Jump to content

Type keyword(s) to search

Pixie Chicken

Member
  • Posts

    100
  • Joined

Reputation

612 Excellent
  1. Was this the 90s or very early 2000s? There was a big shift around that time, and some fringe groups felt the modern church could learn a lot from the Puritans and be LESS inclusive and welcoming. A bunch of denominations split or reorganized over it. That was when the "courting" trend was big, too, though mostly in evangelical circles. Sound familiar? I feel like we know of some people who jumped right on that bandwagon....
  2. I think by "Northern Calvinist" you mean people who identify as Reformed. They don't use the term "Calvinist" much but there's a bunch of denominations under this umbrella that are mainly in the Midwest with pockets elsewhere. They include Presbyterians but not the "liberal" PCUSA. Annnnnd, they don't count MacArthur among their ranks. He's viewed as generally benign, but not really in line with their beliefs. (And many of the denominations have criticized his handling of Covid, believing that he isn't protecting the vulnerable as the Bible says.) The hipsters you recall are probably Reformed outliers. Dramatic personal salvation stories are a giveaway. Some DO, but most use the term "covenant children" -- being raised in the church and learning about God from early on. Babies are usually baptized very young, too. (Another giveaway that Jeremy isn't part of this group.) Those hipsters probably lean more evangelical and chose a school that aligned with that. My guess is that Jeremy wouldn't even have been accepted at the more traditionally Reformed seminaries or hired at those churches. He is basically an evangelical whose beliefs overlap with some of Calvin's teachings. The ones where he differs are pretty significant and would be controversial in the mainline denominations. Calvinism is trendy now, as Churchhoney pointed out, and he likes to be trendy. I don't know why he chose MacArthur, but it wasn't because that's some mecca of Calvin's teaching.
  3. Key phrase -- if they want it. If people want one kid or ten kids or zero, cool. So long as they can afford them and it's not endangering anyone's health, great. It's ironic to see people snark on the Duggars for being close-minded, but in the next breath declaring that there's something wrong if they deviate from "one of each." Reproductive choices include bearing children, too.
  4. Why should they stop just because they have one of each? It's not everyone's ideal family composition. "Regular" non-famous people with all boys, all girls, or singletons hear this too. I just don't get it.
  5. A lot of fundies (and even some garden variety Baptists/evangelicals) say that isn't proof of anything, because either 1. It was grape juice, not having had time to ferment or 2. Alcohol in those days was a necessity because of their lack of access to clean water, and is not true for us today I'm not in agreement with either of these views (and I've been enjoying a glass of wine after remote learning all day, believe me), but they're fairly common beliefs in some circles. The same people who insist that every word in the Bible is to be taken literally twist themselves into knots to defend their teetotaling stance. Jill drinking shouldn't be a big deal, but this is a huge departure from her upbringing.
  6. It's women who are the worst, but you're right -- we can't win. People with one kid are destined to have weirdos, but more than two is selfish and ruining the planet. I'm a SAHM and I'm either "a good mom who actually wants to raise her own kids" (gag) or a terrible waste of potential for leaving a career. For my situation, it just made more sense, financially and otherwise, but that, like everything else, invites comment. I'm a witch, though, and the comments roll off. I had a lot of complications, so when people are really crass about Baby Boy #3, I sometimes respond with, "Oh, him? Yeah, he almost died in utero, so I'm actually fine with him having a penis." Hopefully the commenters think twice before saying things like that again. I feel for the Duggars for getting so much flak -- not the truly terrible stuff, because some of the criticism is warranted, but the nitpicking over benign stuff. On the other hand, they're bound to hear it from strangers just by existing in a grocery store or at a park, so why they'd invite extra critique by posting so much of their lives online is beyond me.
  7. There's plenty of reasons to stop having children before you get to 8 or 10 or 20 of them, but getting "one of each" isn't necessarily the ideal for everyone and doesn't mean Joy should stop now. I have three. I wanted three. They all happen to be boys, but I can't tell you how many times friends and even strangers have told me I should try "one more time" for a girl or said things like, "Oh, was the third supposed to be your girl?" IN FRONT OF MY KIDS. (My husband gets the opposite, generally from men -- "you lucked out, no girls!") My youngest was very much wanted, regardless of the sex of my older two. We snark on the Duggars for their rigid ideas of gender, but the idea that every family should have one (or some) of each exists in society in general. A lot of this is based in gender roles too -- boys grow up and leave their families of origin, girls will take care of you in old age, moms need girls to dress up, boys have to carry on the family name, etc. Joy and Austin should have as many as they want, so long as her health and their financial and family circumstances allow it.
