Why Moses’ law says a woman should not wear what belongs to a man- Abel Damina

Some of our ministers can borrow a leaf from Abel Damina, who appears to me to have taken some time for some level of theological training.

I have often expressed to my friends that preachers and teachers of the bible should not dispense with the need for at least a working knowledge of basic theology on the assumptions that it is only anointing that matters. Otherwise, some of us will be rebuked by the statement of Myles Munro that those who choose not to study may end up with anointed ignorance. Recently, the president of Namibia ordered the closure of 6,000 churches in his country and insist that church leaders must be graduates of Theology. He realized that there were too many charlatans behind pulpits.

Those who read trousers, etc into Deut. 22: 5, only do eisegesis, rather than exegesis. In order words, such interpretation is the imposition of one’s opinions or bias into scriptures, rather than drawing out what the scriptures are actually conveying contextually and dispensationally.

For instance, if women are divinely instructed not to wear trousers in this dispensation, then the majority of Indian women, Christians or otherwise are in danger of eternal damnation.

I hardly hear people speak against men wearing female dresses. But in the same vein, Welsh men, I think Itshekiri men and others who wear wrappers that resemble female dress, as a matter of culture are also “playing with fire”. Then those who wear unisex are equally in trouble.

I’m not in support of obscene ragged or indecent tight form of trousers that reveals the contours of the women, but I observe that the wide straight decent form of trousers worn by Asians for instance cover nakedness more effectively than virtually all skirts and blouses. Besides, in event of possible assault, it is more difficult to abuse a lady in trousers than one in skirt and blouse or in the typical native Nigerian “Iro and buba”, the common attire of Yoruba women.

I often wonder why people stress Deut. 22: 5 and overlook other subsequent verses in the same context. If one stumbles on a bird sitting on its young ones, say in the bush, the bible command in verses 6-7 is to take the young ones and let the mother bird go. But I can declare assuredly that 99 out of 100 cases, man would capture the mother bird instead because that is where sumptuous meat is.

Verse 8 prescribes parapet for the roof of a new house. The architecture of those days was such that the houses were generally flat -roofed and there are stairways along the vertical wall to the roof. The idea of parapet was to prevent the accidental falls from the roof, especially if the building exceeded one floor. It was while King David was on the flat roof of his palace that he saw Batsheba from probably a three-storey roof. Uriah, the husband of Bathsheba was a member of the brigade of guards, living in the proximity of the King for his defence.

Verse 9 is against cross-agricultural practice, whereas modern farmers plant diverse crops within the same farm, and the harvests from such “infringement” are not forfeited to the authorities.

Verse 11 forbids wearing of clothing made of mixed materials, such as wool and linen. But people wear tergal without batting an eye lid.

Any preacher that does not delineate between the Old Testament and the New Testament may often mislead his listeners. It is not enough to say that, after all, Paul and Peter did not attend any bible college. These were the original apostles, not reverend gentlemen or present-day bishops, wherein some may be self acclaimed, but men carrying the fullness of God inside of them, specially packaged by the Almighty Himself. That is why till today, no Christian has matched Paul. I’m yet to meet the man of God who can share his experience as of 2 Corinthians 11: 22-33?

And we must realise that these apostles had no personal bibles. Some of the people after them had to go through 2-years training in the school of Tyrannus.

Virtually all men of God who shook their generations for Christ took some time with Theology. It was said of Dwight L. Moody that he placed a foot each on two continents -Europe and America – and shook both for Christ. He was the very first person in the history of Christianity to establish the first-ever bible schools in the 19th century-Moody Bible Institute in Chicago and Missionary Training Institute in New York.

Martin Luther who gave the Christian world a new orientation in the 16th century was a professor of Biblical Literature at Wittenberg University, Germany. George Mueller, the incomparable apostle of faith and professor of Divinity in Contemporary time and Jonathan Edwards, the author of Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God both attained M. Div. at Hale University, Germany and Yale University, USA, respectively.

C. G. Finney, who needs no introduction, was professor of Theology at Oberlin College. C. Peter Wagner was professor of Church Growth at Fuller Theological Seminary. William Carey, the first-ever missionary to take the gospel to India was Professor of Theology. Charles H. Spurgeon, the world -acclaimed Prince of Preachers, founded The Pastors’ College. John Wesley challenged his disciples to study or get out of Ministry.

Well, I’m not advocating that every minister should go that much length in Theology as the foregoing, but the basics can be very profitable. Those having zero theological touch and are mightily used of God are exceptions. Through a level of exposure as in the case of Abel Damina, some of improprieties at the pulpits will drastically reduce to the glory of the Lord and in the sustenance of the integrity of the gospel before critical minds and thoughtful unbelievers.