“Language cannot be limited to the set boundaries of the propositional. The connotative value of words carries as much freight as the strict denotative value of words. In addition to this, many other aspects of our lives are constantly ‘speaking’ also. They could be translated into propositions but when this happens, something is always lost in the translation. Parents are responsible to see to it their children learn to ‘speak’ responsibly throughout every aspect of their lives. This ever-present language can be described by the word ‘demeanor.’
“For example, take a current fad for teenaged boys, the practice of not washing or combing one’s hair for extended periods of time. This ‘bed-head’ look is quite eloquent and speaks volumes of rebelliousness, individualism, old-fashioned dirt, and other forms of lost blogger poet unhappiness. Defending himself against objections from parents, the son might say, ‘But I am not saying any of those things!’ By this he means that he is not saying any of them in audible sentences, but he is saying them nonetheless.
“The reason many parents cannot get this through to their children is that parents and children share a flawed approach to knowledge, and the children learned which from their now unhappy parents.” (My Life for Yours, p. 122)
You Think Too Much! 
Alternatively, interpreting “demeanor” is just as contingent (if not more so) on non-linguistic constituents. (Or ‘outside the boundaries of the propositional,’ as the clip somewhat inaccurately and inartfully describes it.) For instance, parents try to “teach” their kids not to engage in non-verbal behavior that allegedly “speaks” of “rebellion.” But yet how many parents try to teach themselves the underlying dynamics of “authority” that are presumed (often incorrectly) within the meaning of “rebellion”?
This is little more than a lazy way of preaching conformism…. It’s funny how some parents don’t want their kids to engage in the “latest fad” but yet encourage them to conform to what amounts to little more than a broader cultural fad, inherent w/in the relative micro-cultural framework.
I really don’t know what Paul, above, is talking about. Douglas Wilson, however, and maybe he did in another passage, would have utilized a text, such as Isaiah 3:9, speaking to a rebellious Judah, “The shew of their countenance doth witness against them; and they declare their sin as Sodom, they hide it not…” Or, Proverbs 30:17, “The eye that mocketh at his father, and despiseth to obey his mother, the ravens of the valley shall pick it out…” “And be not conformed to this world” in Romans 12:2 speaks of outward conformity to the spirit of the age (the zeitgeist); this conflicts with the living sacrifice, holy, and acceptable unto God. What about Zephaniah 1:8, where the LORD says, “I will punish the princes, and the king’s children, and all such as are clothed in strange apparel.” God punished severely those who wore worldly clothes. How could a “broader cultural fad” fit into a “micro-cultural framework?” Broad and micro are mutually exclusive. Conforming to the dress standards—clean-cut, neat, conservative, inexcessive—is not a fad; it is a holy priesthood, set apart for the Master’s use, representing Him.
Yes, the Old Testament is so filled with wisdom: perhaps we should get back to stoning to death our rebellious kids…?
The point is that what you and others call “clean-cut, neat, conservative, inexcessive” is simply part of a cultural trend (fundamentalist Christianity being the “micro-culture”), albeit ‘broader’ in time than a ‘fad’ (which is nothing more than a short “macro-cultural” trend).
These things are, I think, less about ‘rebellion’ and more about rigid control. It seems to me that history makes clear which is worse: people who are afraid of standing up to authority versus people who ‘rebel’ against it….
I hadn’t been here for a little while, so I did not notice that Paul answered me, explaining his position using philosophese, the sister of legalese, impressing with micro-culture and macro-cultural with a half twist in the lutz position. In the New Testament, Jesus said He didn’t come to destroy the law, but fulfill it, and that the greatest in His kingdom keeps the least of His commandments (Mt. 5:17-20). The Old Testament is wisdom, unlike Paul’s seat-of-the-pants attack on an Old Testament law. Paul’s rejection of God’s wisdom elevates his own opinion.
Long-haired, sloppy, liberal, inappropriate, worldly, and/or excessive represents a trend beginning at the tower of Babel that continues being embraced by the me generation.
Everything is about who gets control. God or me? One can find teaching on Scriptural dress, drawing its principles from the text of Scripture, in books dating back 400 years. That doesn’t sound like a fad, Paul. On the other hand, worldly dress moves from one fad to the next without any consideration for God’s will.