Proper expectations on unbelievers
-
- Posts: 4579
- Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 5:43 pm
- Location: Holmes County, Ohio
- Affiliation: Gospel Haven
Re: Proper expectations on unbelievers
[edited: I had written a response to BuckeyeMatt, which I composed while the subsequent post had not yet been made, but not wanting to start any arguments, I have deleted that response.]
0 x
Congregation: Gospel Haven Mennonite Fellowship, Benton, Ohio (Holmes Co.) a split from Beachy-Amish Mennonite.
Personal heritage & general theological viewpoint: conservative Mennonite Brethren.
Personal heritage & general theological viewpoint: conservative Mennonite Brethren.
-
- Posts: 281
- Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2017 6:01 pm
- Affiliation: Conservative Quaker
Re: Proper expectations on unbelievers
I note that buckeyematt makes no reference to "prophesying" as a reason for Christian women wearing the covering. I don't think conservative (or other) Anabaptists know how to fit prophesying into their belief system or church practice.
0 x
-
- Posts: 2511
- Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2016 9:41 pm
- Affiliation: MidWest Fellowship
Re: Proper expectations on unbelievers
I think "prophesying" in its NT usage would be just as accurately translated as "proclaiming".Bill Rushby wrote:I note that buckeyematt makes no reference to "prophesying" as a reason for Christian women wearing the covering. I don't think conservative (or other) Anabaptists know how to fit prophesying into their belief system or church practice.
0 x
Noah was a conspiracy theorist...and then it began to rain.~Unknown
Re: Proper expectations on unbelievers
The problem with that is, if a small doily is not sufficient because it doesn't cover--hair or head, which ever interpretation--shouldn't we ladies be covering all the hair or all the head? Oh dear, I hope not the latter; it gets pretty hot here in the Sunny South.buckeyematt2 wrote:As far as the size of the covering, it shouldn't be a tiny little doily perched on top of her head (it's supposed to be a covering, which is a symbol - not a symbol of a covering, which would be a double symbol), but as long as it's "of substantial size" (the BMA wording), I think details like exact size, style, color, etc. should be matters of grace and Christian liberty, not letter of the law.
0 x
2Tim. 3:16,17 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
-
- Posts: 281
- Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2017 6:01 pm
- Affiliation: Conservative Quaker
Re: Proper expectations on unbelievers
Silent wrote: "I think "prophesying" in its NT usage would be just as accurately translated as "proclaiming"."
I think you have translated "prophesying" out of existence! Some Anabaptists have argued that "prophesying" means "preaching." Aha! Women wearing coverings are now authorized to preach???
I think you have translated "prophesying" out of existence! Some Anabaptists have argued that "prophesying" means "preaching." Aha! Women wearing coverings are now authorized to preach???
0 x
-
- Posts: 2511
- Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2016 9:41 pm
- Affiliation: MidWest Fellowship
Re: Proper expectations on unbelievers
I'm not sure that I or any other Anabaptist is translating prophesying out of existence necessarily, the word can mean revealing something hitherto unknown but it can also mean proclaiming God's revealed Word. I'm not sure which meaning is more appropriate in this passage.Bill Rushby wrote:Silent wrote: "I think "prophesying" in its NT usage would be just as accurately translated as "proclaiming"."
I think you have translated "prophesying" out of existence! Some Anabaptists have argued that "prophesying" means "preaching." Aha! Women wearing coverings are now authorized to preach???
0 x
Noah was a conspiracy theorist...and then it began to rain.~Unknown
Re: Proper expectations on unbelievers
"Pray without ceasing"Once Again wrote:It's a sin for a woman to wear her hair down? I've never heard that taught before. The only commands that I've heard in regard to women's hair is: long, covered during prayer and prophecy, not braided.
0 x
-
- Posts: 281
- Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2017 6:01 pm
- Affiliation: Conservative Quaker
Re: Proper expectations on unbelievers
Neto » Sat Jun 24, 2017 11:39 am
[edited: I had written a response to BuckeyeMatt, which I composed while the subsequent post had not yet been made, but not wanting to start any arguments, I have deleted that response.]
Neto, I appreciate your desire to avoid initiating arguments, but you leave us dangling, wondering what you were writing!! Give us a break; clue us in!!
[edited: I had written a response to BuckeyeMatt, which I composed while the subsequent post had not yet been made, but not wanting to start any arguments, I have deleted that response.]
Neto, I appreciate your desire to avoid initiating arguments, but you leave us dangling, wondering what you were writing!! Give us a break; clue us in!!
