Cons. Anabaptist covering practices

[Sudsy]

Curious - have you ever looked into the OSAS arguments as presented with scriptures as in this link I gave ? In my experience I had not and grew up believing there were all kinds of things I could do that could cause me to lose my salvation. My salvation was very dependent on my performance and I lived in considerable fear that should I die with some unconfessed sin in my life that I would go to hell. Totally eternally insecure. Just saying whatever you chose to believe, I recommend you consider how the scriptures say we are secure in Him.

I feel that Jesus is not the kind of saviour who would ignore someone who never "gets saved" in the first place, but somehow gives a free pass to someone who does get saved, knows the truth, and then rejects it and chooses to live in sin and rejects the gift of grace so freely offered.

Of course, if someone doesn't believe in hell, eternal punishment, etc. that is a different discussion...

My viewing of this is that I don't believe we are perfect judges on who is saved and who is not saved. Just as the story at judgment day when people expressed to Jesus all the perceived spiritual things they did, and I don't doubt they fooled real followers, and Jesus said depart from me you workers of iniquity I never knew you. This tells me there are people who have not put their faith in what Jesus did to save them but rather are trusting in their own righteousness to save them. They may go through all the requirements of a local church and appear to us to be saved yet God alone knows their heart condition. Salvation is a matter of who we are trusting in. In Jesus and what He did to save us or in our own religious performance.

My overall view would be that saved people will be concerned about their performance as a believer because the Holy Spirit comes to live within a born again believer and that all believers will struggle with their flesh their entire lives. If they are truly saved their salvation is secure and one who is truly saved may backslide for a time and/or live in a degree of disobedience as a wayward sheep but they still belong to the Shepherd who is eagerly pursuing them to come back to the fold and restore fellowship with those who have not sought other pastures.

To me, the key issue is whether we can rightly judge others salvation or not. Some say we can, I'm not convinced of that. Some have judged me to not be saved as they think the kind of sin they believe I am living in is a sin that will not be forgiven at judgment day. And I could say something similar about them and how their sinning shows up and they will likely die with unconfessed sin too. But neither of us knows the fact of whether someone else knows God and He knows them in a saving way, imo.

I may think I have a good idea of whether they are saved or not by listening to what they think is most important to them being saved. If it is their works, their right living, their religious practises, their interest in worldly affairs, etc. then this could cast doubt in my mind that perhaps they have not been born again and are depending on their own righteousness to save them. However, they may be saved as they have a necessary faith in Jesus to save them but they still have doubt that if they sin and fall short in some area that they might lose their salvation. I don't know the heart condition of others so, imo, I should try to keep away from those judgments. If I feel concern over someone else's salvation I should pray for them and keep the focus on Jesus when I can in my conversations.

Regarding your statement that Jesus can't be giving 'a free pass to someone who does get saved, knows the truth, and then rejects it and chooses to live in sin and rejects the gift of grace so freely offered', I agree. But in the sense that this person was never born again in the first place. That, I believe, is where we basically differ. I think there very well could be emotional 'salvation' experiences some people have from all kinds of preaching and they may walk an aisle and repeat a 'sinner's prayer' and go out as lost as they came in. And also those who have been raised in churches that requires of them to live certain ways that they followed but they, too, were never actually born again. So, who is my salvation depending on ? Me or on Jesus ? I believe it is totally on Jesus and He is willing that none should perish but we all should come to repentance.

[MaxPC]

Wife: we wear a headcovering at all times because we are to pray and give thanks at all times (1 Thessalonians 5:16-18). If women are to cover their heads when praying, it therefore follows that we are to cover full time. We do not care what style it is, by the way.
YMMV.

Yes I have heard that reason before but I would think then that men should also follow the instructions for men and never wear a headcovering of any kind so they can pray and worship at any moment of the day. Scripture says - 'A man should not wear anything on his head when worshiping, for man is made in God’s image and reflects God’s glory. And woman reflects man’s glory.' 1 Cor 11:7 NLT. So, I wonder how does the Catholic church understand this text as various clergy members who are men often worship with some sort of headcovering ?

I often see men with hats on take their hat off when they pray and give thanks. Why can't women do the same and have an easy on easy off headcovering ? Seems men don't need to live by headcovering rules but women must. I'm thinking there must be some explanation for this.

Personally, when I was in the MB church and the young men did not remove their hats in worship and in prayer, it struct me as dis-honoring the Lord. Even when the national anthem is sung at all kinds of events it is expected of all men to remove their hats as a sign of respect.

Excellent thoughts and certainly worth considering. I know our priests and bishops do not wear their “hats” on a daily basis. Most priests in the USA do not wear hats at all. The bishops take off their mitre before praying the Mass.

