Three Questions For You

[GoodGirl]

So, I have youth now & need to be on my toes.

I have three questions, and I hope it’s okay to post them all in one thread.

1) Did women ‘double-covering’ start before there was proper underwear available? So now modern day bras do the job? And so now the extra layer is unnecessary?

2) Shouldn’t we drink wine at communion/love feast, and not juice? Because juice is sweet, and the cup is supposed to be bitter, like wine?

3) Think this one was in a Ziggy cartoon: Shouldn’t people try a plant God created (cannabis) before taking a whole bunch of man-made medicines for sleep or stress or whatever?


No pot-stirring. Just preface every question with, “Hey Mom…?” if that helps.

I don’t have strong feeling on these things in general, and I lean more towards personal choice/conviction the older I get & the more I see.

I know what we talked about here in our house, but wondered what other’s thoughts were, for future talks.

For the record, we do attend a pretty conservative anabaptist church, wear the covering, cape dresses, use juice, etc. And I’m not a boat-rocker. Just a conservative anabaptist mom with a bunch of children/youth.

[Josh]

1) Did women ‘double-covering’ start before there was proper underwear available? So now modern day bras do the job? And so now the extra layer is unnecessary?

My particular group never did the cape dress thing, neither in Europe nor in present day America.

Given the general state of nakedness I see in the outside world (including in ostensibly "Christian" circles), I am hesitant to criticise those plain people who do choose to have the cape dress.

Amongst moderate conservatives who do wear cape dresses, it seems a popular fashion choice for girls and women to layer on perhaps an Under Armour T-shirt and then perhaps a hoodie or a sweater overtop of that. Nobody is saying 5 or 6 layers are necessary yet some do it by choice.

2) Shouldn’t we drink wine at communion/love feast, and not juice? Because juice is sweet, and the cup is supposed to be bitter, like wine?

The German Baptist Brethren feel that way. The rest of us who were influenced by the Holiness and Church of God movements transitioned to grape juice after choosing to believe that even one drop of alcohol could lead to sin.

3) Think this one was in a Ziggy cartoon: Shouldn’t people try a plant God created (cannabis) before taking a whole bunch of man-made medicines for sleep or stress or whatever?

I have spent about half of my life around people who enjoyed a variety of plants and funguses God created, ranging from the coca leaf to various mushrooms to poppies to cannabis to tobacco. My experience is that since the fall, many of the plants God originally created to be good are now poisonous. The Christian would do well to be sober minded and to be cautious about learning the dangers of various substances - including medical marijuana and the pills available at the pharmacist's counter.

Marijuana in particular is not a good choice for young people under the age of 25 or so, especially in the modern strains that have very high concentrations of THC. It seems to induce mental illness. If someone is going to use marijuana, I hope they will wait until they're 30 or so and then stick to the old fashioned stuff.

I don’t have strong feeling on these things in general, and I lean more towards personal choice/conviction the older I get & the more I see.

Interestingly, I lean more away from personal choice and personal conviction the older I get. I believe there is wisdom in me listening to my elders and to the judgment of my brethren. By setting my own personal will aside, I have learned quite a few things about how Jesus actually wants me to live and speak.

For the record, we do attend a pretty conservative anabaptist church, wear the covering, cape dresses, use juice, etc. And I’m not a boat-rocker. Just a conservative anabaptist mom with a bunch of children/youth.

A bit of perspective from someone who also attends a "pretty conservative Anabaptist church", although we don't have cape dresses. The world just gets worse and worse out there. We take so many things for granted inside our circles that even Christians outside the conservative/plain Anabaptist world no longer have. Things like... even having a youth group. Having a bunch of children/youth around. Families that are still together. Adult children who are still in the faith. Families that don't have endless feuds and squabbles. The pain of divorce, remarriage, and "blended families". The scourge of alcoholism and drug addiction. The list goes on and on.

And I count this all nothing except that we should seek Christ, to serve him and worship him, and to share his good news with those who have ears to hear it. But when we really commit to following Jesus' words, we end up creating a little outpost of his kingdom on earth: "And an highway shall be there, and a way, and it shall be called The way of holiness; the unclean shall not pass over it; but it shall be for those: the wayfaring men, though fools, shall not err therein."

[GoodGirl]

Thank you! Those are really thoughtful answers!

[JayP]

I noticed folks stayed away from the wine issue. I was a wine drinker, in moderation with the appropriate food pairing before and after leaving the Mennonites.