0 x
-
- Posts: 5447
- Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 2:48 pm
- Location: Central PA
- Affiliation: Anabaptist Umbrella
- Contact:
Re: Proper expectations on unbelievers
This explanation assumes a view of the Bible that I don't have, and that is that everything that is of any importance is explained in detail in the Bible.buckeyematt2 wrote:It seems to me that hair is indeed in a different category than skin. I don't see the veiling as a matter of modesty, or as a "modesty covering". Looking at 1 Corinthians 11, it seems to be connecting the veiling with prayer and the headship order. So I think descriptions like the "prayer veiling", "devotional covering", and "headship veiling" are more accurate. It is a sign of submission to God's created order of headship, and a matter of decorum as nature itself teaches, from the analogy of the hair as a natural covering (not that the hair is itself the covering - it doesn't fit with the rest of the passage, and the argument is a rhetorical argument in support of what he commanded, not a definition of the practice).
I don't think Paul meant to say that a woman's hair should be hidden and never be seen because it is her glory - that wasn't the point. His point is, again, the analogy of the hair as a natural covering, which shows that the woman wearing a veiling or covering as a symbol of headship authority is proper and decorous (and maybe even beautiful and glorious - if the woman's hair as a covering is her glory, then the veiling/covering could be seen as beautiful and glorious in a sense as well). His point is not that the hair should be covered, but that the head should be covered.
Rather I believe that the Bible is everything that God thought was important to have written down for us.
I believe there is lots of wisdom to be gained from observing the course of history and the way God created the universe to function. Many of these things may be inferred in the Bible but can't be directly extrapolated. So if we think of head-veiling as being a common custom in Tarsus where Paul grew up as well as many other areas to the East, and see Paul building on the common custom, then the only things he needs to write about are how this custom is in harmony with Christian understanding and he doesn't need to go into detail about modesty, because that was already understood in the culture.
Tertullian notes that the Corinthians got the "more than a doily" part of Paul's teaching, whereas the Christians in Egypt did not. Corinthian virgins began veiling their heads and this was not part of the oriental custom, which made this a new Christian custom.
0 x
The old woodcutter spoke again. “It is impossible to talk with you. You always draw conclusions. Life is so vast, yet you judge all of life with one page or one word. You see only a fragment. Unless you know the whole story, how can you judge?"
Re: Proper expectations on unbelievers
Hmm. Of course we can learn from history and tradition. But we shouldn't add them to Scripture or put them on the same level of authority as Scripture. (Same for reason and experience). And it's sometimes dangerous/tricky to infer things from Scripture that aren't there. (Inferring infant baptism from "household", for example). It's one thing to look at cultural background to understand Scripture, but another to add things from that culture to Scripture.Ernie wrote:This explanation assumes a view of the Bible that I don't have, and that is that everything that is of any importance is explained in detail in the Bible.buckeyematt2 wrote:It seems to me that hair is indeed in a different category than skin. I don't see the veiling as a matter of modesty, or as a "modesty covering". Looking at 1 Corinthians 11, it seems to be connecting the veiling with prayer and the headship order. So I think descriptions like the "prayer veiling", "devotional covering", and "headship veiling" are more accurate. It is a sign of submission to God's created order of headship, and a matter of decorum as nature itself teaches, from the analogy of the hair as a natural covering (not that the hair is itself the covering - it doesn't fit with the rest of the passage, and the argument is a rhetorical argument in support of what he commanded, not a definition of the practice).
I don't think Paul meant to say that a woman's hair should be hidden and never be seen because it is her glory - that wasn't the point. His point is, again, the analogy of the hair as a natural covering, which shows that the woman wearing a veiling or covering as a symbol of headship authority is proper and decorous (and maybe even beautiful and glorious - if the woman's hair as a covering is her glory, then the veiling/covering could be seen as beautiful and glorious in a sense as well). His point is not that the hair should be covered, but that the head should be covered.
Rather I believe that the Bible is everything that God thought was important to have written down for us.
I believe there is lots of wisdom to be gained from observing the course of history and the way God created the universe to function. Many of these things may be inferred in the Bible but can't be directly extrapolated. So if we think of head-veiling as being a common custom in Tarsus where Paul grew up as well as many other areas to the East, and see Paul building on the common custom, then the only things he needs to write about are how this custom is in harmony with Christian understanding and he doesn't need to go into detail about modesty, because that was already understood in the culture.
Tertullian notes that the Corinthians got the "more than a doily" part of Paul's teaching, whereas the Christians in Egypt did not. Corinthian virgins began veiling their heads and this was not part of the oriental custom, which made this a new Christian custom.
I read quickly through Tertullian's "On Prayer" and I see where he addresses the veiling of virgins, but I didn't notice a reference to Egypt or to what you might mean by "more than a doily". Was there something I missed there, or somewhere else?
0 x
Almighty, most holy God
Faithful through the ages
Almighty, most holy Lord
Glorious, almighty God
Faithful through the ages
Almighty, most holy Lord
Glorious, almighty God