I think it's perfectly fine to teach your children biblical principles and "train them up in the way they should go", as Rhoni pointed out.
I do think that anyone who has a problem with a 4-year-old's belly button has serious issues.
Children learn to live modestly and righteously more by example than explanation, and the explanations and reasons that RR gives in her books just aren't very good.
Look, there is nothing wrong or scary about teaching your children to be morally pure or to dress modestly or to live righteously in this world. That is a good thing. I don't think, necessarily, that because RR is wrong about one thing that she is wrong about all things.
We should be careful not to knee-jerk and take things based on their actual value, and not simply because the author has a penchant for extra-biblical dramatics and hysterics. The basic teachings here are no surprise...Apostolics have been telling their kids for years to not wear makeup, not cut their hair and not dress like other kids do. Where's the surprise in that?
As for being about girls...I think that's based loosely on her daughters, although I'm not certain. Of course, it's also worth pointing out that not cutting your hair, wearing only dresses/skirts, and not wearing any makeup are purely feminine issues, so why would she have written those books for boys?
Here's what I think: On principle, RR is doing the right thing. She is speaking about what she believes in, and she obviously holds strong convictions that she feels are worth sharing. I have no problem with that. If you believe something is salvational and you don't share it with others, it points to a lack of caring about their souls. So she has no choice, really, but to do what she does, say what she says, and write what she writes.
Furthermore, her books have been accepted and applauded by quite a few Apostolics, and the only folks questioning her seem to be the liberal crowd, which wouldn't be a credible objection in her mind, so again, how can you blame her? Does anyone know of any conservative UPCI ministers who have called her to task? I certainly doubt they have corrected her theology. Here's the deal--they have a win-win situation. She's supporting and promoting what they've been teaching for years as law and gospel, so it doesn't matter to them whether every jot and tittle is in place, as long as she's supporting their cause. Well, that's my opinion, anyway.
As for the kids' books...I find them to be damaging for one reason and one reason only: They place too much emphasis on outward appearance.
In our home, we are constantly talking to our kids about what they say, what they do, what they watch, what they read, what they listen to, what their attitude is like, how they treat their siblings, how respectful they are to their Grandma, how they treat children at school, being honest, having daily communication with God, and a myriad of other things that go into training them up as they "should" go. Modesty, femininity, and cleanliness are also addressed, but in my opinion, they are the least of our worries. If a girl's attitude is right, and her relationship with God is intact, then wearing modest clothing will not be a problem for her. Inside first, and the outside is no issue.
I realize that I addressed the books on another thread, but despite my dislike for the books, I don't think that RR is doing anything wrong by writing them. She has the freedom to write about what she believes just as we do. I do have a problem with the fact that her books have been so widely (and, IMO, blindly) accepted by the UPCI and its ministers. (That seems to be the case)
The endorsement of her books bothers me more than their existence.
__________________
"God, send me anywhere, only go with me. Lay any burden on me, only sustain me. And sever any tie in my heart except the tie that binds my heart to Yours."
--David Livingstone
"To see no being, not God’s or any, but you also go thither,
To see no possession but you may possess it—enjoying all without labor or purchase—
abstracting the feast, yet not abstracting one particle of it;…."
--Walt Whitman, Leaves of Grass, Song of the Open Road
I think it's perfectly fine to teach your children biblical principles and "train them up in the way they should go", as Rhoni pointed out.
I do think that anyone who has a problem with a 4-year-old's belly button has serious issues.
Children learn to live modestly and righteously more by example than explanation, and the explanations and reasons that RR gives in her books just aren't very good.
Look, there is nothing wrong or scary about teaching your children to be morally pure or to dress modestly or to live righteously in this world. That is a good thing. I don't think, necessarily, that because RR is wrong about one thing that she is wrong about all things.
We should be careful not to knee-jerk and take things based on their actual value, and not simply because the author has a penchant for extra-biblical dramatics and hysterics. The basic teachings here are no surprise...Apostolics have been telling their kids for years to not wear makeup, not cut their hair and not dress like other kids do. Where's the surprise in that?
As for being about girls...I think that's based loosely on her daughters, although I'm not certain. Of course, it's also worth pointing out that not cutting your hair, wearing only dresses/skirts, and not wearing any makeup are purely feminine issues, so why would she have written those books for boys?
