Posted on 06/09/2014 11:09:15 AM PDT by Laissez-faire capitalist
I believe that the show "19 Kids and Counting" is a very wholesome show, and more than worthy of watching.
This said, after the book, "Growing Up Duggar" came out, and after perusing it, I do believe that parts that talk abut hair lengths, clothing choices, etc, do perhaps need some discussion, given that there are some scriptural references stated within the book. And in reply:
1.) 1 Peter 3: 3-13 says:
"Whose adorning let it no be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold or of putting on of apparel. But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price. For after this manner in the old time the women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves being in subject unto their own husbands: evebn as sarah obeyed Abraham..."
While passages in the book refer to what Paul said, there has to be a proper hermeneutical and exegetical approach to this:
A.) If wearing gold, or plaiting of hair is condemned, then putting on of apparel (wearing clothes) is condemened, too. All three rise and fall together. This isn't what the passage talks about, though, as Peter would not have condoned walking around without clothes. What the passage shows is that the inward man being adorned is to be stressed in a Christian's life more than adorning the outward person.
B.) Genesis 24:53: When Abraham's servant went to look for a wife for Issac, he brought forth articles of silver and gold and gave them to Rebekah. Where would Rebekah have obtained this silver and gold jewelry? Obviously from Sarah via Abraham's servant. So Sarah adorned herself with silver and gold jewelry.
C.) In Moses time in Exodus 35: 20-29, when the wilderness tabernacle was being constructed, God told the children of Israel - those whose hearts were stirred by God - to bring forth those things for the construction of the tabernacle: It says that both men and women brought forth rings, nose rings, necklaces, etc (all jewelry of gold). Both men and women wore these things - even men and women who were Godly in heart.
2.) Showing the thigh shows nakedness? When Abraham made his servant swear that he would go back to Haran to look for a wife for Issac, Abraham made his servant place his hand on Abraham's thigh to seal the covenant that his servant wiould do as instructed by Abraham. (Genesis 24: 1-9).
3.) A man should not wear what women wear and vice versa? Yes... But in Moses time, women wore long sleeved tunics and robes for modesty, and wore more natural colors, while men wore short-sleeved robes and bright colors. They both wore robes --- it is just that there were robes for women to wear and robes for men to wear.
A.) Men and women can both wear pants, as long as men don't wear womens pants and vice versa.
B.) Men can wear kilts? Yes, as it is part of some cultures and is not a hindrance to winning souls for God in some cultures. Go back centuries and men wore stockings - even Godly men. Would I advocate this for today? Uh, a big fat NO. But God didn't senjd those men to hell for wearing stocking, wigs and powdering their faces. Times and cultures change...
C.) What do we do concerning those men who through the recent centuries past wore stocking, wigs, etc - even Goldy men? In their time and culture it wasn't a hindrance to winning souls for God. Doing such today would be a hindrance, with the exception I guess of wearing kilts, although wearing them would certainly not be for me personally.
And thus it comes down to that.
Long hair on a man in a culture (a culture that has no problem with this) would not be a hindrance for men winning souls for God in that culture, but in the U.S. it might very well be a hindrance depending upon the place. The same for short hair for women: The scriptures don't necessarily state how long is long or how short is short, other than Paul stating that a woman shorning was/is unacceptable.
In the end, if someone is invited to speak at a church that would frown on jewelry or even short sleeved dress shirts being worn (although wearing these articles doesn't bother that individual being asked to come and speak) they should nonetheless dress in such a way as to not offend. What good would it do for them to be preaching from behind the pulpit a message that God gave them, when the whole time people in the audience are stuck on looking at what they are wearing?
I agree with you. I admire the Duggar’s. They seem to be great people with the childen being raised in a loving and supportive home. Some people feel the need to be critical of everything.
It says that both men and women brought forth rings, nose rings, necklaces, etc (all jewelry of gold). Both men and women wore these things - even men and women who were Godly in heart.
Numbers 14
31But your little ones, which ye said should be a prey, them will I bring in, and they shall know the land which ye have despised.
32But as for you, your carcases, they shall fall in this wilderness.
33And your children shall wander in the wilderness forty years, and bear your whoredoms, until your carcases be wasted in the wilderness.
34After the number of the days in which ye searched the land, even forty days, each day for a year, shall ye bear your iniquities, even forty years, and ye shall know my breach of promise.
