JinJer 39: Waiting to Meet Their Baby Daughter

[Rachel333]

I will say that Jeremy has always struck me as just as bad as the rest of the fundamentalist men, just kind of smarmy and attempting to seem more modern.

[Carm_88]

Jeremy needs to give a sermon again about fake Jews and Catholics. Then we will all remember what he really is. He's been silent for far too long. 

[TatiFish9]

I struggle with understanding why any person would vote and continue to support Trump. Just thinking about it takes me to a dark and moody place. It's not about political affiliation, either. For me, it's about a general respect for humanity and the country .

I am shocked that Jinger is the one, besides Jill, to like the post. But as it has already been expressed, we can't forget what these families stand for and why they're such a problem in the first place. Even if Derick was jesting, there are some things you don't joke about especially involving your kids. His words, the meaning behind them, the hurts and fear he has caused is forever linked to Israel's innocent smiling face (unless he deletes it).  

I know we're all entitled to our views but this and many other issues linked to this family and extensions make me sad and enraged. Not cool at all.

I was going to post something detailed about baby Mia possibly having a J name instead, but I realized how unimportant that is in the scheme of things. 

[Joyfully]

I feel Jinger is getting a pass. It’s true we don’t know with 100% certainty the complexities of her reasoning for liking the post. It’s absolutely reasonable to assume a person likes and approves of content they “like” on social media. Given Jeremy’s sermons, her upbringing, and her continuing support of her family all evidence points to she liked the picture AND the text. Even if she’s not a rabid Trump supporter, she clearly isn’t anti-Trump. 

 

If Jill or ofJill liked something similar, no one would try to tip toe around it.

[Jezzable]

Since Jeremy has been accepted to the Master's Seminary, we can expect nothing but full 5-point Calvinistic beliefs/teachings. 

Similarly, since John MacArthur voted for Trump and urged his followers to vote for Trump because of his "world view," you can certainly bet that he, too, voted for Trump.  

[Jellybean]

4 hours ago, Joyfully said:

I feel Jinger is getting a pass. It’s true we don’t know with 100% certainty the complexities of her reasoning for liking the post. It’s absolutely reasonable to assume a person likes and approves of content they “like” on social media. Given Jeremy’s sermons, her upbringing, and her continuing support of her family all evidence points to she liked the picture AND the text. Even if she’s not a rabid Trump supporter, she clearly isn’t anti-Trump. 

 

If Jill or ofJill liked something similar, no one would try to tip toe around it.

I think you’re right on both points - people want/expect Jinger to be less awful than her family, in political and religious beliefs. Similarly, I think people dislike Mr Jill Duggar so intensely (with good reason) that everything he does is assumed to be awful. I think we need to be aware and careful of both sides.

I didn’t realise that The Master’s Seminary is full-on Calvinist (thanks @Jezzable). I can never remember the five points of Calvinist beliefs, despite the acronym TULIP. In case I’m not the only one, here they are (from Calvinist Corner)

• Total depravity (original sin)
• Unconditional election
• Limited atonement
• Irresistible grace
• Perseverance of the saints (once saved, always saved)

[AliceInFundyland]

I’ve just given up hope that Jinger and Jill think critically about things like Trump.I believe they defer to Babe and Mr. Jill and don’t give politics much deep thought past that.

I think Jessa actually is the one who processes the world the most (not that that’s saying much).

[mollysmom]

2 hours ago, AliceInFundyland said:

I’ve just given up hope that Jinger and Jill think critically about things like Trump.I believe they defer to Babe and Mr. Jill and don’t give politics much deep thought past that.

I think Jessa actually is the one who processes the world the most (not that that’s saying much).

I agree. That's the vibe I get from each one of them too. Once again going back to how they are raised...woman are not to think for themselves, they follow their headship at all times (daddy, older brothers, then husband) I am having a hell of a time getting myself out of that mindset now that I don't have a "daddy" or a husband. I'm LOVING being single and on my own for the first time in my life but when it comes to important decisions, this is literally the first time in my life I've had to do it. These girls are clueless. They've never been allowed to have an opinion or think for themselves so they don't. 