The ceremonial mitres are just that: ceremonial, special occasion wear worn by RCC, Orthodox and some Anglican/Episcopalian personnel.

Some bishops wear a zuchetto everyday (skullcap). Some give it a miss. Before central heating it helped keep the head warm in those drafty churches. Like many things in life, a practical habit becomes tradition even when the habit may no longer serve its purpose. Still, it is a thought worth pondering, Sudsy.

[Judas Maccabeus]

Personally, I would have a problem with "unwritten" rules that are available to no one except the ministry. I do not see how one could enforce them. Secret standards create an unsolvable problem. Statements such as that lead to selective enforcement, and nothing will kill a churches confidence in leadership like that. ....
....
... I teach Middle school History and Science in a K-8 school. We are in CLP's 7th grade world history book. Just getting started in Anabaptism. Quote of the week is Dr. Baltizar Hubimaier:

"It is clear enough for him who has eyes to see it, but it is not expressed in so many words, literally: ‘do not baptize infants’. May one then baptize them? To that I answer: ‘if so I may baptize my dog or my donkey, or I may circumcise girls… bring infants to the Lord’s Supper…sell the Mass for an offering. For it is nowhere said in express words that we must not do these things."

I REALLY like this (not just the Hubmaier quote, but especially your own comment). I do think that any congregation with any kind of conduct guidelines that are not "readily apparent" should have print-outs available for anyone to pick up (even w/o asking for it). It could include a section of 'What We Believe', and then another of "How We Live'.

And it is a pet peeve of mine to see these two sections mixed together. The second one should refer to the first, but things that belong in the first should not be in the second, and vice versa. Why? Because conduct standards should be based on doctrine, but should not be presented in such a way that the reader can confuse the two. I think this happens easily when a congregation uses a statement of doctrine prepared by someone else, just saying "We ascribe to the so-and-so statement of faith", then, wanting to add other doctrinal content, they put it in their statement of the guidelines. And, of course, the other problems are the unwritten guidelines that no one ever bothered to put into writing, and the tendency to only make the written statement available when a change is being made.

In ours, the practice standard appears after the doctrinal statement that supports it. We use the 1963 confession, and place the practice issues in boldface, to set it apart. It generally follows the doctrine section it is derived from. If I was writing one from scratch, I would likely do as you suggest,, but I am not. The 1963 confession is sort of like glue that holds moderate conservatives together. I would not support changing or revising it wholesale. There are a few places where issues are addressed that did not exist in 1963. They are boldfaced as well.

[Sudsy]

Wife: we wear a headcovering at all times because we are to pray and give thanks at all times (1 Thessalonians 5:16-18). If women are to cover their heads when praying, it therefore follows that we are to cover full time. We do not care what style it is, by the way.
YMMV.

Yes I have heard that reason before but I would think then that men should also follow the instructions for men and never wear a headcovering of any kind so they can pray and worship at any moment of the day. Scripture says - 'A man should not wear anything on his head when worshiping, for man is made in God’s image and reflects God’s glory. And woman reflects man’s glory.' 1 Cor 11:7 NLT. So, I wonder how does the Catholic church understand this text as various clergy members who are men often worship with some sort of headcovering ?

I often see men with hats on take their hat off when they pray and give thanks. Why can't women do the same and have an easy on easy off headcovering ? Seems men don't need to live by headcovering rules but women must. I'm thinking there must be some explanation for this.

Personally, when I was in the MB church and the young men did not remove their hats in worship and in prayer, it struct me as dis-honoring the Lord. Even when the national anthem is sung at all kinds of events it is expected of all men to remove their hats as a sign of respect.

Excellent thoughts and certainly worth considering. I know our priests and bishops do not wear their “hats” on a daily basis. Most priests in the USA do not wear hats at all. The bishops take off their mitre before praying the Mass.

The ceremonial mitres are just that: ceremonial, special occasion wear worn by RCC, Orthodox and some Anglican/Episcopalian personnel.

Some bishops wear a zuchetto everyday (skullcap). Some give it a miss. Before central heating it helped keep the head warm in those drafty churches. Like many things in life, a practical habit becomes tradition even when the habit may no longer serve its purpose. Still, it is a thought worth pondering, Sudsy.

Another area that I have questioned before regarding prayer is that scripture indicates men should pray 'everywhere' with raised hands. 1 Timothy 2:8. In my experience this is more common in evangelical churches than other churches and why, I don't know. Seems it is a practise for men but not one followed in most Anabaptist churches as far as I know. Again, seems that women are to live by the guidelines but men are not. Why stray from this practise in both the OT and the early church of the NT ?

