Thursday, October 29, 2009

#87-Plastic Bracelets and Headbands: aka when can we declare someone has the spirit of Jezebel?

This post is recommended by one Kyle Brown (complete with pictures he suggested):

So if you want to know what is at the heart of Apostolic trending in female fashion, see the headware above...

No, really....

I'm being serious...



......Now let's talk about it...

Kyle pointed out that at first these headbands popped up as very mild, in the form of kind of a throwback to the days of the hippy:

Which was weird in and of itself, and of course there have been the coward version to pop up to make you think these headbands are serving some kind of weird function to bind up hair:


but as every slippery slope expert knows, such rebel rousing will lead to hell in a hand basket, and in this case the hand basket was a headband...

And now we are seeing bits and pieces of this out there amongst our females (no joke):

First of all, let me be the first on record to say these things are hideous.

The only good headband in the history of headbands has been the following:

And because none of the previously pictured headbands make the blind see, then we really have no function other than vanity...

But who is going to speak up? Who is going to call foul? Must we let this debacle persist?

And to you I say only you can prevent the headband wearing in your church and beyond (a simple letter to your pastor complaining about the deteriorating condition of standards through the lower generations represented through the materialism of these headbands should do the trick).....

But seriously, the moment we catch wind of the mascara or the blush, we can very quickly identify the spirit of Jezebel at work, but with articles of dress such as the headband, the point of Jezebel presence is a bit more murky.....

But I would argue that once again, our old friend, the Slippery Slope can paint the way toward the cause of the allowance of headbands, and diamond headbands in Apostolics circles:

It happened when Lance Armstrong released those Livestrong Bracelets all in the name of cancer....

And who can say no to curing cancer?

It was the perfect excuse for compromising Apostolics everywhere:

You don't wear them for vain reasons, but rather in the name of saving lives...which meant that if you were against the bracelets, You were for killing people....

I can specifically remember the day I saw an Apostolic wearing one of the bracelets, and my mind was in a paradox with no answer...All I could do was whisper to myself, "Was this okay?"

So we bit our tongues....and we allowed our friend to flaunt their cancer curing vanity without saying a word...

The bad guys were winning....

So basically Lance Armstrong was the one who let the Spirit of Jezebel into our churches...

Because the moment you start allowing people to wear bracelets for cancer, you can't tell them no when they try wearing Livestrong bracelets for their foundation/charity of choice to support (of course they kept it safe by never wearing outright jewelry and settling for the more modest plastic bracelets...)

and it was these plastic bracelets that had our tongues tied that allowed those girls wearing their headbands to strut their stuff without us being able to tattle tale....

There is no winning this one folks.....


  1. 2 Kings 9:30-When Jezebel heard about it, she painted her eyes, arranged her hair and looked out of a window.

    May we never paint our eyes. May we never arrange our hair. May we never look out a window.

  2. You are stretching on this. Never again do
    i want to read this kind of dull, unimaginative drivell. Sorry, I have come to expect more from this creative blog.
    your critic
    Nathan Hayes

  3. hhmmm interesting.....very interesting

  4. There's another good post for you. Comparing things to the spirit of Jezebel. Headbands- spirit of Jezebel. Working mothers- spirit of Jezebel. VCR players- spirit of Jezebel...

  5. I am one of the "compromising apostolics" you speak of that wears the Livestrong bracelets. I actually wear more than just the cancer one. I have about four that I wear regularly.

    I think if they are worn just to accessorize or for a cause (such as cancer research) they are not a problem. I've seen people wear about 10 on each arm. I think this crosses over into vanity and would be wrong.

    It has been pointed out to me that I shouldn't wear "jewelry". These Livestrong and other plastic bracelets actually aren't "JEWELry". I understand the slippery slope point and that is very true.

    As for the headbands...they can be taken too far. But I don't think they are wrong in themselves.

  6. Ok I gotta say I don't really get the JIST of this whole post!!! I don't even know ANY Apostolics that wear those Lance bracelets!!! Are you saying you do NOT like headbands or that you think they are jewelery?!?! I love headbands!!! LOL But I don't wear them if they have beads and rhinestones on them!!! :)

  7. LOL you can't be serious..but if you are, I'll have to disagree. Headbands DO hold your hair (even if it's away from the face). If they're super gaudy, that's different I suppose and up to each individual's personal convictions.

    As for the bracelets, I have a personal conviction against them because I donate $$ to support a cure for cancer, but don't feel I need to advertise that on my arm. However, if other people want to I think it's their "bidnez". =)

    I was cracking up during your post though! It's definitely ok to give your own opinion, and if you can back it up then you have an argument.
    I just happen to disagree, and that's the beauty of free speech.
    God bless!

