Proper expectations on unbelievers

Christian ethics and theology with an Anabaptist perspective
Ernie
Posts: 5445
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 2:48 pm
Location: Central PA
Affiliation: Anabaptist Umbrella
Contact:

Re: Proper expectations on unbelievers

Post by Ernie »

I agree.

My observation is that groups who include modesty (i.e. hiding one's glory from non-family men) as one of several reasons for veiling, are the groups that continue practicing it.
Groups that try to identify the one basic reason for veiling are the ones who get caught up in the arguments and eventually discard the practice.

Rather than looking for THE one reason, I think we should be identifying all the reasons and benefits that come along with a Christian practice. (For the record, I'm not in favor of making up arbitrary reasons for doing something just so that we have more reasons for doing it.)
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?"
User avatar
Josh
Posts: 23813
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 6:23 pm
Location: 1000' ASL
Affiliation: The church of God

Re: Proper expectations on unbelievers

Post by Josh »

Ernie wrote:modesty (i.e. hiding one's glory from non-family men)
I find the idea that modesty doesn't need to be practiced around "family men" a bit disturbing. I realise this is how a lot of traditional cultures are, but that doesn't mean it's right. And that begs the question of who exactly a "family man" is; I've been in a church setting where 1/3 of the congregation is second cousins or closer.
0 x
Ernie
Posts: 5445
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 2:48 pm
Location: Central PA
Affiliation: Anabaptist Umbrella
Contact:

Re: Proper expectations on unbelievers

Post by Ernie »

Josh wrote:
Ernie wrote:modesty (i.e. hiding one's glory from non-family men)
I find the idea that modesty doesn't need to be practiced around "family men" a bit disturbing. I realise this is how a lot of traditional cultures are, but that doesn't mean it's right. And that begs the question of who exactly a "family man" is; I've been in a church setting where 1/3 of the congregation is second cousins or closer.
Dad's and brother's in most CA homes are allowed to see women's glory when women are washing/drying their hair etc. Hair is in a different category than skin IMO, but perhaps many cultures have this wrong?????
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?"
User avatar
Josh
Posts: 23813
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 6:23 pm
Location: 1000' ASL
Affiliation: The church of God

Re: Proper expectations on unbelievers

Post by Josh »

Ernie wrote:Dad's and brother's in most CA homes are allowed to see women's glory when women are washing/drying their hair etc. Hair is in a different category than skin IMO, but perhaps many cultures have this wrong?????
Or if we're all at a campground and staying up late, any of the youth guys who happened to stay up late will see this "glory" too after the sisters finish washing/drying etc. (I was rather surprised by this once I fit in well enough at church that people thought of me as "one of the family"). I don't think there's much of a concept of modesty ingrained in anyone. It's more like an article of formal attire. For the average CA woman, being unveiled for her is much as being barefoot in a grocery store would be for me; not a matter of modesty but a matter of decorum.
0 x
RZehr
Posts: 7026
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 12:42 am
Affiliation: Cons. Mennonite

Re: Proper expectations on unbelievers

Post by RZehr »

In our community, whether it is a matter of decorum or modesty would vary family to family.
0 x
Valerie
Posts: 5309
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2016 6:59 am
Location: Medina OH
Affiliation: non-denominational

Re: Proper expectations on unbelievers

Post by Valerie »

Bill Rushby wrote:When I was young, the veiling was called the "prayer covering." Prophecy was not mentioned at all; it doesn't really fit well into a conventional Anabaptist worldview. Later, the "prayer covering" was reinterpreted as the "headship covering." When I have raised questions about the disappearance of "prayer" and the complete omission of "prophecy," my questions were shunted aside as if they were irrelevant! It seems obvious to me that the interpretation of the "covering" is "evolving" (if I dare use that word on this list)!!!!" :) Perhaps "modesty covering" is the next step along the way.
I have noticed the same and wondered why it took this progression as you convey-
0 x
YorkandAdams
Posts: 120
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2017 10:12 am
Affiliation:

Re: Proper expectations on unbelievers

Post by YorkandAdams »

Valerie wrote:
Bill Rushby wrote:When I was young, the veiling was called the "prayer covering." Prophecy was not mentioned at all; it doesn't really fit well into a conventional Anabaptist worldview. Later, the "prayer covering" was reinterpreted as the "headship covering." When I have raised questions about the disappearance of "prayer" and the complete omission of "prophecy," my questions were shunted aside as if they were irrelevant! It seems obvious to me that the interpretation of the "covering" is "evolving" (if I dare use that word on this list)!!!!" :) Perhaps "modesty covering" is the next step along the way.
I have noticed the same and wondered why it took this progression as you convey-
It is almost like some people will change the meaning to justify their positions. Most of the girls in my congregations refer to it as a devotional covering. Kinda covers both the prayer and headship reasons in one word quite well.
0 x
Valerie
Posts: 5309
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2016 6:59 am
Location: Medina OH
Affiliation: non-denominational

Re: Proper expectations on unbelievers

Post by Valerie »