And in the interest of supporting the brotherhood I equally was fine with no wine while there nor made any issue of it
While sympathetic to the argument of keeping a liquor free environment and society to help protect the weaker brother, no one can really offer a proper FACTUAL or REALISTIC argument why they use grape juice for communion. I have to say, it bothered me watching people tie themselves up in logical knots trying to justify it. The arguments were silly and damaging.

I particularly rolled my eyes at the combo argument that frescos in the Rome catacombs show women in cape dresses and our style coverings, and that the “wine” used in bible times was not alcoholic.

Really, referencing Jesus’ miracle at Cana and the first wine and the later wine did not directly address the alcoholic nature of wine? Or the admonitions against drunkenness? What drink do there refer to? Did someone drop a case of Bud Light by the side of the road?

It is fine to make some rules on the basis of they work, or are beneficial. Scripture does not have to detail every practice. If a practice helps achieve a scriptural end, the practice is still scriptural.

[Soloist]

I noticed folks stayed away from the wine issue. I was a wine drinker, in moderation with the appropriate food pairing before and after leaving the Mennonites.

And in the interest of supporting the brotherhood I equally was fine with no wine while there nor made any issue of it
While sympathetic to the argument of keeping a liquor free environment and society to help protect the weaker brother, no one can really offer a proper FACTUAL or REALISTIC argument why they use grape juice for communion. I have to say, it bothered me watching people tie themselves up in logical knots trying to justify it. The arguments were silly and damaging.

I particularly rolled my eyes at the combo argument that frescos in the Rome catacombs show women in cape dresses and our style coverings, and that the “wine” used in bible times was not alcoholic.

Really, referencing Jesus’ miracle at Cana and the first wine and the later wine did not directly address the alcoholic nature of wine? Or the admonitions against drunkenness? What drink do there refer to? Did someone drop a case of Bud Light by the side of the road?

It is fine to make some rules on the basis of they work, or are beneficial. Scripture does not have to detail every practice. If a practice helps achieve a scriptural end, the practice is still scriptural.

I feel the arguments that wine isn’t wine is really foolish.
One argument though is that if you drink enough grape juice, you can get drunk. Of course being a medical emergency is beside the point.
The argument about the weaker brother I can accept but in my experience the Mennonites don’t tolerate the weaker brother asking for any help. Oh my eating meat in front of you causes you to stumble? I’m sorry, I like beef.
You struggle with coffee addiction? Well maybe you should avoid our shared meals.
How dare you ask me to have my wife wear longer dresses!

(Note, these are hypotheticals) my experience is that they basically view a weaker brother as holding the church hostage if they gave in.

[Soloist]

So, I have youth now & need to be on my toes.

I have three questions, and I hope it’s okay to post them all in one thread.

1) Did women ‘double-covering’ start before there was proper underwear available? So now modern day bras do the job? And so now the extra layer is unnecessary?

I have no idea but I would say I appreciate the modesty from hiding the shape. So if shape is the issue I would say the modern underwear doesn’t change that. If it wasn’t the shape, then why would a second layer change anything?
We used to go to a church that had a young lady who wore a shirt under her dress for the double covering. We kind of felt like that missed the point but her parents were fine with that application. As far as I know, no one ever addressed it.

2) Shouldn’t we drink wine at communion/love feast, and not juice? Because juice is sweet, and the cup is supposed to be bitter, like wine?

Why is it supposed to be bitter?

3) Think this one was in a Ziggy cartoon: Shouldn’t people try a plant God created (cannabis) before taking a whole bunch of man-made medicines for sleep or stress or whatever?

Drugs that alter our mental state should be a problem.

[mike]

I noticed folks stayed away from the wine issue. I was a wine drinker, in moderation with the appropriate food pairing before and after leaving the Mennonites.

And in the interest of supporting the brotherhood I equally was fine with no wine while there nor made any issue of it
While sympathetic to the argument of keeping a liquor free environment and society to help protect the weaker brother, no one can really offer a proper FACTUAL or REALISTIC argument why they use grape juice for communion. I have to say, it bothered me watching people tie themselves up in logical knots trying to justify it. The arguments were silly and damaging.

I particularly rolled my eyes at the combo argument that frescos in the Rome catacombs show women in cape dresses and our style coverings, and that the “wine” used in bible times was not alcoholic.

Really, referencing Jesus’ miracle at Cana and the first wine and the later wine did not directly address the alcoholic nature of wine? Or the admonitions against drunkenness? What drink do there refer to? Did someone drop a case of Bud Light by the side of the road?

It is fine to make some rules on the basis of they work, or are beneficial. Scripture does not have to detail every practice. If a practice helps achieve a scriptural end, the practice is still scriptural.