  8. Hi Joel.

    Re those wristbands. . . at this time they do not look like jewelry but, they could very well be leaning to the direction of gold bracelets, necklaces or brooches etc. that represent a cause so I am thinking that the you are making us aware that this could go that direction of compromise.

    Headbands do serve their purpose if they are to keep your hair out of your eyes or to help keep it neat but, when they start having rhinestones and are goddy, then they are going toward jewelry. . . If we want the Holy Ghost to shine through, we need to be conservative in what we wear or what people will see is the outer decor more than his spirit. This is not only headbands; it is also perhaps, sparkly/shiny metalic cloths, barrets, shoes, tights etc.

    The point is that we nead to practice shame facedness and sobriety as mentioned in 1 Timothy 2 and a meek & quiet spirit as mentioned in 1 Peter 3

    1 Timothy 2:
    9) In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;"

    10) But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.

    1 Peter 3:
    2) while they behold your chaste manner of living coupled with fear.

    3) When adorning yourselves, let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing gold, or of putting on apparel;

    4) but let it be the hidden man of the heart which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which in the sight of God is of great price.


  9. Ok as an longtime follower of this blog, I have to jump in and instruct you rookies on the nature of this blog. First of all, it seems that all of you are taking Joel's comments too seriously. No he really doesn't believe that headbands are bad or that they are leading down us down the road of Jezebel. He showing the line of paranoid logic that many in our movement have at times.

    I would also like to point out that 2 Peter is more accurately explained in newer translations (which is of the Anti-Christ of course). The NIV translates 1 Peter 3:1-4 as " 1Wives, in the same way be submissive to your husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives, 2when they see the purity and reverence of your lives. 3Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as braided hair and the wearing of gold jewelry and fine clothes. 4Instead, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God's sight."

    Notice he also says that women are not to depend upon "fine clothes" for their beauty. Many other translations are similar. Therefore, we must not be alert for those who wear fine clothes no matter how modest they are. I don't know how we could patrol this, but I am sure there is a way. Also, we must ban "braided hair". I won't even go there. My point here is that the KJV translates this quite clumsily. It appears that Peter wasn't banning these things so much as warning women not to depend upon such things, or any other outward manifestation of beauty, for their worth.

    As for 1 Timothy 2, the NIV says "9I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, 10but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God. 11A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. 13For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety."

    Again, if we are truly going to follow the scripture literally we must do all of it. "Expensive clothes" and "braided hair" are mentioned. Also, we have to consider the whole context of these verses addressing women. The Pentecostal movement was built on the back of female preacher's who were also pastors (something to be proud of in my opinion). However, I never hear anyone use these scriptures when that topic is discussed. Taking these passages at face value we must also preach that women are saved by having kids. My point is that both Peter and Paul gave general priniciples of modesty. We also have to consider the context and the cultures that were being addressed.

  10. I <3 Kyle Brown...and I thank Joel Riley for this magnificent post

  11. I will say this, I was probably wrong to post this article with the onset of many new readers who do not understand the tone and style of this blog.

    Please don't take everything I say on this blog literally.

    Second, I affirm jsuey1's comments in their entirety above.

  12. Also, this may be the scariest post I have written. I was so sarcastic people thought I was serious.

  13. So let me get this straight, Jsuey. By saying that the NIV is a "more accurate translation", you are essentially questioning the literal interpretation of whether or not jewelry is actually forbidden? If you are not, I guarantee that others will.

    We can argue all day whether KJV is better to use and whether the new, "wonderful, enlightening" translations are the "antichrist", but I one thing I will say: By using the new, enlightening translations we have definitely become lazier. At least by using the KJV it is necessary for us to search out ourselves what words really mean instead of relying on and trusting a translation (which, unfortunately, is what most people do). That is why I DO NOT LIKE the NIV or other translations.

  14. I could write much but will keep it brief.

    1. The New Testament was written in koine Greek which was the common street language of the day.

    2. Yes, I believe these words are to be literally obeyed within the whole context they were given. When we isolate scriptures from context, we misuse the word of God.

  15. Seriousley Joel!!! It was CONFUSING!!! LOL!!!

  16. Ooooo I think I may know what your trying to say!!! YOur saying that we easily pick up on thinkgs like make up on a woman- but the line between jewelery and accessories isn't quite so clear. Like rhinestones and beads in our hair is "ok" BUT it's jewelery if we are wearing the SAME stuff around our neck!!! AND we have watches that are CHARM watches, BUT its NOT jewelery!!! Is that what your sayin or am I just like TOTALLY way off and don't even get it at ALL!?!?!