[nst]

8 hours ago, Jellybean said:

I think you’re right on both points - people want/expect Jinger to be less awful than her family, in political and religious beliefs. Similarly, I think people dislike Mr Jill Duggar so intensely (with good reason) that everything he does is assumed to be awful. I think we need to be aware and careful of both sides.

 

I think Jinger is just like the rest of her family. Always has been.  Can't spruce up the goose that much especially who she married to.  Better package just the same. 

But I will say Jessa has turned me into watching Fixer upper which is scary because Joanna Gaines seems so much like the duggars with the kiddos except I realize she isn't in their cult.  But the woman can BRAND. and Jessa I bet learned so much for her. 

[VelociRapture]

13 hours ago, Joyfully said:

I feel Jinger is getting a pass. It’s true we don’t know with 100% certainty the complexities of her reasoning for liking the post. It’s absolutely reasonable to assume a person likes and approves of content they “like” on social media. Given Jeremy’s sermons, her upbringing, and her continuing support of her family all evidence points to she liked the picture AND the text. Even if she’s not a rabid Trump supporter, she clearly isn’t anti-Trump. 

 

If Jill or ofJill liked something similar, no one would try to tip toe around it.

There’s no “maybe” about it in my opinion. Jinger is absolutely being given a pass on this. 

 

8 hours ago, Jellybean said:

I think you’re right on both points - people want/expect Jinger to be less awful than her family, in political and religious beliefs. Similarly, I think people dislike Mr Jill Duggar so intensely (with good reason) that everything he does is assumed to be awful. I think we need to be aware and careful of both sides.

I didn’t realise that The Master’s Seminary is full-on Calvinist (thanks @Jezzable). I can never remember the five points of Calvinist beliefs, despite the acronym TULIP. In case I’m not the only one, here they are (from Calvinist Corner)

• Total depravity (original sin)
• Unconditional election
• Limited atonement
• Irresistible grace
• Perseverance of the saints (once saved, always saved)

Absolutely. A good recent example is the response (almost entirely on Pickles page) to the pretty innocent Abd harmless photo of Derick cooking Jill a birthday dinner versus Jinger liking the wall photo.

[singsingsing]

11 minutes ago, VelociRapture said:

Absolutely. A good recent example is the response (almost entirely on Pickles page) to the photo of Derick cooking Jill a birthday dinner. 

I think another good example is the reaction to that person on Reddit who claimed to know Derick in Nepal and said he was a nice guy in person. That this Redditor must be full of it, or it was Derick incognito talking himself up (lol). I have no trouble whatsoever believing that Derick comes across as a nice guy in person, especially when he was in Nepal, and especially when he's among like minded people. 

Derick's rudeness and defensiveness on social media just adds another layer to criticize and speculate about (and the criticism/speculation on that front is totally justified, imo) but ultimately what really matters is his actions. How does he vote? To whom does he give money? What causes does he actively support? How is he indoctrinating his children? Treating his wife? Whose rights is he actively trying to trample on, and how?

Someone can repeatedly punch you in the face while spitting on you and telling you you're horrible, or they can repeatedly punch you in the face while smiling at you and telling you they love you, but the end result is the same. And the smiling is creepier.

[SassyPants]

In terms of Jinger getting a free pass, I think many people are looking for someone, anyone, in this family to make a break. It's natural to look for something, anything, positive in a rather shitty situation. The Vuolos are a pretty picture, and from a distance they appear more mainstream and less alien ( dress, entertainment, home, no kid 9 months after marriage, travel, theater, tennis, books...) Much like the Bateses, they are being judged less harshly because the present better, which of course makes them more dangerous. However, presentation and the perks that come with that might help them eventually move more toward the middle. 

DD doesn't present well, and therefore he gets it shoved up his ass 10 fold, so what does he do? He moves further to the extreme.

[lumpentheologie]

I just spent about an hour looking through the "Distinctives" section of the Grace Community Church website. (https://www.gracechurch.org/about/distinctives/index).  Since this is the church where Jeremy will be going to seminary I imagine this is what he is agreeing to. 

This will probably open up a debate, but I would say that the church is (very) conservative Christian rather than fundamentalist, although clearly that depends on how one defines fundamentalist. But there is nothing that implies they are against sending children to public school, or education in general (actually, they seem to want to portray themselves as very educated). Nothing about birth control or limiting children being bad. Nothing about women being unable to work outside the home (although it does say their focus should be primarily on the family rather than on a career).  Nothing about not drinking or dancing. Nothing about courtship or saving kissing for marriage. 

