Deuteronomy 22:5, "The woman shall not wear that which pertains unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God."
Remember Louis XIV, the Sun King? That man rocked a skirt, hose, and heels, and it was still obvious that he was a man. This famous painting of him shows it
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Louis_XIV_of_France.jpg
Did you notice the long, luscious locks on his head too? Yet we look at him and can tell that this person in the painting is a man.
Think about what people wore in Jesus' day: a long robe, maybe a sash, and head covering like a long hood. So....kind of like dresses. Men and women. How did people tell the difference? Men always had a beard, and women usually couldn't completely hide the bumps from that secondary sex characteristic that is breasts.
This is where the Bible gets misunderstood and or ignored. Women are allowed to wear pants. Men can wear kilts. Women can have short hair. Men can have long hair. The gist of the passage is that you must be able to look at a person and know which gender said person is.
Matthew 7:1 “Judge not, that you be not judged.”
This does NOT mean what people think it means.
This is one of those verses where we need to look at the entire context, not a verse out of context. A single verse out of context can say something different than that verse within its context. We can edit things to say the opposite of what they really mean (although it can be called slander or libel). For example, if I go on and on about my favorite TV shows, someone listening to me might zone out for a minute and snap back to the conversation when I say "The sexuality is through the roof." What was I referring to when I said that? The person doesn't know, because the entire context isn't known. Same thing here. Look at the entire passage:
“Judge not, that you be not judged. 2 For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. 3 Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? 4 Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye."
The word hypocrite in verse five is the key to this passage. We are not supposed to judge others for the same sins we are committing, or the same problems we have. If you have an immaculate home (I do NOT) then go ahead and give cleaning advice and organization tips to me. If you live in a pigsty, I'm going to think you're nuts. I had a friend who gave me advice regarding my marriage, and she's never been married. In fact, all of her relationships have been disasters!
This is why Alcoholics Anonymous chooses people who have been through alcohol addiction to be sponsors to those beginning treatment. I wrote a sermon I refer to as the Star Wars sermon (though I can't find it to post on my computer). The gist of it is that Anakin Skywalker aka Darth Vader has always had anger issues. Remember when he found his mom and he killed that entire community of Tusken Raiders? Yoda and Obi-Wan tried to talk him through his wrath before that happened, and Obi-Wan tried again during the lava scene and quadruple chop of Anakin's limbs. But Luke Skywalker also wrestled with wrath. He worked on it and finally learned to control it so that it didn't spiral out of control, leading him to hurt others. Palpatine even noticed that the Skywalkers were prone to anger, it was a generational sin for that family, for he said of Leia that "She has the Skywalker anger....like her brother....like her father." We also know that Yoda told Luke to beware of anger, fear, and aggression. Because of his own journey of staving off wrath, Luke is qualified to confront his father about his temper.
So yes, we are allowed to judge, that is, confront someone about their issue, when it's an issue we have personally wrestled and conquered.