[Neto]

Personally, I would have a problem with "unwritten" rules that are available to no one except the ministry. I do not see how one could enforce them. Secret standards create an unsolvable problem. Statements such as that lead to selective enforcement, and nothing will kill a churches confidence in leadership like that. ....
....
... I teach Middle school History and Science in a K-8 school. We are in CLP's 7th grade world history book. Just getting started in Anabaptism. Quote of the week is Dr. Baltizar Hubimaier:

"It is clear enough for him who has eyes to see it, but it is not expressed in so many words, literally: ‘do not baptize infants’. May one then baptize them? To that I answer: ‘if so I may baptize my dog or my donkey, or I may circumcise girls… bring infants to the Lord’s Supper…sell the Mass for an offering. For it is nowhere said in express words that we must not do these things."

I REALLY like this (not just the Hubmaier quote, but especially your own comment). I do think that any congregation with any kind of conduct guidelines that are not "readily apparent" should have print-outs available for anyone to pick up (even w/o asking for it). It could include a section of 'What We Believe', and then another of "How We Live'.

And it is a pet peeve of mine to see these two sections mixed together. The second one should refer to the first, but things that belong in the first should not be in the second, and vice versa. Why? Because conduct standards should be based on doctrine, but should not be presented in such a way that the reader can confuse the two. I think this happens easily when a congregation uses a statement of doctrine prepared by someone else, just saying "We ascribe to the so-and-so statement of faith", then, wanting to add other doctrinal content, they put it in their statement of the guidelines. And, of course, the other problems are the unwritten guidelines that no one ever bothered to put into writing, and the tendency to only make the written statement available when a change is being made.

In ours, the practice standard appears after the doctrinal statement that supports it. We use the 1963 confession, and place the practice issues in boldface, to set it apart. It generally follows the doctrine section it is derived from. If I was writing one from scratch, I would likely do as you suggest,, but I am not. The 1963 confession is sort of like glue that holds moderate conservatives together. I would not support changing or revising it wholesale. There are a few places where issues are addressed that did not exist in 1963. They are boldfaced as well.

I think that if I were working on a committee to create a congregational statement of faith, I would also start with the 1963 one, for much the same reasons as you stated, but add additional sections as required. Then, in the Statement of Conduct, I would reference the applicable section in the Statement of Faith. (I actually was on such a committee, but the entire plan for a new congregation was nixed when the leadership found out that we were 'rolling the conduct statement back' to an older version. Apparently it would have been alright if we had done that later, but I had personally already been involved in one new congregation that was full of unanticipated surprises. I didn't want to go through that again, because close relationships with some of the people we went with to form that new group were damaged to the point that they remain that way to this day, more than 15 years later. That hurts.

[Heirbyadoption]

I am probably not of the same belief as others here regarding "salvation issues". I do believe there are consequences for not living as the Holy Spirit guides a believer to live but any consequence does not include the forfeit one's salvation. In that sense I lean toward a OSAS doctrine. Things that the scriptures call sin should be taken seriously as sin brings problems to a believer but not a problem of losing their salvation. This is not a belief in the Pentecostals I grew up in nor is it with some, perhaps most, Anabaptists, I'm not sure.

Thank you for clarifying, I appreciate it. And yes, you are correct, you would differ rather drastically from most conservative Anabaptists on the above...

Curious - have you ever looked into the OSAS arguments as presented with scriptures as in this link I gave? In my experience I had not and grew up believing there were all kinds of things I could do that could cause me to lose my salvation. My salvation was very dependent on my performance and I lived in considerable fear that should I die with some unconfessed sin in my life that I would go to hell. Totally eternally insecure. Just saying whatever you chose to believe, I recommend you consider how the scriptures say we are secure in Him.

Thanks for asking. I have looked into them, yes. Long and hard. I actually attended both Reformed and Baptist churches regularly during some of my younger years, and ultimately my studies brought me to several distinct conclusions, including the following:

A. I can be absolutely assured that I am in Christ.

B. In my experience, OSAS is rarely, if ever, ultimately divorced from the proposed soteriology of Augustinian Calvinism (regardless whether one leans toward single or double predestination).

C. I find OSAS (and several of the basic aspects of Augustinian/Calvinistic soteriology in general) to be at odds with a coherent reading of Scriptural soteriology and the revelation of God as Creator/Savior as revealed throughout the Scriptures.
D. There is an equally unScriptural lack of assurance among many of the Anabaptists with who I have chosen to affiliate.