Here's what I think: On principle, RR is doing the right thing. She is speaking about what she believes in, and she obviously holds strong convictions that she feels are worth sharing. I have no problem with that. If you believe something is salvational and you don't share it with others, it points to a lack of caring about their souls. So she has no choice, really, but to do what she does, say what she says, and write what she writes.
Furthermore, her books have been accepted and applauded by quite a few Apostolics, and the only folks questioning her seem to be the liberal crowd, which wouldn't be a credible objection in her mind, so again, how can you blame her? Does anyone know of any conservative UPCI ministers who have called her to task? I certainly doubt they have corrected her theology. Here's the deal--they have a win-win situation. She's supporting and promoting what they've been teaching for years as law and gospel, so it doesn't matter to them whether every jot and tittle is in place, as long as she's supporting their cause. Well, that's my opinion, anyway.
As for the kids' books...I find them to be damaging for one reason and one reason only: They place too much emphasis on outward appearance.
In our home, we are constantly talking to our kids about what they say, what they do, what they watch, what they read, what they listen to, what their attitude is like, how they treat their siblings, how respectful they are to their Grandma, how they treat children at school, being honest, having daily communication with God, and a myriad of other things that go into training them up as they "should" go. Modesty, femininity, and cleanliness are also addressed, but in my opinion, they are the least of our worries. If a girl's attitude is right, and her relationship with God is intact, then wearing modest clothing will not be a problem for her. Inside first, and the outside is no issue.
I realize that I addressed the books on another thread, but despite my dislike for the books, I don't think that RR is doing anything wrong by writing them. She has the freedom to write about what she believes just as we do. I do have a problem with the fact that her books have been so widely (and, IMO, blindly) accepted by the UPCI and its ministers. (That seems to be the case)
The endorsement of her books bothers me more than their existence.
I think there are more productive points that children's books could be making that could affect their holiness (not outward standards).
Perhaps teaching them not to lie or cheat, be kind to others, share....etc.
I mean good grief....teaching a four year old that fingernail polish is wrong - - please.
Miss Bratt - I'm with you here as I stated earlier. Too much emphasis on the outward appearance for sure and the endorsement is bothersome.
__________________
Master of Science in Applied Disgruntled Religious Theorist Wrangling
PhD in Petulant Tantrum Quelling
Dean of the School of Hard Knocks
I think it's perfectly fine to teach your children biblical principles and "train them up in the way they should go", as Rhoni pointed out.
I do think that anyone who has a problem with a 4-year-old's belly button has serious issues.
Children learn to live modestly and righteously more by example than explanation, and the explanations and reasons that RR gives in her books just aren't very good.
Look, there is nothing wrong or scary about teaching your children to be morally pure or to dress modestly or to live righteously in this world. That is a good thing. I don't think, necessarily, that because RR is wrong about one thing that she is wrong about all things.
We should be careful not to knee-jerk and take things based on their actual value, and not simply because the author has a penchant for extra-biblical dramatics and hysterics. The basic teachings here are no surprise...Apostolics have been telling their kids for years to not wear makeup, not cut their hair and not dress like other kids do. Where's the surprise in that?
As for being about girls...I think that's based loosely on her daughters, although I'm not certain. Of course, it's also worth pointing out that not cutting your hair, wearing only dresses/skirts, and not wearing any makeup are purely feminine issues, so why would she have written those books for boys?
Here's what I think: On principle, RR is doing the right thing. She is speaking about what she believes in, and she obviously holds strong convictions that she feels are worth sharing. I have no problem with that. If you believe something is salvational and you don't share it with others, it points to a lack of caring about their souls. So she has no choice, really, but to do what she does, say what she says, and write what she writes.
Furthermore, her books have been accepted and applauded by quite a few Apostolics, and the only folks questioning her seem to be the liberal crowd, which wouldn't be a credible objection in her mind, so again, how can you blame her? Does anyone know of any conservative UPCI ministers who have called her to task? I certainly doubt they have corrected her theology. Here's the deal--they have a win-win situation. She's supporting and promoting what they've been teaching for years as law and gospel, so it doesn't matter to them whether every jot and tittle is in place, as long as she's supporting their cause. Well, that's my opinion, anyway.