  17. Our translation should be in another foreign language (the King's English) or we are "lazy Christians?" Wow. Amazing to me. While there is much laziness, it has little to do with the Bible translation you use. I invite you to study these matters out -- all the translations (NIV on the more moderate side) are distinguished by smaller differences, uses of manuscript and a battle over word-for-word or thought-for-thought. This is the same intense struggle the translators had to go through, making their own interpretations in 1611. And by the way, the KJV you read today, is a version that has been revised 5 or 6 times -- it's not the "original King James." The point of a translation is understanding, not mystery. The goal of any word is communication. Communication happens when things are spoken with clarity.

  18. Amen to jsuey1. If you decide to have rules about these things, don't hide behind God's Word, misinterpret it, and then claim God said it. Just say: you said it. You added it.

  19. Mary,

    You basically got the jist of it. Well done! However, I would even argue that make up is a bit muddled in many circles with whether or not cover-up or foundation is acceptable...

    If there was a technique to understanding the things that I "make light of" on this blog, it is simply that I do find it humorous how dogmatic we are against some things (jewelery, make up, skirts, etc...), but look the other way about things that are a bit grayer but in reality are probably equally as problematic (a watch that looks like a bracelet, headbands with jewels, plastic bracelets, perming your hair, pajama pants, etc...)....

    It's not that I am against all these things or for all the above things, I just think the way we draw lines can be a bit confusing some times, and if we were consistent in our claims and the lines we draw, ain't no one gonna be happy....

    But long story short, that is some good analysis Mary.

    And as to jsuey1 and anonymous above, I will say that a post about apostolics liking the KJV has been a long time coming...

  20. Wow... I had no idea that this would turn into a discussion on the accuracy of various translations of the Bible.... well... I guess I did. We love to "defend" our doctrine and "gospel." But anyway... as stated above we were doing two things:

    1)Pointing out inconsistencies


    2) simply making an observation about a fashion trend prevalent among Apostolic circles.

    ...which are some of the purposes of this site.

    And I Quote,

    "To expound, the purpose of this blog is take a moment and remember to laugh at ourselves and the culture we create as Apostolics.

    We will comment on people, fashion styles, and commonalities, that have found some form of popularity in experience amongst my Apostolic peers and I." - Joel Riley

    *If you would like to read more of the above quote you can find it in the "ABOUT THIS BLOG" section on the right side of your screen. Perhaps it will better your understanding "about this blog." If you're confused, angry, hurt or upset, I suggest you give it a read.

  21. Okay Kyle - just in case you missed this, the "translation" issue began with Jsuey bringing up the NIV's more "accurate" translation. He should have known that statement could cause "discussion" (since debate is frowned upon on this site). I say this in defence because up until that time I was following the comments with interest, understanding fully the purpose of this blog.

    Some things, however, require.........debate.

    From "the anonymous in defence of the KJV version".

  22. Dear Joel Riley-

    I <3 this blog. Thanks for pointing out the humourus nature Apostolics pocess when choosing which rules shall be enforced and which lines we choose to blur. Why do we choose to take some things at face value and some things for interpretation?

    Deut. 22:11 says "Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, as of woolen and linen together."

    Perhaps I shall throw away all my cotton/poly blends.

  23. Previous Anonymous:
    I don't believe the translation to be more accurate, as much as more clear. Both passages, in both the language of King James and ours, says the same thing with regard to jewelry. In other words, the intention of the writer (Paul) is the same in either translation.

    If that rubs you wrong, I'm sorry. But there are scores of passages in the KJV that KJV-only people have no clue what it really means -- the product of trying to translate the text 3 times, finally into our vernacular today. KJV sounds cool and special, but the goal is not "cool and special" but "clear and plain."

  24. I write this as anonymous so that nobody will know that I am really referring to myself when I say my "friend" is struggling with this wearing of said plastic adornment. Because he has been told that he cannot wear jewels, "he" ran off and compensated by purchasing a 7 million dollar suit. Just saying... #84

  25. Anonymous above, this is a very memorable comment....

    Thank you....

    I don't LOL, but your comment made me come very close to doing so.

  26. Dear Anonymous in defense of the KJV version.....

    It was not the fact that you were discussing translations of the Bible that I was commenting on. It was the fact that it "turned into" that. Jsuey only posted that in response to others who decided that this would make an excellent time to exercise their apologetic writing skills, and therefore posted a complete defense of their doctrinal beliefs.

    I just found it humorous... that's all.

  27. I could not stop laughing while reading this post!! I LOVED IT!! Legalism can be so funny.