Skip to comments.Growing Up Duggar: Putting The Fun Back In Fundamentalism?
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?
It would be best to not go into what could be called legalism, but neither into liberalism, either, but rather strikimg a moderate course pertaining to clothing, accessories and attire.
What say you?
So.. you think it would be a better show if they were nekkid?
What am I doing on this thread?
Legalism is an antithesis to the Gospel.
(So is antinomianism, of course).
It’s all about the heart. If you want to get down to finding the verse that “raises the bar” morally, doesn’t Proverbs say that it is the eyes of women that entice men?
So...not even the Islamists are holy enough...what with allowing the eyes to be shown?
It’s all about the heart. It’s all about loving Christ. Yes, our outer appearances might change and become refined with that. But if you start with the outer and hope to work back in to the heart...well that isn’t following Jesus. It is the religion of the Pharisees.
I do think that the conservative homeschooling culture has suffered from fits of legalism and that is why you see some backlash out there (ie, web sites promoting healing, etc.).
I don’t think the Duggars are a HUGE problem. But obviously Doug Phillips was and maybe still is, and so was and maybe still is Gothard.
That’s my personal opinion. Don’t mean to offend anyone...love to all freepers, especially homeschoolers!
I see we need some good old fashioned holiness, peculiarity, separation. Myself included. America sucks because contemporary “Christianity” sucks, that’s Biblical. If my people, which are called by my name, etc. It’s also observable. When Christians were putting Jesus first, fearing Him more than man, living by Biblical standards, this was a better place to live, souls were being saved in greater numbers, the world was being won for Christ. Now, we’ve gone away backwards.
The Duggars are a great family, as sweet and approachable in person as on TV. More importantly, they win souls and disciple people.
The passage apparently seems to condemn all three - wearing gold, plaiting hair and putting on of apparel.
But this isn't what the passage shows, and thus we are not to go around nekked nor is it wrong for women to to wear gold or plait their hair.
Legalism doesn’t mean the same thing as biblical standards. Figuring out what’s biblical isn’t hard. If you say “where in the bible does it say I can’t do_____?”, what you’re wanting to do is not a good standard. Sure, it’s about the heart, that goes without saying, but if you’re dressed the same as Lady Gaga,listening to the same music, watching the same shows, there’s something wrong with your heart.
If I remember my exegesis correctly (and I may be mixing things up here) "thigh" here is a euphemism for the private parts, that swearing while touching the master's privates would be the equivalent of swearing while placing one's hand on the Bible today. Nothing sexual was meant by the gesture, however.
It's just that legalism and liberalism both are not the right path to take.
Legalism, as well as Nicolaitianistic antinomianism should both be eschewed.
I am not saying that the Duggars are legalists, either.
It's just that one can stress outward appearance too much. But at the same time, one can put too little on this, and come into the house of God wearing clothing that gets all eyes turning.
Sure, its about the heart, that goes without saying,”
Well, I wish that were true. I’ve had many of these conversations. It seems that for followers, for example, of Michael Pearl this thought (it is about the heart) is quite revolutionary. They immediately think that if you aren’t nailing down a very precise standard, then you are embracing rebellion and anarchy.
They are very wrong.
A skirt can always be longer. Eventually a skirt becomes too long and a woman can’t walk...of course for some of these legalists, even that would be good because then these women wouldn’t be out there walking around tempting men.
I don’t think I actually agree that in all instances figuring out what’s biblical isn’t hard. If by that we mean simply, love God and seem him first, then so far so good. If you love God and Christ enough, then you will be driven to the basic law (the decalogue) and you will see the truth and beauty and righteousness in that. And that is good. We should love the law...but not as an end in itself...but because we love God and God gave us the law.
But I don’t think laying down additional particularities is easy at all, or even desirable.
