I Don"t Know-But God Does!

C. D. Plum
Parkersburg, West Virginia

We are to obey God whether we understand the "why" of the command, or whether even a why has been stated. Gods secrets (including whys) still belong to him (Deut. 29:29). What has been commanded demands our obedience (Heb. 5:9). And that, even if we do not understand the why of the command. It is not ours to question why, but it is ours to do or die.

Things I Do Not Know

I do not know why God said to his people of long ago: "The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a womans garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God." But I do understand "what" God said to them (Deut. 22: 5). And I know his people then were expected to obey what he said. Just why God wanted the different sex to dress differently I do not know. But he knew. To them the why was not necessary. It was the what that counted.

I do not know why, now, today, that God wants a "womans hair to be longer than a mans hair," but that is what he wants, and that is the way it is going to be with me, and as far as my control reaches-with mine. And I will not tolerate it any other way. (Cor. 11:14-15). It would be a sin any other way. It would be a "shame" (dishonour) to a man to be otherwise.

The word "effeminate" as used in 1 Cor. 6: 9-11 means "womanish." And the length of the hair is at least one way a man could be effeminate. If you want to see the seriousness (depth) of the sin of being effeminate, note the deplorable sins with which it is classified as an equal: fornication, adultery, idolatry, abusers of themselves with mankind (homosexual), drunkards, etc. This is what Gods word says. Dont say "why," heed the what, obey it, be saved.

God has also warned against the "works of the flesh" in the New Testament. (Gal. 5: 19-21). These sins of the flesh read very much like the sins mentioned in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, where effeminate is named, with the added admonition: "They which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God."

And, another thing God has bound upon women (and men too) is: "Adorn themselves in "modest" apparel" (1Tim. 2:9). The very opposite of something indecent, something that suggests sin. The very opposite of something that is like "lasciviousness": "tending to produce lewd emotions" (Gal. 5:19). The minish clothing and pantyhose worn today may cover skin, but they do not cover the "tending to produce lewd emotions." The designer of this mini-ish attire, a young woman, has brazenly admitted the purpose of such attire was to promote sex. Surely, God forbid, this isnt the reason why we see this growing display in the assemblies of the saints nowadays. Whether this intention is in the mind of the wearer only God knows, but the advertisement of lewdness is ever-present in these mini-ish displays. All preachers (not just some), elders, fathers, mothers, husbands must unitedly cry against the liberalism in attire before the devil takes over all pews in our assemblies. Why is liberalism in worship and work wrong (and it is), yet liberalism in sinful fashion right? (It isnt). Who are the indifferent ones toward this sinful attire? Are they preachers, elders, fathers, mothers, and husbands? I am making no specific charges. Are wives yet scripturally bound by scripture to obey their husbands? Yes. (Eph. 5:24). Wives are you disobeying your husbands, or are your husbands believing: "Fashion is godliness" and urging you on? I do not know who is to blame for this sinful display on the streets, in our homes, and in the assemblies. But I know God is not to blame. He has spoken out against it in his word.

I am not advocating that clothing be long enough to sweep the streets of the city, town, or village, or the floors of our houses and church houses but I am advocating "modesty" (decency) in standing, sitting, and stooping.

November 23, 1972