I hope this means that Jinger will have only a reasonable number of children, who will be given a real (if very conservative) education instead of being forced to parent their siblings.  I hope it means those children will be able to date potential marriage partners on more or less their own terms, and that they would be allowed to pursue work or higher education. I hope they won't be totally trapped in a family-cult the way Jana still seems to be in her late 20s. 

This is not to say there's nothing harmful about what this church believes.  They believe in wifely submission, and that divorce is not allowed in cases of abuse. They believe LGBT people are in open rebellion against God, whether or not they are sexually active. They believe children are full of sin and need to be physically disciplined. They believe that Catholics are not Christians, and they probably believe in "fake Jews". 

So I definitely wouldn't say Jinger is free, by a long shot. But I do think her life, and her children's lives, will be markedly better than what she got growing up. 

[Rachel333]

Meh, at least on my part I am definitely not "giving her a pass" because I don't want to read too much into something as small as an instagram like. A pass for what? They have horrible beliefs no matter what. I just know that I have people in my own family who dislike Trump but wouldn't think twice about liking a photo like that because they still don't hate Trump as much as I do. I think people read way too much into social media interactions sometimes. Again, I think it's probable that Jinger and Jeremy support Trump, I just think it's a little much to act like this is irrefutable proof of it.

[justoneoftwo]

13 minutes ago, lumpentheologie said:

I just spent about an hour looking through the "Distinctives" section of the Grace Community Church website. (https://www.gracechurch.org/about/distinctives/index).  Since this is the church where Jeremy will be going to seminary I imagine this is what he is agreeing to. 

This will probably open up a debate, but I would say that the church is (very) conservative Christian rather than fundamentalist, although clearly that depends on how one defines fundamentalist. But there is nothing that implies they are against sending children to public school, or education in general (actually, they seem to want to portray themselves as very educated). Nothing about birth control or limiting children being bad. Nothing about women being unable to work outside the home (although it does say their focus should be primarily on the family rather than on a career).  Nothing about not drinking or dancing. Nothing about courtship or saving kissing for marriage. 

I hope this means that Jinger will have only a reasonable number of children, who will be given a real (if very conservative) education instead of being forced to parent their siblings.  I hope it means those children will be able to date potential marriage partners on more or less their own terms, and that they would be allowed to pursue work or higher education. I hope they won't be totally trapped in a family-cult the way Jana still seems to be in her late 20s. 

This is not to say there's nothing harmful about what this church believes.  They believe in wifely submission, and that divorce is not allowed in cases of abuse. They believe LGBT people are in open rebellion against God, whether or not they are sexually active. They believe children are full of sin and need to be physically disciplined. They believe that Catholics are not Christians, and they probably believe in "fake Jews". 

So I definitely wouldn't say Jinger is free, by a long shot. But I do think her life, and her children's lives, will be markedly better than what she got growing up. 

This is why I never can get on board with the "just as bad" attitude.  Not all sin is equal, and not all less than my ideal beliefs are equal.  Having a job, and an education, and the ability to limit family size is huge! It allows growth and change.  It helps their children to have critical thinking skills (or at least they could).  For me this is a huge step.  This is not just as bad, it has things I don't like and think are harmful, but its not AS bad.

[Rachel333]

I hate Calvinism. In some ways I think it makes more sense than Arminianism where God, despite being all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-benevolent, just lets evil things happen and lets people go to Hell despite having the power to stop it ("free will" is a terrible excuse to me for letting people suffer eternally, and shouldn't an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good God be able to figure out how to let people have free will without having them tortured for eternity?), but the Calvinist idea where God actively chooses who to save and who not to save is just so nasty to me. Arminians believe that what separates them from non-Christians and the less-fortunate is largely chance, but Calvinists believe that God actively chose them to have a more privileged life than others and to go to Heaven while others are doomed to Hell. I just find that belief repulsive.

