Deut 22:8-12 NIV

Naturally, if we’re going to observe verse 5, these verses are just as valid today, right? So let’s go through them: Do you have a fence around your roof so that no one might fall off? If not, you are in violation of 22:8. Do you garden? Do you plant multiple crops in the same plot? Violation of 22:10. Do you have any clothes that are cotton/wool blend? Violation of 22:11. Finally, if your coat doesn’t have tassels, you’re in violation of 22:12.

The book of Deuteronomy is filled with laws that aren’t for today’s Christian, and are therefore not followed. We eat pork and shrimp. We work on Saturdays. We don’t stone children who come home drunk. So why is Deuteronomy 22:5 held up as a high commandment?

Let’s forget all that scholarship and context for a moment. Let’s assume the English translation stands alone, and that it really does just say “Women aren’t to wear men’s clothing, men aren’t to wear women’s.” What defines men’s and women’s clothing? Would that really mean pants for men, skirts for women? I offer two problems with this interpretation.

First, the origin of pants presents a problem to this. For purposes of this post, I will cite a Wikipedia article. The article itself is heavily cited so feel free to research further. To quote Wikipedia:

“Trousers first enter recorded history in the 6th century BCE, with the appearance of horse-riding Iranian peoples in Greek ethnography. […] Trousers are believed to have been worn by both sexes among these early users.”

What was that past part? “Trousers are believed to have been worn by both sexes among these early users.” In fact, the residents of Greek and Roman territories at the time of Christ found pants to be uncivilized, only worn by barbarians. It’s only when the Empire expanded beyond the Mediterranean into colder climates that pants were met with greater adoption.  It wasn’t until almost 1000 years later that pants began to gain traction as clothing exclusively for men, and even then, only in certain cultures. So when did it become sinful for women to wear pants?

As a point of interest, there are some churches that also advocate that men should not wear shorts, even though it is quite common for OP women to wear knee length skirts. There is no biblical backing for this offered at all. It’s merely to impose something on men since the bulk of holiness standards were imposed by men on women.

TO CUT OR NOT TO CUT: THE HAIR ISSUE

The second Standard I will cover is the issue of hair. Oneness Pentecostal Holiness Standards teach that a woman is never to cut her hair, even to trim it. This standard is entirely based off of 1 Corinthians 11, in which Paul discusses propriety in worship. This chapter is an excellent chapter of what happens when you forget that the inspired Bible was written in Hebrew and Greek and later translated into English by fallible men. It’s also an excellent example of reading passages in their appropriate cultural and historical context.

Take a moment and read 1 Cor. 11 if you haven’t recently. I’ll wait.

Good. Now, there are a few brief bullet points I’d like to make on this topic. I won’t flesh it out entirely because there are two articles I will link that explain this in more than enough detail, so I won’t repeat it. The points are as such:

1. Paul is speaking to a specific culture and society about specific cultural morays and traditions that are not present in today’s culture. It is commonly accepted that he was speaking of cultural issues in the Corinthian church.
2. It speaks about the Corinthian tradition of women being veiled. The veil in this tradition was quite similar to the burka worn today in certain modern cultures. If Oneness Pentecostals really wanted to follow this chapter, they would insist on their women being veiled.
3. Nowhere does it say that a woman cutting her hair at all is a sin. It states that a woman going without the veil might as well cut her hair off. There is, again, a problem from forgetting the Bible wasn’t originally written in English. The links below cover this “shorn/shaved” verb confusion in great detail.
4. The word translated as “glory” in verse 15 is grossly misapplied in Oneness Pentecostal tradition. The common interpretation used to justify the Standards implies that a woman’s uncut hair plays a role in her salvation, that by this action she is considered holy before God, and this justification is made from the word “glory”. This is  an improper reading of the Greek. While “glory” is an appropriate translation, it’s used in the same way that a sunset might be called “glorious”. This is not the type of “glory” commonly attributed to God.

Long story short: There is no scripture anywhere that says a woman shouldn’t cut her hair at all. It suggests that a woman should have long hair The chapter discusses a cultural issue affecting the first century church. We live in a different culture today with different traditions. While there are lessons to be taken from this chapter, it needs to be read in the proper context.