YorkandAdams wrote:
Valerie wrote:
Bill Rushby wrote:When I was young, the veiling was called the "prayer covering." Prophecy was not mentioned at all; it doesn't really fit well into a conventional Anabaptist worldview. Later, the "prayer covering" was reinterpreted as the "headship covering." When I have raised questions about the disappearance of "prayer" and the complete omission of "prophecy," my questions were shunted aside as if they were irrelevant! It seems obvious to me that the interpretation of the "covering" is "evolving" (if I dare use that word on this list)!!!!" :) Perhaps "modesty covering" is the next step along the way.
I have noticed the same and wondered why it took this progression as you convey-
It is almost like some people will change the meaning to justify their positions. Most of the girls in my congregations refer to it as a devotional covering. Kinda covers both the prayer and headship reasons in one word quite well.
This is probably the most accurate reason- plus I believe, as Bill Rushby brought to our attention, Apostle Paul said when women "pray & prophesy" their heads should be covered- and we read about females that prophesied in the Old & New Testaments, but who can honestly claim females to that to any extent in these days we live? When the conversation starts to focus on what Apostle Paul was really saying, it can start getting uncomfortable so there tends to be other reasons taught that are not so emphasized in the only actual passage about women covering their heads in the New Testament. Had there not have been a need to correct the Corinthian Church, it wouldn't have been in Scripture at all-
And then is "and because of the Angels"- this is another area that needs to be adequately explained to women when we use 1 Corinthians 11 to teach them about covering, and why we do this- it is not difficult for people to recognize when we are recreating explanations, or dancing around the truth when we are not sure of it ourselves, isn't that true?
0 x
MattY
Posts: 236
Joined: Tue May 02, 2017 5:36 pm
Location: Ohio
Affiliation: Beachy
Contact:

Re: Proper expectations on unbelievers

Post by MattY »

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. I'm also not comfortable with saying that a woman should be hidden because she is man's glory - the point isn't to hide her or cover her up, but to wear a covering or veiling on her head as a symbol of authority. 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.
Valerie wrote:And then is "and because of the Angels"- this is another area that needs to be adequately explained to women when we use 1 Corinthians 11 to teach them about covering, and why we do this- it is not difficult for people to recognize when we are recreating explanations, or dancing around the truth when we are not sure of it ourselves, isn't that true?
I think that verse is rather vague and somewhat hard to understand; the safest and least speculative interpretation, in context, seems to be that angels observe our worship, and when they see people in submission to God's created authority (rather than rebelling as did not only Adam and Eve, but also Satan and the angels who followed him), they see God's glory and wisdom. Sometimes, I think we have taken this verse way too far and read into it things that it doesn't say. For example: the idea that angels don't know who is a Christian and need the veiling to tell them - so they won't protect a woman who doesn't wear a veiling. (Angels do the bidding of God, and if they protect us, they are not operating independently based on what they know by themselves, but because the Holy Spirit told them who to protect). Or the idea that "angels" refers to fallen angels who would be tempted to seduce women who don't wear a veil - I don't see that concept at all here. Or the other idea related to fallen angels - that the head covering magically protects Christian women from demonic influence or possession from fallen angels. There was a whole book written on this idea (Sunset of the Western Church, by Ellis Skofield), who said that the charismatic tongues come from demons to Christian women who are uncovered, and that no woman wearing a covering had ever spoken in tongues, because the demons couldn't influence them. This is all way too much extrapolation and human interpretation.
Last edited by MattY on Sat Jun 24, 2017 10:33 am, edited 2 times in total.
0 x
Almighty, most holy God
Faithful through the ages
Almighty, most holy Lord
Glorious, almighty God
silentreader
Posts: 2511
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2016 9:41 pm
Affiliation: MidWest Fellowship

Re: Proper expectations on unbelievers

Post by silentreader »

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. I'm also not comfortable with saying that a woman should be hidden because she is man's glory - the point isn't to hide her or cover her up, but to wear a covering or veiling on her head as a symbol of authority. 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.
Valerie wrote:And then is "and because of the Angels"- this is another area that needs to be adequately explained to women when we use 1 Corinthians 11 to teach them about covering, and why we do this- it is not difficult for people to recognize when we are recreating explanations, or dancing around the truth when we are not sure of it ourselves, isn't that true?
I think that verse is rather vague and somewhat hard to understand; the safest and least speculative interpretation, in context, seems to be that angels observe our worship, and when they see people in submission to God's created authority (rather than rebelling as did not only Adam and Eve, but also Satan and the angels who followed him), they see God's glory and wisdom. Sometimes, I think we have taken this verse way too far and read into it things that it doesn't say. For example: the idea that angels don't know who is a Christian and need the veiling to tell them - so they won't protect a woman who doesn't wear a veiling. (Angels do the bidding of God, and if they protect us, they are not operating independently based on what they know by themselves, but because the Holy Spirit told them who to protect). Or the idea that "angels" refers to fallen angels who would be tempted to seduce women who don't wear a veil - I don't see that concept at all here. Or the other idea related to fallen angels - that the head covering magically protects Christian women from demonic influence or possession from fallen angels. There was a whole book written on this idea (Sunset of the Western Church, by Ellis Skofield), who said that the charismatic tongues come from demons to Christian women who are uncovered, and that no woman wearing a covering had ever spoken in tongues, because the demons couldn't influence them. This is all way too much extrapolation and human interpretation.
A couple of brief comments if I may, I agree with your 'safest and least speculative interpretation' on the angels.
On the hair and the head, we need to not lose sight of the fact that Paul addressed both.
A woman's hair was given her for a covering, and this quite possibly is mostly as a covering for her head. But God created this 'hair covering' as a glory to her, so in the proper creation order of things, she should veil that glory at least to the extent that it does not draw glory to herself as a person, because that is not according to God's order.
0 x
Noah was a conspiracy theorist...and then it began to rain.~Unknown
Post Reply