For some - like the Gothard/Doug Phillips/Michael Pearl followers - it is “obvious” that you don’t listen to Christian popular music, that you don’t watch or read Lord of the Rings, that women shouldn’t wear make up and so on and so on and so on and so on. The proliferation of these lists becomes oppressive and life-denying. Unlike the Gospel which is liberating and life-giving.
Re: Lady Gaga. Of course dressing like her is wrong. But if you tell your daughter not to dress like that, but God doesn’t capture her heart, then you may think you have won the battle, but you have lost the war. Get the heart right and you don’t have to worry about the outward.
That seems to me to be what Paul says again and again. It rings true in my life, and in my observations of life, including life in the church.....
The Duggars are good folks, I believe, and I say more power to them for helping to populate the world with conservative Christians.
But I do think they can carry things a bit too far sometimes. The little girls in the family wear dresses even when playing outside...not necessary, IMO.
Also, I recently saw part of an episode where one of the young ladies was being courted by a young man. He placed his hand on her back as they were walking along, and the Duggar dad reached over and pushed the guy’s hand away. The girl is in her mid-20s, I believe.
Come on, now.
But a woman wearing shorts (and thus showing her thighs) isn't sinful either.
Yes, some shorts can be very short, but how short is short?
And with this in mind, if pants cover more of a woman's body than a dress does (ones that shows her lower leg area), then why don't the Duggars wear these instead?
Women shouldn't wear mens clothing?
Godly people did in Moses time as well as in Abraham's time. Both wore robes. The point is, there was a differentiation between the robes that were worn.
It is about the heart but if our heart is right, there will be some outward differences.
My understanding is that the Duggars are big Gothard followers. I don’t know if that’s true, but I have heard that.
I do know that many, many, many people have had to detox from Gothard and it is precisely the point you have made: everything in that system was about appearance (not substance) and the environment was very authoritarian. Obviously not every Gothard person had that experience. But thousands have.
And you are right: both legalism and liberalism are lies. The one is not the corrective to the other. That’s just veering out of one ditch into the other....
How long is long as it pertains to hair? How short is short?
Paul lists women having shorn hair as being too short, but Paul does not nail down for men how long is too long.
It depends upon the culture that you live in - and if wearing long hair would be a stumbling block for winning people to God - don't wear long hair.
Hair, dresses, jewelry, etc - stressing these a little or a lot - will not bring America back to God.
A woman wanting men other than her husband to think of her sexually is sinful, because it is enticing to lust. A man thinking sexually of women other than his wife is sinful, because it is allowing for lust. The problem is not with the skirt, but that doesn't mean that skirts are ipso facto OK. It is a meat-sacrificed-to-idols issue: a Christian woman may know that she could wear a skirt without sinning, but if it causes others to sin, then she should not wear it, not because of her own conscience, but because of the viewers'.
Sarah wore gold and silver jewelry.
What would they say? “Repent thou sinner Sarah!”? I don't think so. I believe that God would not concur with that sentiment were it uttered.
What do they do with God asking Godly men and women to bring what His Spirit stirred in them - and they brought forth nose rings, rings, bracelets, etc - to be melted down and used for the Tabernacle?
As how do they define “contemporary” Gospel music?
I guess we will have to go back to Southern Gospel... :(
You know that God gave to Moses Southern Gospel music on Mount Sinai, don't you? /sarcasm.
The Pearls are not legalists. You’re making a huge, inaccurate generalization. I know many Gothardites and people who read after the Pearls, and your characterization of them is bordering on straw-man. A student of the Bible, who isn’t trying to make it fit into a seeker sensitive, postmodernist paradigm, will see that this stuff matters to God. Pre-1960’s Christians didn’t have any trouble with it.
Sorry, I don’t have much patience for this debate because I know we’ve jumped the shark, and there’s no going back. Most of the people teaching standards have abandoned them. It’s a waste of time to bother with it anymore. As Christianity goes, so goes the country. It’s not holiness that is decimating Christianity, it’s worldliness.
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.