I have found two excellent studies of 1 Cor 11. The first (http://pastorcraigsblog.blogspot.com/2007/08/silly-rollie-pollie.html)  is from a blog called “Pastor Craig’s Blog” and is written by an Assemblies of God pastor. The other (http://www.orthodoxyouth.org/1cor/html/11commentary.html)  is from a site called Orthodox Youth, from an Eastern Orthodox perspective. Both of these are excellent breakdowns.

AND NOW, THE REST OF THE STORY

There are other Holiness Standards throughout the Oneness Pentecostal movement to be sure. Restrictions on jewelry range from even forbidding wedding bands to allowing sentimental pieces only. Restrictions on makeup exist in a similar spectrum, verboten in some circles, whereas cover-up and blush are allowed in others. Skirts and hair, however, seem to be universal, so that’s what I’ve devoted this much time to.

HOW IT’S APPLIED

So now that we’ve discussed the standards, I think it’s fair to take a look at how they are applied. Let’s assume, again, the strict Pentecostal interpretation of Deuteronomy 22:5, that it is sinful for women to wear pants. It’s considered a clear edict on gender roles. When, then, does this apply? One would assume that if an action is sinful, it is always sinful. Therefore, a woman wearing pants in any setting, or even when alone, should be considered sin. However, anyone who knows a Pentecostal woman can tell you, they gladly wear pants when around other women or male members of their immediate family. Why is that? Does a sinful action lose its sinfulness in the presence of others? The OP will tell you “Well, it’s a modesty issue! Men in my family or other women aren’t going to look at me that way!” However, that clearly flies in the face of the interpretation of the verse used to justify the standard.  Again, Deuteronomy 22:5 is taken as an edict on gender roles. It is an abomination before God for women to wear “that which pertaineth to a man”, and pants are clearly set aside in Pentecostalism as men’s clothing. Some may flinch at my using such a strong word, but this is only one of the many hypocrisies of the OP Holiness Standards. I would respect the concept of Holiness Standards all the more if they were applied the same at all times.

But since we’re talking about modesty now, what about it? What does modesty mean? Does it simply mean making sure you’re adequately covered? Is modesty an entirely physical characteristic? Absolutely not! In fact, I’ve seen some of the most immodest behavior by Standards-abiding Pentecostals. I’ve been to OP conventions and gatherings and one thing has always, ALWAYS shocked me, and that is the incredible emphasis and status given to expensive designer clothing. You will see women carrying bags by Coach, Louis Vuitton, Burberry and other labels where the bags go for well over $500. They boast about high-dollar trips to Saks Fifth Avenue and the like. The “last night of convention” outfit is purchased and picked out with the same care given to a wedding dress (and the same cost, at that.) The men are occasionally no better. Is modesty being completely covered when your covering costs more than some middle-class paychecks? Is it simply a physical thing? Or are we to be modest in thought and action, with moderation in all things? In the interest of full disclosure, I must admit to a few extravagant purchases in my own life, such as a flat-screen TV. You could argue that a $500 fashion accessory is no worse than my TV, and I’d be obliged to listen to that argument. I would counter, however, that the Holiness Standards are a form of witnessing in Oneness Pentecostalism, and the $500 handbag might undermine that mission, whereas my TV only ensures I can be depressed by the Cleveland Browns 16 weeks a year.

Another example is how the standards are applied to particularly talented people, or people of high social standing in any given church (family of the pastor or family of a notable ministry family, for instance). The examples herein are clearly anecdotal and I will certainly not name names. If you’ve read this far, you must give some weight to my words on this topic, so it’s not a stretch for me to ask you to take my word on the truthfulness of these scenarios. I have attended two OP churches over my 10 years in the movement. Both churches were pastored by men that preached and believed the Standards. In both churches, there were many exceptionally talented musicians. (I will say this for the OP movement: the music is phenomenal.)Publically, both pastors stated that if you wanted to participate in the ministry, you must abide by the standards. However, in both churches, there were particularly talented musicians or singers, or members of the family of a high-ranking minister, who, in some form or fashion, didn’t always abide. Whether it be cutting their hair (and I don’t even mean trimming ends, I mean less than shoulder length in one case) or wearing pants (publically, no less), these people chose to disobey the Holiness Standards. By all appearances, they were either never reprimanded for this, or they were and chose to ignore it and continue to go about their routines, keeping on in whatever they were doing.