As for the kids' books...I find them to be damaging for one reason and one reason only: They place too much emphasis on outward appearance.
In our home, we are constantly talking to our kids about what they say, what they do, what they watch, what they read, what they listen to, what their attitude is like, how they treat their siblings, how respectful they are to their Grandma, how they treat children at school, being honest, having daily communication with God, and a myriad of other things that go into training them up as they "should" go. Modesty, femininity, and cleanliness are also addressed, but in my opinion, they are the least of our worries. If a girl's attitude is right, and her relationship with God is intact, then wearing modest clothing will not be a problem for her. Inside first, and the outside is no issue.
I realize that I addressed the books on another thread, but despite my dislike for the books, I don't think that RR is doing anything wrong by writing them. She has the freedom to write about what she believes just as we do. I do have a problem with the fact that her books have been so widely (and, IMO, blindly) accepted by the UPCI and its ministers. (That seems to be the case)
The endorsement of her books bothers me more than their existence.
On this forum, made of all flavors of Apostolics, is seems most, including many ultra-cons, have a problem with RR's books and ways of thinking that aren't Biblical.
__________________
I've gone and done it now! I'm on Facebook!!!
On this forum, made of all flavors of Apostolics, is seems most, including many ultra-cons, have a problem with RR's books and ways of thinking that aren't Biblical.
Somebody is buying the books. Somebody is attending the ladies' conferences where she speaks. Somebody is endorsing her, if just by raising no objections. *shrug*
So, I don't know how it happens that suddenly "everyone" believes that uncut hair is equivalent to special power with God, but it sure seems to be that way.
__________________
"God, send me anywhere, only go with me. Lay any burden on me, only sustain me. And sever any tie in my heart except the tie that binds my heart to Yours."
--David Livingstone
"To see no being, not God’s or any, but you also go thither,
To see no possession but you may possess it—enjoying all without labor or purchase—
abstracting the feast, yet not abstracting one particle of it;…."
--Walt Whitman, Leaves of Grass, Song of the Open Road
As for the kids' books...I find them to be damaging for one reason and one reason only: They place too much emphasis on outward appearance.
I find it disturbing that 4 year old girls have to consider if their clothing is a door or wall. It seems to sexualize what isn't and should not be an issue for most children.
I think it much better for a mother just to tell her young daughter that we don't dress like that at our house rather than making them resposible for other people's problems. This also avoids a condemning attitude towards others who don't dress the same which is especially unnecesary for a young girls to learn before they have the ability to make finer distinctions.
I find it disturbing that 4 year old girls have to consider if their clothing is a door or wall. It seems to sexualize what isn't and should not be an issue for most children.
I think it much better for a mother just to tell her young daughter that we don't dress like that at our house rather than making them resposible for other people's problems. This also avoids a condemning attitude towards others who don't dress the same which is especially unnecesary for a young girls to learn before they have the ability to make finer distinctions.
I found this to be very disturbing also, Newman ... it's why I drew attention to the testimony ...
We teach modesty the way you do also .... My daughter, now 10, knows that we don't dress immodestly because it displeases God ... and when she was younger we told her we just don't do it that way ....
Does anyone know of any conservative UPCI ministers who have called her to task? I certainly doubt they have corrected her theology. Here's the deal--they have a win-win situation. She's supporting and promoting what they've been teaching for years as law and gospel, so it doesn't matter to them whether every jot and tittle is in place, as long as she's supporting their cause. Well, that's my opinion, anyway.
I hope you are wrong about this. It would concern me greatly that a minister would find the premise questionable and still allow it to be promoted because it supported the bottom line.
I do not believe Bro. Epley (although not UPC) would do this and I would hope that is true of all who love God's Word.
I found this to very disturbing also, Newman ... it's why I drew attention to the testimony ...
We teach modesty the way you do also .... My daughter, now 10, knows that we don't dress immodestly because it displeases God ... and when she was younger we told her we just don't do it that way ....
What!! You have 10 year old daughter? Why does everyone look younger and younger to me? Don't answer.
One of your best posts.
Linear Mode
