A virtuous woman is a crown to her husband: but she that maketh ashamed is as rottenness in his bones. Prov 12:4
For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. I Cor 11:17
It is difficult to tell who this makes mad…before the 80’s Church of God group or the after 80’s group.
This is an open forum and I will stand against the way many of our Church of God ordained bishop’s wives appear. They dress in ungodly fashion and their husbands get mad at me.
There is a lot going on here.
bring on the discussion #gocog
what is “ungodly fashion’ ?
Fine then dont be vague so describe what a Bishops wife should look like and dont say holy and sanctified. Be specific
what is :godly fashion”?
In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; I Tim 2:9
From the text you quote explain each of those words in context
Literal reading is sufficient
Not quite
why shamefaced?
Charles Page, we were part of the pre-1986 CoG. That was when the CoG held to its standards, something that it no longer has. The people who joined the CoG since 1986 following have absolutely no concept of the holiness standards that the CoG held for some 100 years. For you who would like to understand the CoG holiness standards, just get a CoG Minutes Book that preceded 1986. They are all written out and each give scriptural references. Now I do have a struggle with CoG preachers who were with the pre-1986 CoG and who now have gone modern. They took a vow before God Almighty stating “they agreed with all of the CoG Teachings,” and they were also asked, “Are there any CoG Teachings that you do not agree with?” They would not be credentialed if they said they disagreed with any CoG Teaching. In the CoG GA of 1986, they voted out all of the CoG Practical Teachings (which were the distinctives of the CoG). Of course, this is something that post 1986 CoG preachers would have no idea of. The 1986 CoG GA was one of the worse GA’s that I attended. I never returned to a GA again. Someday, I am going to write a book on what transpired and the results of the 1986 CoG GA. Anyone who was a part of the CoG pre 1986, will never accept the modernism that has invaded all areas of today’s CoG. Watching the last CoG GA as it was broadcast over DayStar television was a total embarrassment when they brought out the punk-hair styles on the women. Those who the Holy Ghost used to build the CoG would turn over in their graves if they could see what has happened to the CoG that they loved and sacrificed so much for during their lifetime. As I stated, I tend to be much harder on those ministers who were in the pre-1986 CoG because I think they lied on their examinations when they stated they believed in all the CoG Teachings because as we see many of them now 30 years later, they fail to live what they had said they believed in. I recall the scripture where it still states, “All liars shall have their part in the lake of fire.”
Well I have to say I am post 1986, I was saved in 1986 but joined the COG in 1991, MIP in 1996-97, ordained Bishop in 2003. I am a late bloomer I guess. I respect all opinions but I do not respect making fun of people to make a point. What we need is Holiness preaching, powerful Holy Ghost services. I am old school in many ways.
Kerry Collins, I understand what you mean but I do not hold to “old school” and “new school.” I believe there is just one (what you would call “old school) and there is nothing else. God bless you my brother. I pray that God anoints you mightily with the Holy Ghost and blesses your church in a tremendous way.
Thank you brother Melvin Harter
I understand what you are saying, I respect that.
Charles, you are quoting Paul’s reasonings in an old covenant mindset as if what Paul were saying were part of the Law of Moses. Paul himself would be dismayed by this discussion as it completely misses the point…Emphasizing spiritual adornment of the heart vs. elaborate external displays was the clear intent here; not replacing the Levitical dress code for worship with a new legalism. There is no ban on any particular item of clothing or hairstyle for women..Paul absolutely understood this, and everything he did was for the sake of the Gospel..as a Jew, Paul moved freely and with great cultural flexibility between diverse groups of people; some of whom were immediately identifiable by their clothing. “To the Jew I became as a Jew, to the Greek…and on and on..if we figure these musings of Paul on clothes trumped all else in worship, and that they can be codified as evidence of holiness, we have veered into both stupidity and idolatry at the same time..
If we as Christians are going to explain the Bible and what we want it to mean, then we can’t say that we follow it. Paul said what the Holy Ghost gave him to say and it means exactly that. We do Paul and the Spirit a disservice if we try to change what was said in our own thinking.
Why oh why do u keep beating s dead horse? I think it’s time we talk about how ungodly & inappropriate some men dress! Some really look ungodly, unkept, yellow teeth, out of fashion clothing. Look like they stepped out of the 19th century. Then there r those with scraggly beard & facial hair. But even worse is the demeaning way they treat their wives. They don’t prefer them above themselves. Their manner is crude. Certainly not as Christ loved the church. Makes u wonder how they treat them at home! The Bible has a lot to say about that. Much more than the woman…..so what say u?
” Of all the historical figures that I have studied, Paul seems to me the greatest enigma” Professor Harold Bloom
Paul was anti-woman/ slamming women with his teaching!
Christ was pro women slamming men!
How could one tell the difference between a man’s robe and a woman’s?
Emmett Dennis, the men reached between their legs and pulled up the back part of their robe and then they tucked it into their girdle (what we call a belt). Women would never do such a thing. This led later to pants that men wore.
That’s true Brother, Also the robe a man wore had a blue ribbon. So yes there was a difference between what was worned and should be today also.
There were several different modes of dress going on in the regions early Christians lived: Greco Roman (often seen as intrusive by indigenous peoples), Jewish, Syrian, Anatolian/Armenian/Persian..each of these also had distinctive garb appropriate to worship…
What difference does the Bible say?
Very little, because Paul’s epistles were addressing concerns within those already normative realities..also, worship attire, festive dress, and every day work clothes would have varied..