[lumpentheologie]

4 minutes ago, justoneoftwo said:

This is why I never can get on board with the "just as bad" attitude.  Not all sin is equal, and not all less than my ideal beliefs are equal.  Having a job, and an education, and the ability to limit family size is huge! It allows growth and change.  It helps their children to have critical thinking skills (or at least they could).  For me this is a huge step.  This is not just as bad, it has things I don't like and think are harmful, but its not AS bad.

I completely agree.  For me at least, it's not true that harmful beliefs = fundamentalism.  There are lots of harmful beliefs outside of fundamentalism, and even outside of religion.  I think it's important to acknowledge that fundamentalism is an especially harmful complex of harmful beliefs, mostly because it really reduces members' ability to leave. It does this through neglecting education so that children are ignorant and lack critical thinking skills, and so they're unable to get a job that could support them on their own. It saddles them with families of their own at the moment they leave their parents' house, so that they never have the freedom to question beliefs on their own. It isolates them from anything that is different. It stunts the development of children and makes it very hard for them to live full lives as adults. 

Not all harmful beliefs do this. People can be Trump supporters, against LGBT rights, against immigration, and still not do the things outlined above to themselves and their children. While knowing that someone voted for Trump might be all you need to think they're not a good person, there are specific dangers to fundamentalism, and I think we shouldn't lose sight of that. 

[singsingsing]

11 minutes ago, lumpentheologie said:

I just spent about an hour looking through the "Distinctives" section of the Grace Community Church website. (https://www.gracechurch.org/about/distinctives/index).  Since this is the church where Jeremy will be going to seminary I imagine this is what he is agreeing to. 

This will probably open up a debate, but I would say that the church is (very) conservative Christian rather than fundamentalist, although clearly that depends on how one defines fundamentalist. But there is nothing that implies they are against sending children to public school, or education in general (actually, they seem to want to portray themselves as very educated). Nothing about birth control or limiting children being bad. Nothing about women being unable to work outside the home (although it does say their focus should be primarily on the family rather than on a career).  Nothing about not drinking or dancing. Nothing about courtship or saving kissing for marriage. 

I hope this means that Jinger will have only a reasonable number of children, who will be given a real (if very conservative) education instead of being forced to parent their siblings.  I hope it means those children will be able to date potential marriage partners on more or less their own terms, and that they would be allowed to pursue work or higher education. I hope they won't be totally trapped in a family-cult the way Jana still seems to be in her late 20s. 

This is not to say there's nothing harmful about what this church believes.  They believe in wifely submission, and that divorce is not allowed in cases of abuse. They believe LGBT people are in open rebellion against God, whether or not they are sexually active. They believe children are full of sin and need to be physically disciplined. They believe that Catholics are not Christians, and they probably believe in "fake Jews". 

So I definitely wouldn't say Jinger is free, by a long shot. But I do think her life, and her children's lives, will be markedly better than what she got growing up. 

It's fairly clear to me that Jinger and Jeremy are fundie-lite, and I don't think they're the only Duggar couple moving in that direction. That's probably a controversial statement, and we really need more time to wait and see, but yeah, the definition of 'fundie' is very broad and I think it means something a little different to anyone.

At the very least, it's clear to me that Jinger and Jeremy will not be the same brand of fundamentalist that Jim Bob and Michelle were/are.

When I look at Jinger and Jeremy, I just see Boundless written all over them. For anyone unfamiliar with Boundless, it was (is?) a website or webzine run by Focus on the Family, directed at Christian young adults. I was an avid reader in my early 20s. They had a blog, podcast, and articles. They mainly discussed dating, courtship, singleness, sexuality, marriage, and friendship. Naturally much of it related to the best way to find a spouse, go about dating or courtship, and how to avoid sin.

It was very, very conservative. But not fundamentalist - not what we would think of as fundamentalist, anyway. Some of the people featured probably were fundies, but most were not. There was a mix of beliefs. Some were okay with unchaperoned dates, others weren't. Some were fine with barrier methods of birth control, others stuck to NFP. Some were cool with dancing and drinking, others weren't. A woman who 'dated with a purpose', wore pants, listened to Christian rock music, danced at her wedding, spaced her kids with NFP, and had a university degree (even a master's degree) would not have been out of place in that circle.

