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?
So Western culture is synonymous with God's word or what God says is acceptable attire? Nope.
God gave us a standard that transcends time, place and culture, and yet guides us Biblically, as He knew that there would be differences in attire and such even among Christians.
The Lord only said that men should not wear women's clothing and vice versa, and yet men and women both wore robes in Moses time. Oh, the horror. And they both wore ear rings and nose rings, etc. Oh the humanity. God help Sarah with her jewelry problem. /sarcasm.
The point was, is that men robes were different from women's and vice versa, thus doing what God commanded.
Women and men can both wear pants as long as they are different in style from each other. This is Biblical, morally based, and a common sense approach.
This follows the Biblical pattern, whereas your Western-based women-must-wear-dresses-and skirts standard does not.
Did women start wearing robes in Moses time as an egalitarian statement? We don;t know.
Secondly, while that may have been then, women today don't necessarily wear pants as an egalitarian statement just like Scotsmen don't wear kilts for an egalitarian statement.
I have heard the Dugger’s say over and over it is a matter of modesty. The younger girls wear leggings and the niece and grandmother wear slacks, as well as the future MIL of Jill Dugger.
Watch out... we all know that Scotsmen started wearing kilts as an egalitarian statement, too. /s
Pants can be modest, too.
Otherwise Godly men wouldn’t be allowed to wear them.
Scotsmen don’t wear kilts for an egalitarian statement.”
Well back in the Braveheart day, no doubt that was true.
Today’s Scotland? Yeesh.
I saw it; he pushed the young man's hand off his daughter's back. I'm not sure why any slick moves were needed. The girl is in her 20s, and the guy didn't even have his arm around her.
Women started wearing pants when they started doing jobs that historically pertained men. Look it up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_wearing_trousers_in_the_Western_world_after_1900
Why did Christians get this back when America was a good place, and they don’t when America is an Obamanation?
Do you think God cares how people dress? Do you think Satan does?
Despite to poor grammar. Goodness! I need to slow down.
Thank you. I saw that a couple years ago.
A.) Men and women can both wear pants, as long as men don’t wear womens pants and vice versa.
Well Obama Fails at this point for sure...
I agree. And, dresses can fit too quick, as my father used to say.
Let’s say a woman is reading through her bible. She hasn’t been tainted by neo-evangelicalism. She’s just reading it. She comes to the part where it says, “men don’t dress like women, women don’t dress like men.” She lives in Indiana. What would she think is women’s garments? She’s been to restrooms and knows how our culture works. She has no way of knowing what people wore in Moses time because God doesn’t explicitly reveal it. He just says, don’t mix attire. When God wrote that, He knew that woman would read it in Indiana in 2014.
It is cultural, it’s always been cultural. Just like cursing. God didn’t tell us what curse words are, but we know what they are.
True. I believe that’s why God didn’t give us exact details of how to work out His commands.
Protection from what? A hand placed lightly on her back?
Seriously?
I’d have to be really fond of the young man for him to survive a move like that on one of my girls. By survive I mean, still courting. I’m sure the daughter knew it was coming and was glad when Jim Bob did it.
A lot has changed in our culture over the years.
A move?
Sorry, that's just ridiculous.
Goodness sake folks, they are not telling you what and how to wear stuff, so why not just recognize their family love and chosen standards and leave them alone!
I know that every on e of those loved children will eventually make their own decisions about dress etc, and they will just fine for it all.
For the record, if more families behaved like they do ,America would likely be much safer, respected and respectable.
Harrumph! Good thing you are not neighbors, otherwise you’d likely be calling Arkansas Child Services on them.
You raise your kids the way you want.
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.