A PAST BATTLE

In the 1960's, the "Beatles" and the "Hippie" movement brought the advent of the long hair rage among males. Like all secular trends, this worldly fashion [not a fad, since it has become an acceptable practice in both secular and compromising religious circles] was quickly copied in the religious world and made its appearance in fundamental churches. On the basis of the clear admonition of Scripture (I Cor. 11:14), uncompromising Fundamentalist fought and basically won this battle of long hair on men.

A PRESENT CONFLICT

In the last few years, however, an even more dangerous and difficult issue has made its entrance into fundamental churches. The issue is the unisex rage: God given male distinctives and male fashions are appearing on female bodies. In addition to the controversial "pantsuits" issue, women are now wearing "suits" that distinctively resemble men's apparel, with even male styled hats and male ties to boot! A quick check of some restaurant waitresses with suits and ties will confirm this observation.

Causing even further confusion among the sexes the current secular trend is for females to cut, crop and style their hair, giving it a distinctive male look. Like every other unscriptural trend, this unbiblical secular wave is gradually penetrating Fundamentalist homes and churches. In his preaching engagements in local N. T. churches in recent years, this writer has observed this trend within the ranks of professing Fundamentalists. Unfortunately, there seems to be little opposition by Fundamentalist preachers to this unscriptural trend.

THE WORLD'S GOAL

Make no mistake about it, the ungodly world has a definite purpose in these fashion trends: to obliterate and wipe out God's divinely created distinctives between the sexes. This sexual distinctiveness can be traced directly back to the creation of the human race (Gen. 1:26-27). The devil and the ungodly world system that he controls are adamantly opposed to God's divine blueprint, a divine design that God has never altered or changed.

This writer does not wish to ride a hobbyhorse on this issue, but issues a strong WARNING, that unless this trend is reversed, there could be grave consequences ahead for Fundamentalist families and professing N. T. local churches.

As it becomes necessary to resist legal govt. ordered social [but also Scripturally unlawful] mandates, Fundamental pastors are going to surprisingly discover male and female resistance within their own congregations unless they begin to make Scriptural based remedial correctives.

The pattern of (a) fearful silence, (b) quiet tolerance and (c) eventual acceptance of these unwholesome trends in some N. T. local churches is going to result in divisive confusion because of prior default when unpopular stands were not taken against these unscriptural drifts.

Perhaps the most heartbreaking reflection is that via silence, tolerance and eventual acceptance, some Fundamentalists are sending confusing and mixed signals to the rising generations of children and young people who will become the future leaders in Fundamental churches.

SOME SUGGESTIONS TO HELP MINIMIZE THIS PROBLEM

1. Pastors should begin with the MALE leadership in their congregations, stressing the importance of God-given MALE leadership in the home/family. Pastors must labor more intensely with men/boys in their churches. The rise of the Promise Keepers [P.K.]movement in recent years is no accident. P. K. recognizes many of the problems, but does not provide the Scriptural answers due to its cultural and ecumenical compromises.

2. Set platform standards for ministries. Make sure these standards can be relevantly applied to current developments. Pastor should not permit male or female participation in Christian service capacities where these Scripturally based guidelines are or ignored or violated.

3. Don't ride hobbyhorses on this issue with congregations. Avoid eccentricities and personal preferences. Congregations need a balanced diet of God's Word, even they are facing crucial battles. Avoid pulpit assaults, using Holy Spirit directed discretion in preaching/teaching and official church action. Needed stands, however, should never be ducked but confronted with appropriate timing and a constructive Christ-like temperament. Pastors should do everything possible, with a compassionate spirit, to help congregations see that their stance on vital issues such as unisex are designed for the church's SPIRITUAL BENEFIT.

SOME CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

The writer realizes the variances of customs among believers who all desire to truly glorify God by sexual distinctives in outward appearance, as well as spiritual purity in inward attitudes (I Pet. 3:3-7). To avoid deception and hypocrisy, external actions (Rom. 12:2) must coincide with internal attitudes (I Peter 3:3-7).

The writer recognizes that he may LOSE some friends, supporters and potential meetings by penning these lines, but he is willing to take the risk, believing that the imperative issue outweighs the potential finances on the Scriptural balance scale. The views expressed above are strictly his own, for which he accepts full responsibility.

In finality, the F.D. editor will not correspond or debate either via e-mail or regular postal means about this article. As always, readers may express their sentiments, but the editor's time limitations do not permit extensive personal responses. He will continue to report factual items in the F.D. regarding unisex trends as he feels so led.

SCRIPTURE VERSES TO CONSIDER

GENESIS 1:17: "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." Equality of persons does not eradicate distinctiveness of position.

I COR. 11:14-15: "Doth not even nature itself teach you, that if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given to her for a covering."

In the writer's opinion, the Scripture here does not prohibit a woman from cutting or styling her hair, but it does teach that there should be a distinctive difference from the male.

PS: This article originally appeared in the Mar.-Apr. 1996 F.D. issue. Because of its continuing significance, it has been republished with adaptations for current use.