  8. I don't really get their idea of salvation, either. For one, "sin" doesn't mean "terrible thing that damns you to hell." It's something that is wrong, and for kids it can be lying, stealing a cookie, reacting in anger to a sibling. Most Christians would agree with you that while sinful, those things actually ARE equivalent to just existing, because all people since the fall of Adam and Eve have been born sinful. (Except Jesus.) It doesn't necessarily have to be a conscious decision or some terrible misdeed. As others have pointed out, children and those without the ability to understand aren't held accountable for that. But literally the entire point of Christianity is that Jesus saves from sin. For people who stake their entire identity on this, why is/was Jessa so fearful that she's not **really** saved? Someone put that into her head. Personally, I think their legalistic adherence to rules is a big part of the problem. Their trust in a savior isn't quite enough -- they also need to earn extra credit by following a bunch of extra rules where no deviation is permitted. They say their faith saves them, but just in case, they better earn it, too. My children know they're sinners. It doesn't look *anything* like what Jessa describes. It's more like, "We all do bad things from time to time, but you can't hit your brother. That's wrong. Go sit in your room until you're ready to apologize to him and behave yourself." No threats of eternal damnation! The "saved" thing is most common in evangelical/fundy churches. You don't hear that term in every church. They might call it salvation or grace or redemption. The concept of being "saved" in the particular way Jessa uses it is not common across all of Protestantism.
  9. It's a reference to scripture, one of the parables: "Well done, good and faithful servant." It's Christianese humble brag: "I'm doing such wonderful things! Look at me! But I'm just serving God...."
  10. This, exactly. This is very much a trend, and it's often used as a tool for evangelism. Longtime lurker here... I haven't posted in years but I read. 🙂 I'm a Christian, and while I sort of understand the origin of some of their beliefs, I mostly think, "yeah.... that's not how any of that works." They twist things until they're unrecognizable. The weird legalism just isn't a thing in most Christian churches. It goes against everything taught in the New Testament. Same with their Calvinist stuff. That's so backwards! Most churches who follow Calvin's teachings refer to themselves as "Reformed," as in the Protestant Reformation. They don't generally use the term Calvinist; that's almost derogatory. (The implication being that those people worship Calvin and not Jesus.) That's a tell. MacArthur is a prime example. He doesn't adhere to some of the main teachings of Calvin. He's really like a Baptist gone rogue, picking and choosing various tenets from different denominations.
  11. How'd I miss that?! Thanks for clearing that up. I thought for sure they'd go for the second home. The book nook was cute but not worth an extra bedroom or two.
  12. They chose the 2 bedroom/1 bath home. That WAS the main bath. One of the girls said early on that she didn't want guests having to use their bathroom, so I was surprised they chose that house. Love that these homes are not 700K homes with gray, gray, and more gray.
  13. This show is missing the mark for me, too, Snarklepuss. It's all over the place, jumping from trope to trope. Several quibbles here so far -- for one, the myth that SAHM means wealthy. The show hints at that idea, but for many, the choice isn't so much to work or stay home, but whether to even have kids at all. I was a teacher before my kids were born, and I honestly can't afford to work because daycare is so danged expensive. I knew that going in, and chose to have kids anyway, but we're far from wealthy. Her job sounds like it paid pretty well, but a woman choosing to stay home doesn't necessarily indicate anything about the family's finances. Lazy sitcom writing uses SAHM as some kind of shorthand for "privileged woman who spends all day at the gym." Ditto for them being renters. Whenever a home goes up for rent in my neighborhood, it's generally about double my monthly mortgage. Of course the tenant doesn't have to come up with a down payment or pay for most repairs, but on a monthly basis, it's waaaay pricey! We're supposed to think they're poor because they "only" rent that huge, gorgeous house? And as others have posted, they don't have a cleaning lady? And finally, while the interactions with the crossing guard were funny, what was the the point of that? She's too tired and too busy because she doesn't have a cleaning lady, and can't be bothered to actually park her van? I know we were supposed to think she's real and commiserate with her, but IMO, she came off as an entitled snot. It didn't jive with the idea that her family moved to that particular school district for the daughter's programs, and then she can't be bothered to even fill out the vaccination forms.
  14. Writing isn't math. Numbers are numbers; there's no truly objective way to assess writing. Jane's advisor said she'd make her decision based on how well she liked the next draft, not on Jane as a person. (In response to Jane's question.) That's as objective as it can really be in that discipline. I'm finding Jane to be less likeable this season. For me, she's teetering on the edge of being a special snowflake, one that expects others to accommodate her personal issues. This is supposed to be a competitive grad program, and it was established that she was fortunate to even have a slot. I don't think the advisor is mean for denying her a deadline extension. Jane's MO is to take on too much at once, then rely on others to get it all done. She doesn't have to rush to the altar. Her fight with Xo is not the advisor's concern, either. Are Jane's peers asking for preferential treatment to handle personal matters too? I still enjoy JtV, but there are times when I think, "Okay, Show, that's not adorable or quirky; it's actually kinda irresponsible."
  15. Semi OT, but you guys are the worst. :) I've never really seen Joel Kinnaman in anything else, and aside from being too young to be president (not legally, just generally speaking) the casting worked for me here. But all the talk of "He's so much better on The Killing!" got me to start binge watching that series on Netflix. I've been sucked in, when I'm supposed to be cleaning house for my Easter dinner...
×
×
  • Create New...