Refute to Other Holiness Standards

by Ricky Guthrie

The UPCI also has other standards of Holiness they teach as being biblically sound, but I want to deal with those issues also in the light of sound biblical teaching.

A. THE HAIR ISSUE.

UPCI teaches that it is sin for a woman to cut their hair, trim it or in any way break it. They take this teaching from the 11th chapter of I Corinthians.

If we look at this scripture we find that at the beginning of this chapter the Apostle Paul was dealing with a literal hair covering or veil. Later on in the chapter he mentions that long hair on a woman is considered part of her covering and that there is power in that long hair. Yet, if we look at this scripture we cannot find anywhere that Paul declared how long a woman's hair was to be.

We know historically that in Corinth the temple prostitutes wore their hair as short as the men did. Some even shaved their heads, which some of the Jewish tribes considered shameful. This is why Paul kept speaking of if a woman did not wear a head covering then she should have her head shaved. He did declare that it was shameful for a woman to have all of her hair cut off, but no where did he say she could not cut her hair. Matter of fact, it declares that a woman should wear a covering on her head as a sign of authority because of the angels.

UPCI says this covering on her head is her hair and yes, Paul said long hair was given to her as a covering, but it would not make sense that this whole chapter is dedicated to long hair because he said if she refused to wear a head covering then let her shave her head.

Long hair on a woman has always been dictated by society. We don't know what length a woman's hair was in those days. Also let us look at something else.

It is obvious that in Paul's day it was considered shameful for a woman to shave her head but that had not always been in Israel. We read in the law that God told Moses that if they conquered a country and captured women and a Israelite man found one of the women attractive and wanted to marry her that she was to shave her head and pare her nails. (Deuteronomy 21:12.)

Also in studying Jewish history, we find where in some of the tribes it was a custom that when a woman became betrothed to her fiance she would shave her hair and wear a wig until the day her hair grew out after she was married. The reasoning for this was that hair was considered part of what attracted men to women and these women did not want to be attractive to any man than her husband to be. If any other man tried to seduce her, she would remove her wig and show him her shaved head which repulsed him and let him know she was betrothed.

If a woman cutting her hair was sinful, why did God allow these heathen women to shave their heads before marrying an Israelite husband?

It is not the cutting of the hair that is sinful. It is when men and women want to emulate one another and look like one another until you cannot distinguish man from woman. God hates unisex.

If we study the lifestyles of the people during the life of Paul and the Apostles, we find that the prostitutes of the temple cut their hair as short as the Greek and Roman men but the male temple prostitutes wore their hair long. It is obvious that Paul, in dealing with the Christians in Corinth, was using his surroundings for his message.  If what he said was fully true about men, then his own people would be sinning for the men never trimmed the sides of their hair and wore it long, as under the law.

We must understand that God wants men and women to be separate in appearance. Women not to cut their hair so short they look like men and men not to wear their hair so long they look like women.

B. THE PANTS ISSUE!

UPCI teaches that it is sin for a woman to wear pants. They base this on the scripture in Deuteronomy which says men and women should not cross dress. Men and women should be separate in appearance.

UPCI in its male chauvinist attitude declares that pants were worn first by men, and women wanting to usurp men's authority decided to wear them.

Historically speaking they are fully wrong.

In ancient Assyria and Egypt, women wore clothing with legs in them. This was before the time of Moses. Men on the other hand wore tunics or skirts.

History shows that women in China wore pants just like the men did for hundreds of years.

Other islands in the Pacific were the same. Women wore pants. The men wore skirts.

So historically speaking, UPCI is wrong. Women wore pants first and men followed. So who is sinning by wearing pants? If we go by the UPCI standards, men are the guilty sinners.

Again we have to look at Israel in biblical times. Both men and women wore robes but there were distinguishing differences in them. Colors were different and so was the material. The same is true today for women's pants. Ask a UPCI preacher to go to Kmart and buy a pair of women's pants and put them on and they will tell you no way, they are too effeminate. I rest my case.

I believe women should not wear men's pants and men should not wear women's pants. If you want to use a modesty approach to this teaching, to me the pants cover the legs better than a dress and more so when a woman is working and has to bend over so much.

UPCI preachers say that if a woman's dress is 3 to 4 inches below the knee then this does not happen, but I beg their pardon. I have also seen these women in long dresses outside and a big gust of wind blows hard and blows the skirt or dress up above the woman's head and guess what? They are more exposed than if they were in pants.

The basic arguments that the UPCI use are erroneous.

C. MAKE-UP

The only true argument they can use is the same old stale argument that prostitutes used make-up to seduce men and Jezebel wore it the day she tried to seduce Jehu.

Well, again historically speaking, if you study Judaism you will find that it is part of their belief that a man fails his wife if he does not provide her with jewelry and cosmetics to make herself look attractive for her husband. Also many of the women in the tribes wore heavy make-up when working in the fields because it protected their faces from the harsh sun.

