Proper expectations on unbelievers

Christian ethics and theology with an Anabaptist perspective
Neto
Posts: 4575
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 5:43 pm
Location: Holmes County, Ohio
Affiliation: Gospel Haven

Re: Proper expectations on unbelievers

Post by Neto »

[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.
Bill Rushby
Posts: 281
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2017 6:01 pm
Affiliation: Conservative Quaker

Re: Proper expectations on unbelievers

Post by Bill Rushby »

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
silentreader
Posts: 2511
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2016 9:41 pm
Affiliation: MidWest Fellowship

Re: Proper expectations on unbelievers

Post by silentreader »

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.
I think "prophesying" in its NT usage would be just as accurately translated as "proclaiming".
0 x
Noah was a conspiracy theorist...and then it began to rain.~Unknown
Joy
Posts: 1123
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2016 11:06 pm
Location: Under His wings
Affiliation: Baptist

Re: Proper expectations on unbelievers

Post by Joy »

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.
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.
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.
Bill Rushby
Posts: 281
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2017 6:01 pm
Affiliation: Conservative Quaker

Re: Proper expectations on unbelievers

Post by Bill Rushby »

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
silentreader
Posts: 2511
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2016 9:41 pm
Affiliation: MidWest Fellowship

Re: Proper expectations on unbelievers

Post by silentreader »

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???
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.
0 x
Noah was a conspiracy theorist...and then it began to rain.~Unknown
User avatar
Chris
Posts: 737
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2016 10:58 pm
Affiliation: Moderate / unaffil

Re: Proper expectations on unbelievers

Post by Chris »

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.
"Pray without ceasing"
0 x
Bill Rushby
Posts: 281
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2017 6:01 pm
Affiliation: Conservative Quaker

Re: Proper expectations on unbelievers

Post by Bill Rushby »

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!!
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 »

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.
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.

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?"
MattY
Posts: 236
Joined: Tue May 02, 2017 5:36 pm
Location: Ohio
Affiliation: Beachy
Contact:

Re: Proper expectations on unbelievers

Post by MattY »

Ernie wrote:
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.
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.

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.
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.

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
Post Reply