I agree with you on all points. There is no biblical prohibition of alcoholic drinks, but strong warnings about their use, and there is certainly no case to be made that wine wasn't really wine. The only basis for forbidding all alcoholic drinks is utility or the common good, because it obviously helps to avoid its misuse. There are plenty of stories of alcohol use and abuse in Anabaptist churches that don't forbid it, such as the Amish and the Hutterites. It makes sense in a way to just avoid all of that by not using it at all. Still, that's about the only defense there is for prohibition.

The last time I had wine was at an Old Order Mennonite wedding where they traditionally pass out shot glasses along with cookies prior to ushering everyone in for the service. I don't see a problem with that, but the fact is, there has been the occasional story of alcohol use/abuse in those groups. One recent somewhat humorous instance was some Weaverland Conference youth apparently bringing some suds to a volleyball game at an Old Order youth gathering. It was reported to our local state police, who responded and gave the ones who brought the beer a citation, and gave the what for to a few others who were sassy with them, and then proceeded to join in the volleyball. Some of my employees were present, and as we have often have state troopers who show up for lunch at my business, the troopers made sure to tease them about it the next day at work. It was a pretty embarrassing incident for the parents who hosted the gathering I am sure.

However my parents have stories from their young Amish days when it was far worse than embarrassing or funny. People dying from alcohol poisoning, crimes committed while under the influence, and all of that. We have to remember the rules against all alcohol were often a reaction to things like that. I don't think the absolute prohibition is entirely necessary or completely biblical but it is understandable.

[Joy]

Wine is a mocker. [Prov. 20:1a]

[Sudsy]

So, I have youth now & need to be on my toes.

I have three questions, and I hope it’s okay to post them all in one thread.

1) Did women ‘double-covering’ start before there was proper underwear available? So now modern day bras do the job? And so now the extra layer is unnecessary?

2) Shouldn’t we drink wine at communion/love feast, and not juice? Because juice is sweet, and the cup is supposed to be bitter, like wine?

3) Think this one was in a Ziggy cartoon: Shouldn’t people try a plant God created (cannabis) before taking a whole bunch of man-made medicines for sleep or stress or whatever?


No pot-stirring. Just preface every question with, “Hey Mom…?” if that helps.

I don’t have strong feeling on these things in general, and I lean more towards personal choice/conviction the older I get & the more I see.

I know what we talked about here in our house, but wondered what other’s thoughts were, for future talks.

For the record, we do attend a pretty conservative anabaptist church, wear the covering, cape dresses, use juice, etc. And I’m not a boat-rocker. Just a conservative anabaptist mom with a bunch of children/youth.

To what I underlined - Me too. The following is not suggested 'for future talks' by your family but rather just sharing some thoughts with you on my understanding and experience with personal convictions.

The older I get the more I realize how Christianity has created all kinds of practises based on someone's personal convictions and understandings of scripture and they get a following for all sorts of local fellowship rules requiring their members to adhere to. IMO, if we would major to focus on being personally lead by the Holy Spirit and seek to know His guidance and allow for His personal growth in one another, I believe we would be more like the Church God desires.

This does not mean ignoring scriptures that spell out certain sinning explicitly and we should encourage one another to take these seriously and repent. But all this believe exactly as we do or we can't break bread together are, I believe, often just acts of the flesh, the old man. And has resulted in many, many church splits that were caused by the fleshly nature that deceives many to think these ways are more godly. Too many sheep being lead by fleshly deceived, proud leaders rather than being lead by the voice of the true Shepherd who speaks to us by His Spirit.

The whole idea that a newborn Christian needs to follow local church rules and practises, and often without questioning them, seems to me to be a major flaw in the concept of growing spiritually. Spiritual growth takes a lifetime of learning as the Spirit guides us as each of us is able to understand and obey Him. There may be some things a new born Christian will learn and practise before an older saint learns and practises these things as we all have our areas of rebellion in our flesh. Some may be living under church rules and have never experienced the personal guidance of the Spirit. Perhaps being guided by the Spirit personally is more discouraged than encouraged.

I don't understand heaven to be a place with all this segregation of Christians that we have here. Why not have a little heaven on earth now and learn to accept that 'we all see through a glass darkly' and all of us 'only know in part'. Learn to get along as His children. And I need this as much as anyone.

[steve-in-kville]

So, I have youth now & need to be on my toes.

I have three questions, and I hope it’s okay to post them all in one thread.

1) Did women ‘double-covering’ start before there was proper underwear available? So now modern day bras do the job? And so now the extra layer is unnecessary?

Please ladies, wear a bra. I don't care how small you think your sweater puppies are, I've seen enough at our local Walmart that it should be a legal requirement. Just sayin'.