But here's the caveat: I think they may be more dangerous than the full on fundamentalists. They appear much more normal. They are far more engaged with the world at large. They have more money. They value education. They make more connections. They get into power. They do it all while looking polished and friendly and happy and wholesome. This is the direction that a lot of the Duggars and Bateses are now moving in, and no wonder. It's much more effective. 

For Jinger's sake, I'll be thrilled if she's allowed to limit her family size, get a real education for her children, etc. But when you actually examine the core ideologies of each crowd, they're really the same. It's fundamentalism wrapped up in a pretty bow. It's protesting an abortion clinic with a dozen fewer kids in tow, stomping on the rights of sexual minorities while wearing a cute pair of skinny jeans and a stylish top instead of a frumper, and working day and night to turn the U.S. into a theocracy while your kids learn about how Jesus walked the earth with dinosaurs at their Christian school instead of at the dining room table.

[KelseyAnn]

I actually think Jessa and Ben are the ones who will break away- if only minutely. I honestly think those two are only biding their time until they're self-sufficient and able to go mainstream christian without being cut off from their only money source. 

[justoneoftwo]

I get why people think its more dangerous, it just depends what the danger is.  Are Conservative Christians/fundie lights more likely to get converts?  Yep.  Is that as bad as the few fundie converts?  I don't think so, but I'm open to being convinced.  

I do think that sometimes we all as humans get this attitude that everyone should believe as we do, and its bad not to.  I just don't completely buy into that (I don't completely not either).  So having beliefs that suck from my point of view, but your not harming your children, thats a huge step and I'm happy when I see that.  I also happen to think that my beliefs are morally right and that thinking people will eventually reach them (even if its over generations) so having critical thought will lead to where I hope these families go.  

[Rachel333]

I feel like we could use a more coherent definition of fundamentalism. Sometimes it's used to mean "more conservative than I would like" or just "obnoxious about their beliefs," when the original meaning was strictly conforming to the literal meaning of a religious text.

It's definitely important to realize that not all very conservative Christians are fundamentalists and that even non-fundamentalists can still be very dangerous. I'd probably say that the conservative non-fundie Christians are better in terms of what life is like for the people already in the religion (I think it would be an improvement in quality of life for someone like Jinger, for instance) but more dangerous in terms of their ability to reel others into their beliefs.

[lumpentheologie]

11 minutes ago, singsingsing said:

But here's the caveat: I think they may be more dangerous than the full on fundamentalists. They appear much more normal. They are far more engaged with the world at large. They have more money. They value education. They make more connections. They get into power. They do it all while looking polished and friendly and happy and wholesome. This is the direction that a lot of the Duggars and Bateses are now moving in, and no wonder. It's much more effective. 

 

4 minutes ago, Rachel333 said:

It's definitely important to realize that not all very conservative Christians are fundamentalists and that even non-fundamentalists can still be very dangerous. I'd probably say that the conservative non-fundie Christians are better in terms of what life is like for the people already in the religion (I think it would be an improvement in quality of life for someone like Jinger, for instance) but more dangerous in terms of their ability to reel others into their beliefs.

These are such great points.  I do think extreme fundamentalists and relatively normal very conservative Christians pose different dangers to society.

I think the danger of very conservative Christians is real but more indirect---as they gain converts, power, and influence, they are more likely to change broader cultural values, and change the law, in ways that are actively harmful. And that is a very serious threat.  But it's also one that I feel like I can fight against in a way that will make a difference. 

Extreme fundamentalists, though, are pretty much practicing child abuse in my opinion, and there is little to nothing that I can do about that. So I guess for me it comes down to the idea that citizens in a democracy can defend themselves, their values, and their freedoms from attack, whereas the children raised in fundamentalism are helpless victims.  And that makes it seem worse to me.  But I can see why others would feel differently. 

[Jellybean]

33 minutes ago, Rachel333 said:

I hate Calvinism. In some ways I think it makes more sense than Arminianism where God, despite being all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-benevolent, just lets evil things happen and lets people go to Hell despite having the power to stop it ("free will" is a terrible excuse to me for letting people suffer eternally, and shouldn't an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good God be able to figure out how to let people have free will without having them tortured for eternity?), but the Calvinist idea where God actively chooses who to save and who not to save is just so nasty to me. Arminians believe that what separates them from non-Christians and the less-fortunate is largely chance, but Calvinists believe that God actively chose them to have a more privileged life than others and to go to Heaven while others are doomed to Hell. I just find that belief repulsive.