35I the LORD have said, I will surely do it unto all this evil congregation, that are gathered together against me: in this wilderness they shall be consumed, and there they shall die.
1 Peter 3: 3-13
It does not appear that peter was talking about the adorning to cover nakedness, he was talking about the adorning for show( to show off)
People who are lucky just to have clothes to wear are not wearing them just to show off.
Also Paul explained that if a woman was going to cut her hair short like a mans she should just go ahead and shave it as it would be all the same and then put a sack over it to cover it up.
The reason for Pauls comment is because some of the people were trying to bring in the customs of the people who worshipped the Goddess Diana.
Paul summarized in the verses below.
13 Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?
14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?
15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.
16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.
Hair is the only covering a woman needs.
We do not have this custom they are trying to bring into the Church.
I would almost guarantee the Duggars have had DHS called on them a number of times.
Red Herring on your part. If you use logical fallacies I will spot them.
The people didn’t die in the wilderness because they wore jewelry. They died in the wilderness because of unbelief 10 times the Lord looked to see faith from them and all He got back was unbelief, complaining and, etc.
Secondly, Peter emphasized the inner over the outer man.
Sarah - a Godly woman - wore jewry, and I would e surprised if she didn’t wear makeup.
Third, just because Jezebel wore makeup doesn’t mean that one can use unbiblical broad brush strokes and say that all women who wear makeup are Jezebels.
Fourth, Paul never said just how long long is for a man. We all must do as God tells each of us and there will be differing lengths, based upon convictions.
Raising kids a certain way can quite often be a breeding ground for eventual resentment and rebellion. Best to avoid any extremes in dress, the wearing of makeup, etc.
Secondly, this nation had high church attendance rates, outward shows of modesty, etc.
What we had simultaneously was Indians being given rancid food, whole tribes slaughtered, so-called Christians on chambers of commerce and such voting in and allowing flop-houses, saloons and whorehouses, slavery, and laws that allowed men to rape and beat their wives.
Oh yeah, we need to go back to those godly days in the 18th and 19th centuries.
They only had a form of Godliness, as Paul said would happen
Need to check for spelling next time...
Jewelry... would be surprised...
Over protection?
Some might say, better that than under.protection.
Actually, neither over protection or under protection is best
Btw, forgot...
I would likely be calling ACS on them?
Is that the best you can do, slinging accusations?
Desperation does not befit you... Lol.
It would depend on tha age of the people. If you’re talking teenagers, then its fine for parents to control what goes on. But if I had a 23 year old daughter and told her “I don’t like that young man because he put his hand lightly on your back, and you shall no longer court him because of it,” I really hope she would laugh in my face.
Red Herring on your part. If you use logical fallacies I will spot them.
logic and fallacy very seldom comes in the same sentence.
I was just pointing out to you that the people who died in the wilderness were not believers so I don`t see how the fact they had all kinds of ornaments means anything.
Secondly, Peter emphasized the inner over the outer man.>>>>>
That is right, but why do you think he would be telling them that?
The apostles did not write letters for no reason at all, that is logic, what good is it for people to go to Christian gatherings just to impress every one? which is what Peter was most likely referring to.
Third, just because Jezebel wore makeup doesn’t mean that one can use unbiblical broad brush strokes and say that all women who wear makeup are Jezebels.>>>>>>
I can`t comment on that because I have never read about any unbiblical broad brush strokes.
Now any man should be able to see the logic in this, I and i believe almost any man likes to look at attractive women, short hair long hair even a shaven head, I do realize there are exceptions, well at least if there is some one around who might witness it
If we keep on looking we start thinking ,when we start thinking it can lead to more trouble than we can ever get out of.
And even if it don`t what is the use of going to Church if all we can do is look at all of the sexy gorgeous painted up women and wish?
If the Church audience is half male no one will hear the sermon because the men will be watching the women, the wives will be watching their husbands and the painted up beauties will be looking to see who is watching them.
Fourth, Paul never said just how long long is for a man.>>>>
No, and no one said he did, again since Paul was not at Corinth at the time logic tells us that he probably got word from some one who was concerned that there was a custom coming into the church that was wrong and ask Paul to address it.
And since Corinth was known for the worship of the goddess Diana it is easy to see that even people who did not worship her and even though they joined the Christian Church they were still hung up on her customs.
I look at it much the same way you do but, but I can plainly see why a woman should really consider what both Peter and Paul said and especially in Church service.