Keep in mind one big thing: I don’t think any of them did anything wrong scripturally. One might argue “But they disobeyed their pastor!” I would proffer that even a pastor is a fallible man, subject to mistakes, and not everything they teach is going to be right. You have two choices when you disagree with your pastor on a minor issue of this nature: You can either 1) throw the baby out with the bathwater and look for a pastor you never, ever disagree with (good luck and Godspeed!), or you can 2) agree to disagree on the small stuff and continue working towards the greater work of the Kingdom together. There is no verse of scripture that states that a pastor or bishop or overseer (or whatever title your church uses) is to be blindly followed without question. Anyone who tells you otherwise is worthy of suspicion of their motives.

One final example of the hypocrisy of the standards is the unequal burden placed on women as opposed to men. Women are expected to abstain from certain articles of clothing. The clothing they do wear is scrutinized as to how revealing it is. They are to abstain from makeup. They are to keep their hair uncut (even if doing so subjects them to head/neck pain. I do know people personally who suffered terrible headaches from carrying pounds of hair on their head). They are generally held up to a much higher standard than the men. Men are simply asked to keep their hair less than chin length (or shorter) and, in some churches, not wear shorts. No one has ever provided to me a logical explanation as to why this is so unequal.

SO WHAT IS HOLINESS AND MODESTY?

So, what, then, is it to be holy and modest? What do you have to do? That, my friends, is a conclusion you need to draw for yourself, because it may be different in everyone’s situation. For some, it means examining whether or not the way you dress may send a message contrary to what Christ would have you send. For others, it means abstaining from things they can’t trust themselves to partake in responsibly, like alcohol or certain forms of media. For yet another, it may mean examining the books, television, and music you consume and seeing whether or not they harm your spiritual growth. If at all you are unsure, do three things: 1) read the Bible (and study for context!), for it’s the best source of instruction; 2) pray and ask God to lead you in how you can be a better witness for his work in your life through your thoughts, words and actions, and 3) talk to a mature Christian you trust, be it a family member, minister, church elder, or the like, and ask for their advice, and then back to step one, see what the Bible says about that advice. You are not made holy or righteous through your adherence to a dress code. The Bible clearly says that even our most righteous deeds are counted as “filthy rags” (Isa 64:6) (and if you really want to know how filthy, look up what the Hebrew for ‘filthy rags’ is in that verse.) Only by faith in Christ and the Cross are we counted as righteous. (Rom 4) The Holy Spirit that fills the faithful will guide you in your walk to become more like Christ, and by following the Spirit’s leading, you will learn to better live for Christ.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, I believe I have demonstrated how the common interpretations of scripture used to arrive at Pentecostal Holiness Standards are flawed. I believe I’ve demonstrated more accurate interpretations of those scriptures. I believe I have demonstrated how those flawed interpretations are applied in an inconsistent manner, and I believe I’ve demonstrated how holiness and modesty are much more than adherence to a dress code. Any holiness or righteousness we have is counted to us only by faith in Christ and Him crucified. Legalism will never make you holy and it will never bring you closer to God.

Works cited:
http://www.actseighteen.com/articles/women-pants.htm
http://pastorcraigsblog.blogspot.com/2007/08/silly-rollie-pollie.htm
http://www.orthodoxyouth.org/1cor/html/11commentary.html
http://www.freegrace.net/gill/Deuteronomy/Deuteronomy_22.htm
http://www.studylight.org/com/acc/view.cgi?book=de&chapter=022
http://www.beki.org/crossdress.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trousers

Additional Resources:

Jordan Strange’s (another former OP) video commentary on the Standards (4 parts)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZ5wcGnklzs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOkUlwZL5KE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qN2GobBh3to
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48NpgBAVhnI