I was brought up fundie in the sense of believing the Bible to be absolutely true and inerrant. The question of free will versus God choosing who to save in advance was one of the first things that caused me to question my faith; whether I could reconcile my belief in a loving god who created people to be just as they are and all in his own image, with that same god damning them to hell for eternity because of how they were created (e.g. not ‘elect’ people in a Calvinist belief system, people who were created gay/bi, people who were born into families of other religions). 

The concept of suffering also bothered me a great deal. As @Rachel333 said, it seems entirely inadequate to say that we have free will as a justification for God not getting involved to prevent/stop awful suffering. We were taught to pray for everything - parking spaces, favourable weather, any symptoms of illness, politics, etc. I stopped finding that comforting and started to see it as barbaric - how could I praise God for the fact that I didn’t die of that most recent asthma attack, when friends of mine did die of asthma attacks, and others suffer almost unimaginably in so many ways. Could God be indifferent to his precious creation? 

[Rachel333]

1 minute ago, Jellybean said:

We were taught to pray for everything - parking spaces, favourable weather, any symptoms of illness, politics, etc. I stopped finding that comforting and started to see it as barbaric - how could I praise God for the fact that I didn’t die of that most recent asthma attack, when friends of mine did die of asthma attacks, and others suffer almost unimaginably in so many ways. Could God be indifferent to his precious creation? 

I felt the exact same way.

And like I said, I've never found free will an adequate explanation for suffering, but even if you do it really only explains human evil and not suffering in the natural world. What would free will have to do with animals suffering, or the suffering caused by natural disasters? I guess fundies would bring up Adam and Eve, but it seems absurd to say that massive suffering is a reasonable punishment for one couple eating some fruit.

There's a famous quote attributed to Epicurus:

Quote

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

 

[pandora]

2 hours ago, lumpentheologie said:

 

These are such great points.  I do think extreme fundamentalists and relatively normal very conservative Christians pose different dangers to society.

I think the danger of very conservative Christians is real but more indirect---as they gain converts, power, and influence, they are more likely to change broader cultural values, and change the law, in ways that are actively harmful. And that is a very serious threat.  But it's also one that I feel like I can fight against in a way that will make a difference. 

Extreme fundamentalists, though, are pretty much practicing child abuse in my opinion, and there is little to nothing that I can do about that. So I guess for me it comes down to the idea that citizens in a democracy can defend themselves, their values, and their freedoms from attack, whereas the children raised in fundamentalism are helpless victims.  And that makes it seem worse to me.  But I can see why others would feel differently. 

I hear you there. As @Rachel333 pointed out we all have our own idea of what fundamentalism means, so to clarify, my definition would be that a fundamentalist is someone who believes the way they live is the only acceptable way to live- and fundamentalists come in many different stripes, Christian fundamentalists being one variety. I think the people we generally talk about here and refer to as fundies are people who have fundamentalists beliefs about many things ( I know they think they're biblical literalists, but they do so many things that would contradict that), but lots of people have fundamentalist beliefs about some things, but not a whole host of things. Conservative Christians without fundamentalist beliefs simply believe their way is better, not that it's the only way. I think most of us feel that our way is better than other ways about a fair amount of things ( I just had a chat with a coworker this morning about recycling, not trashing, the multiple water bottles she brings in every day. Clearly I think my way is better). And while I'm with you @lumpentheologie about fundamentalism being physically dangerous to children raised in it, I think it's also potentially physically dangerous to others as well. A belief that one's way of living is the only way to live can get translated into a belief that others don't deserve to live. Every person who commits a hate crime is in my thinking a fundamentalist of some type ( I watched this video yesterday and it's bouncing around my head as I type https://www.theatlantic.com/video/index/560669/hate-crime-in-kansas/). I'm not saying every fundamentalist is violent or ever would be violent (because I think the majority would not), that would be a huge leap, but I think any kind of fundamentalism is a breeding ground for the hatred that justifies such violence. 

Hope this all makes sense, it feels like a bit of a spew.