Questions for Anabaptists: Theologically Conservative or Evangelical

[Bootstrap]

Recently there have been incidents of the LGBT+ people trying to disrupt church services or hold sexual entertainment on church property. How would your fellowship respond to these disruptions and blatant perversions?

Never encountered anything like that. I suppose the elders would decide how to handle it. Seems unlikely.

Not sure what you mean by "sexual entertainment" but our church broke away from the conference due to this stuff. To my immediate understanding, this was brewing for nearly three decades.

There have been protests and demonstrations at denominational conferences, but none of this ever filtered down to what we do in our congregation. I don't think the denomination handled this at all well.

[Josh]

Recently there have been incidents of the LGBT+ people trying to disrupt church services or hold sexual entertainment on church property. How would your fellowship respond to these disruptions and blatant perversions?

Never encountered anything like that. I suppose the elders would decide how to handle it. Seems unlikely.

Not sure what you mean by "sexual entertainment" but our church broke away from the conference due to this stuff. To my immediate understanding, this was brewing for nearly three decades.

Steve, just a question... isn't your congregation more correctly categorised as "plain"? (I.e., still has things like skirts on women, head coverings, and so forth)

[ohio jones]

How well is your Theological Conservative local church doing in having new converts to Christianity that are not of the same or similar Russian or German ethnicity in your local church ? How many per year on average ?

We currently have about a dozen who come from a nonreligious or nominal/non-practicing background. Another dozen with at least some level of non-anabaptist Christian background. Over the long haul at least one a year, but it's cyclical, and some eventually move on.

For those who consider themselves to be 'Evangelical Anabaptist' what kinds of local evangelism is your group involved in and are you getting new members that previous to this had no membership in other churches ?

Missionary dating seems to have the most productive results.

[Praxis+Theodicy]

How does your church address the symbols of headship order, including men uncovering their heads during worship gatherings, but more likely addressing the practice of women covering their heads during worship gatherings?

Some examples:

A) Discipline - Our church holds to the traditional headship order and it is written in our confession of faith and practice, and we are very serious about it. Just like a Christian engaging in unrepentant sin, a member refusing to practice this tradition would be talked to several times and eventually excommunicated.

B) Confession - Our church holds to a confession of faith and practice that affirms the need to uphold this tradition for all our members. However, it's unlikely someone would be fully disciplined for it; if they were a member in otherwise good standing, they would be talked to once or twice but not excommunicated. Most likely, they would withdraw their membership and we'd hope they would still be an informal attendee of our church.

C) Catechism - Our church teaches the importance of this apostolic tradition in our catechism/new members/discovery class, and members are encouraged to observe the symbols of headship order; however, it's not stated outright in our confession, so it is encouraged but not expected, and church discipline would not be brought to a member not practicing this.

D) Affirmation - Our teachers would affirm the traditional and simple interpretation of the passage addressing this (1 Cor 11), but only if it happened to come up in a Sunday sermon or maybe a Bible study through 1 Cor. So we teach the truth when we read that passage, but we don't include it in confession, catechism, or discipline.

E) Abandonment - We might not admit so outright, but we try to avoid talking about this practice because it is problematic and difficult to enforce in the light of modern culture. Or, perhaps, we have developed a position that forces us to understand this passage as no longer applying to our church in this time and this place. We teach that it is no longer applicable to us today, so it is ignored in our confession and catechism, and we have to argue against the practice if we are doing a study and have to contend with 1 Cor 11.

[Praxis+Theodicy]

Bonus question re: symbols of headship order.
If your church practices it to any degree, how do you interpret it?

A) The symbols of headship order need to be practice specifically during the individuals acts of praying and/or prophesying.

B) The symbols of headship order need to be practiced during the time of corporate worship ("When praying and prophesying" essentially refers to the assembling of the church body).

C) The symbols of headship order are "best practiced" as a part of daily life, i.e. men should normally wear nothing on their head, and women should normally wear a headcovering.

D) The symbols of headship order should be practiced by men uncovering their head when praying or prophesying, and by women as a part of their normal daily attire.

E) The symbols of headship order should be practiced by men uncovering their head as a part of normal daily attire, and by women mainly while praying and prophesying.

[ohio jones]

We would fall between B and C for both questions. We encourage, rather than enforce. Essentially it's a centered-set rather than bounded-set approach, though the ministers of 50 years ago wouldn't have had the vocabulary to describe it that way.

We have long-term regular attenders who haven't become members, at least in part because of this. We have some who have grown up in the church and become members, but never adopted the practice (usually this aligns with their mother's view of the issue). We also have some from unchurched or non-Anabaptist backgrounds who, perhaps not right away but eventually, begin to cover and find joy in doing so.

[Bootstrap]

How does your church address the symbols of headship order, including men uncovering their heads during worship gatherings, but more likely addressing the practice of women covering their heads during worship gatherings?

This is not directly addressed in the 1995 Confession of Faith. Some women do cover their heads, most do not. It is becoming less common than it was.

My personal take: Simple obedience to Scripture is easiest for passages of Scripture that are simple to understand. 1 Cor 11 is not, at least to me.

• What exactly does it mean to cover the head? Does long hair do it? Or putting your hair up? Or wearing a cloth head-covering?
• What does "because of the angels" mean? What does "authority over her head" mean? - "It is for this reason that a woman ought to have authority over her own head, because of the angels.
• What is meant by "it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should cover her head."
• How much of this is based on cultural references that nobody today is likely to recognize?
• Why don't we see this same instruction to other churches?

I don't mean to debate this hear, but I see a lot of complications in this passage, and I think there's room for more than one understanding. I know that people in other groups feel differently about this - we have discussed this more than once here.

[Ernie]

Essentially it's a centered-set rather than bounded-set approach, though the ministers of 50 years ago wouldn't have had the vocabulary to describe it that way.

It's the first time I heard these terms.

[Heirbyadoption]

How does your church address the symbols of headship order, including men uncovering their heads during worship gatherings, but more likely addressing the practice of women covering their heads during worship gatherings?

Some examples:

A) Discipline - Our church holds to the traditional headship order and it is written in our confession of faith and practice, and we are very serious about it. Just like a Christian engaging in unrepentant sin, a member refusing to practice this tradition would be talked to several times and eventually excommunicated.

B) Confession - Our church holds to a confession of faith and practice that affirms the need to uphold this tradition for all our members. However, it's unlikely someone would be fully disciplined for it; if they were a member in otherwise good standing, they would be talked to once or twice but not excommunicated. Most likely, they would withdraw their membership and we'd hope they would still be an informal attendee of our church.

C) Catechism - Our church teaches the importance of this apostolic tradition in our catechism/new members/discovery class, and members are encouraged to observe the symbols of headship order; however, it's not stated outright in our confession, so it is encouraged but not expected, and church discipline would not be brought to a member not practicing this.

D) Affirmation - Our teachers would affirm the traditional and simple interpretation of the passage addressing this (1 Cor 11), but only if it happened to come up in a Sunday sermon or maybe a Bible study through 1 Cor. So we teach the truth when we read that passage, but we don't include it in confession, catechism, or discipline.

E) Abandonment - We might not admit so outright, but we try to avoid talking about this practice because it is problematic and difficult to enforce in the light of modern culture. Or, perhaps, we have developed a position that forces us to understand this passage as no longer applying to our church in this time and this place. We teach that it is no longer applicable to us today, so it is ignored in our confession and catechism, and we have to argue against the practice if we are doing a study and have to contend with 1 Cor 11.

To the initial question above, A. To the subsequent bonus question, C.