Nowhere in the Bible do we find where the wearing of make-up is prohibited. This again lies with the fact that the ministry of the UPCI wants women to be subservient to men in all aspects, and as in a lot of their teachings, this comes back to human sexuality.

This constant fear of sexual sins. Nearly everything they teach basically comes down to what they think is immodest or what will lead their members to commit sexual sins.

They feel if they allow their women to wear make-up they will attract other men, so if they keep them looking like plain janes they will not commit sexual sins.  It does not matter how many times someone in their movement falls into sexual sin, they don't change their stand.

D. STANDARDS FOR MEN

The UPCI teaches standards for men when there is absolutely nothing in the Bible that deals with dress codes for men except a man should not wear a woman's clothing.

Many of the hardliners say men have to wear long sleeved shirts or they are being immodest. Where they get that teaching I have not the slightest idea.

In their manual they say that their young men cannot suit out for gym because it is immoral or immodest. They say that men cannot bare their legs in public, like wearing shorts, because it is immodest.

Again let us look at history.

There were ancient pictures found in a Babylonian ruin of a Hebrew man working in the fields. This was after the law was given on Sinai. This man was wearing only a long tunic that went from his waist to his knees. Another showed a man wearing a tunic below the knees. Both men were bare chested and bare footed. They were working in the fields.

It has been proven that in ancient Egypt, because of the extreme heat, the Egyptian men wore no shirt. Slaves were only given tunics to wear as they worked. We know that Joseph was sold into slavery. Do we contend that he was given special privileges? I don't think so. Does this mean Joseph sinned against God?

What about all the Israelite men in slavery in Egypt? Did those who died in slavery lose their souls?

What about the fact that King Saul danced so much in the spirit that he danced his clothing off?  The people saw this but none said he was immodest.  The same thing with David.  We know he did the same when bringing the ark of the covenant into Jerusalem. UPCI contends he sinned and that is why Michal rebuked him, but notice it was not because he had sinned it was because Michal thought the King of Israel should be above such displays of emotion.

Then we have the story of Peter. After Christ rose again, Peter decided to go fishing. The KJV said he was naked. Other translations say he was stripped for work, which tells us he was bare chested. Historically speaking, we find that Israelite men in the heat of the day when fishing, stripped down to their tunics. This is what Peter did. It was old habit and acceptable. UPCI begs to differ because they say he was embarrassed because when Jesus called, he put on his coat and jumped into the water.

What they don't understand that at the time the waters were still cold and even then a fisherman's coat was expensive and a very valuable part of their wardrobe. It kept them warm in the winter when they had to survive. No fisherman would leave their coat in the boat.

If this was due to the fact that Peter was backslid and sinning, why did not John write and tell us that Jesus rebuked Peter for being immodest? He did not because that was not considered immodest or sin.

There just are absolutely no standards in the Bible for men except the fact that a man is never to reveal his private parts in public. This is why God had the priest put on linen breeches when going up to the altar. Israel came out of slavery in Egypt and when the Egyptians wore robes they wore no under clothing, so if they climbed something you could look up their robes and see their private parts.

Are there rules and regulations in the Bible for us to live by? Absolutely! These are well documented in the gospels and epistles. We are told that we are not to lie, steal, cheat, gossip, tell tales. We are not to abuse one another, be deceitful. We are not to live in anger and bitterness. We are not to curse or cuss or use profanity. We are not to tell dirty jokes. We are not to commit adultery, fornication or homosexuality. Men are to be masculine and women effeminate. We are to be obedient to man's laws as long as they do not try to force us to sin against God. We are to love one another as Christ loved us and to forgive each other immediately of any wrong doing.

We are to live in peace and to owe no man anything. (Which means to pay our bills) We are not to slander one another. Be obedient to parents. Wives are to submit to their husbands as the head of the house, but men are to honor their wives, not abuse them or misuse them. Women are to dress modestly. These are just some of the rules of the Christian life.

What the UPCI has done is exactly what the Pharisees and all the legalists of Jesus' day did. They have created laws to live by that are not laws of God, but of man. This is why Jesus said that they do worship God uselessly for they obey the commands of men, not of God. He said they lay heavy burdens of oppression on the people and hinder them from serving God.

If you have been under bondage and away from serving God because you found you could not live this hard life taught by the UPCI, please realize that God still loves you and these are not standards sent by God but by man. God wants us to live for him according to his Word, not according to the UPCI manual.

HOME / CONTACT / HOW DO I HELP? / OLD FEEDBACK / EXPERIENCES / UPC MEMBERS SPEAK / ARTICLES / BOOKS / ISSUES / LOIS' WRITINGS / ORGANIZATIONS / OTHER SITES /
WHY THIS SITE? / STATEMENT OF BELIEFS / WHAT IS SPIRITUAL ABUSE? / OPEN LETTER /
UPC BELIEFS / HISTORY OF UPC / APOSTOLIC CONGRESS / DEVOTIONALS/  SUPPORT GROUP/