Quote:
Originally Posted by *AQuietPlace*
Well, God created jewels if you want to get technical. 
I think that if you really want to be literal, Paul condemned elaborate hairstyles in the very scriptures that people like to use against jewelry. Broided hair was specifically talking about elaborate hairstyles.
Yes, an elaborate hairstyle is an adornment. If you add feathers and doodads, even more so.
If God's creation (hair) is beautiful naturally, why not just wear it hanging down your back the way God created it? God didn't create it in twists and curls all over your head. God didn't create bobby-pins.
Now, to be clear, I don't think adornment or jewelry is a sin, so I'm not condemning the hairstyles. But I absolutely see it as a contradiction. I am firm and unswaying on that opinion. |
It's only a contradiction, AQP, if the person in
question believes that adornment is wrong. If they DON'T, and they're just obeying the rules that they have to in order to belong to a group (e.g., the UPCI, WPF, etc), then you'll still see them adorning themselves--just not with jewelry, since that's specifically mentioned.
It illustrates the fact that living according to a principle gives different results than living according to a list of rules. If a woman likes adornment, and likes pretty, fancy things--she's going to find a way to wear them, and still obey the rules she's been given.
My pastor preached about convictions recently, and he stated that "Your conduct reveals your convictions." Very true. You don't have to ask people what their convictions are. If they're against adornment, they'll dress plainly. If they're not, they won't--whether they have on jewelry or not.
I have a difficult time being hard on a group of women whose husbands and pastors have given them a list of rules, and so they are doing their best to look beautiful within their boundaries and culture. It isn't always their personal inconsistency that's showing.
Since you don't believe that adornment is a sin, then I would assume you're not condemning anyone for adorning themselves. In order to then condemn people for inconsistency, you'd have to assume that they, individually, believe that adornment is wrong, but do it anyway in innocuous ways. I would propose that their convictions are revealed by their actions, and that they don't believe adornment is wrong at all. The apparent inconsistency isn't personal, but imposed by a third party.
Here's my deal: I go to a UPCI church, so there are certain things I have to comply with, like it or not. However, the rules I don't agree with--I just obey them to the
letter. I don't try to apply some related principle, because I don't think there is one. I'm perfectly fine with finding loopholes--because I don't embrace a broad principle behind the rule. (Such as the one regarding jewelry--I, like many other women I know, own blouses or sweaters with jewelry sewn on
.) When I go to conference or special events, I have to dress more conservatively than I do on a normal basis. That's my paradigm. However, I have a personal set of core convictions that I don't waver from, no matter where we are--and several of those are things that the UPC org. doesn't hold.
Sooooo...it would sting a bit for someone to think I was being inconsistent to wear a big flower in my hair as opposed to a tiara, because I have nothing against tiaras either. (Except that I don't think it would be very tasteful, but that's neither here nor there.) In order to apply the "inconsistent" label, you'd have to first assume that I'm opposed to tiaras.