Yes we must work out our own salvation but we should not preach any Gospel except the one we can read word by word from the book.
And I suppose we all do that at times, but I still say we shouldn’t.
Well, it’s not like they are in fashion at the moment. ;)
did this put the fun in fundamental
or
just highlight the mental in fundamental?
Good thing you are the authority on what is what! Whew, for a sec there I thought the world was in trouble!
Extreme behaviors is exactly what they are avoiding by clearly defining and living themselves, in front of their family. Allowing what is normal is the problem, as we can prove by the state of our society.
I agree that “we” have always had problems as you indicate, and we always will, but low standards are not the way to reduce unfavorable behavior ( although the left will tell that is exactly how to do so).
Liberty requires responsibility, dontcha think?
Overprotective or ultra-overprotective father?
What degree of control do the daughters allow or the parents demand?
Worldliness gone amok. Oh, the humanity! /s.
BTW, when hasn't the world been in trouble?
Some here have used a boilerplate arguments and act as if we go back to the good old days of so-called Godly clothing, etc, that the world will come back to Jesus.
When was it ever really with Jesus to need to come back to him?
Most sin was swept under the rug in communities, and there was no proliferation of news showing the violence, sin, wickedness in homes, in gov’t etc. We think the world has gone to hell in a hand basket in the last 50-100 years, but that is because a 24 hour news cycle shows the world for what it has ALWAYS been.
So clearly defined behavior(s) means that by defining it and living it clearly makes it no longer extreme? Puhleeze. I guess then that all extremists need only clearly define themselves and live out their beliefs. Defining it and living it does not negate it being extreme - on either end of the spectrum
The Nicolaitians did a halfway decent job of defining themselves, and certainly lived it out among themselves and their families. Did that negate their extremism? No. And neither would it if someone on the polar opposite end did the same.
Allowing what is normal is the problem?
Would the absence of wearing no makeup, wearing long dresses, not wearing shorts, etc...is that normal?
I'm not saying that it is abnormal, but just because that behavior isn't necessarily abnormal doesn't automatically qualify it for being normal.
1.) Normal would be going to neither extreme: A.) neither Lady Gaga, nor B.) Duggar.
2.) And where have I argued for low standards? Men wearing pants that are made for men, women wearing pants that are made for women, the wearing of makeup (yes, one can wear too much makeup, but that isn't at issue here as wearing makeup isn't sinful), etc isn't sinful or low standards.
How is advocating that society should be neither Lady gaga nor Duggar advocating low standards?
You imply that the Duggars are the poster children for favorable behavior. How?
How is being on one end of the polar spectrum favorable behavior?
Bringing up the left as some Straw man will not help you.
How is going the Duggar route the way to be against the left? Wearing makeup, wearing shorts, wearing pants makes one leftist? One jas to do none of theses to be agianst the left? Puhleeze.
One can wear makeup, wear pants, wear shorts and still not be a leftist or worldly for that matter.
Liberty requires responsibility, but liberty does not need extremes.
Wasn’t Gothard accused of sexually harrasing young women and resigned after this allegation?
Didn’t he found the IBLP?
Are the Duggars part of this (the IBLP)?
Yes, on IBLP/Duggar and resignation.
I am not entirely sure about the Duggars’ involvement with Gothard. I can say that I “think” that is correct, but I cannot say that I “know” that is correct.
Mullets, according to some here, apparently are quite sinful, and need to be avoided at all costs...”
Sigh.
(”you foolish Galatians...”)
You foolish Duggarites...
Dresses are a Western-based cultural concept and construct, be it from Europe or the U.S. Men wore dress-like clothes long before women did, and this included both Goldy and ungodly men.
At one time Godly people wore robes, in another place and time they wore togas or something similar to it. Godly Men and women both wore robes in Moses’ time and after wards, Godly men and women both wore togas/robes in Greece in Paul's/Peter's time.
There is no scripture that says all Godly women now must wear dresses. The standard for Godly people in times past is that they could both wear the same as long as one was clearly feminine in design, and the other clearly masculine in design.
In this case, men and women could both wear pants, and God would not be offended, nor would this go against the scriptures - and going by Western-based culture is not synonymous with going by the Bible, anymore than going by any culture in Africa is synonymous with the Bible.
Game over for the doctrine of the Holiness crowd and for Baptist Duggars.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.