E. There is often an emphasis upon (and appreciation for) the Sovereignty of God among proponents of proponents of OSAS that is sorely lacking among contemporary Christians group such as the Anabaptists, leading to or influencing the lack of assurance mentioned in D.
F. There is often an emphasis upon (and appreciation for) man's free will/ability among most historic and contemporary Anabaptists to choose to engage with the Creator/Savior in a voluntary relationship (engaged by both parties).

But neither D. nor F. seem to be remedied by capitulating to a OSAS premise that generally stems from the soteriological proposals of Augustinian Calvinism, ihmo...

All that to say, yes, I have looked into the OSAS arguments, and I have come away not only unconvinced, but even more in awe that our Creator would continually pursue and extend so much grace to men in spite of their frailty and proclivities to turn from Him. Do I live in fear of "losing" my salvation or "falling away" - absolutely not, I know Him and His grace, and there is both joy and assurance in my walk! But neither does that assurance lead me to read the Scriptures through a OSAS lens, with its required caveat that anyone who seems to have turned away could never have been in Christ in the first place... Rather, it leads me (coupled with the prompting of the Holy Spirit) to hold tighter than ever to the Cross and His grace, and to bring my failings and stumbles to Him! As I read the Scriptures, the amazing fact that He hold me securely doesn't create a conflict with the fact that He would still allow me to jump out of the boat if I so choose (for lack of a better analogy).

I can confidently say that after nearly 20 years of marriage, I am equally secure with my relationship with my wife and I have complete faith and assurance she would never leave me or cease to love me, even though it boggles me some days why she puts up with me, but that doesn't mean I couldn't file for divorce from her if I chose to quit investing and growing in my love for her... A bit simplistic, perhaps, but its the only coherent way I've been able to reconcile the security and assurance I have and experience in my walk with Jesus Christ with the Scriptures about security, responsibility, and choice.

In a nutshell, He loves me and I trust Him and love Him in return. That doesn't require a OSAS line where I'm now IN, I'm locked in, and could never get OUT if (God forbid) I were to walk away from Jesus Christ - the Scriptures explicitly demonstrate that men have done so, in spite of the semantical twistings some theologians have engaged in over the years to make them say differently.

This got longer than I intended, but I do want to say that I very much appreciate your testimony of being secure in the Lord, and I'm not looking to start an argument over it; I just don't personally find the Scriptures to support that an assurance of salvation requires an adherence to the OSAS idea, and I have also found that assurance can be taught, even among Anabaptists, without going that route. Just my two cents.

[Sudsy]

Thank you for clarifying, I appreciate it. And yes, you are correct, you would differ rather drastically from most conservative Anabaptists on the above...

Curious - have you ever looked into the OSAS arguments as presented with scriptures as in this link I gave? In my experience I had not and grew up believing there were all kinds of things I could do that could cause me to lose my salvation. My salvation was very dependent on my performance and I lived in considerable fear that should I die with some unconfessed sin in my life that I would go to hell. Totally eternally insecure. Just saying whatever you chose to believe, I recommend you consider how the scriptures say we are secure in Him.

Thanks for asking. I have looked into them, yes. Long and hard. I actually attended both Reformed and Baptist churches regularly during some of my younger years, and ultimately my studies brought me to several distinct conclusions, including the following:

A. I can be absolutely assured that I am in Christ.

B. In my experience, OSAS is rarely, if ever, ultimately divorced from the proposed soteriology of Augustinian Calvinism (regardless whether one leans toward single or double predestination).

C. I find OSAS (and several of the basic aspects of Augustinian/Calvinistic soteriology in general) to be at odds with a coherent reading of Scriptural soteriology and the revelation of God as Creator/Savior as revealed throughout the Scriptures.
D. There is an equally unScriptural lack of assurance among many of the Anabaptists with who I have chosen to affiliate.

E. There is often an emphasis upon (and appreciation for) the Sovereignty of God among proponents of proponents of OSAS that is sorely lacking among contemporary Christians group such as the Anabaptists, leading to or influencing the lack of assurance mentioned in D.
F. There is often an emphasis upon (and appreciation for) man's free will/ability among most historic and contemporary Anabaptists to choose to engage with the Creator/Savior in a voluntary relationship (engaged by both parties).

But neither D. nor F. seem to be remedied by capitulating to a OSAS premise that generally stems from the soteriological proposals of Augustinian Calvinism, ihmo...

All that to say, yes, I have looked into the OSAS arguments, and I have come away not only unconvinced, but even more in awe that our Creator would continually pursue and extend so much grace to men in spite of their frailty and proclivities to turn from Him. Do I live in fear of "losing" my salvation or "falling away" - absolutely not, I know Him and His grace, and there is both joy and assurance in my walk! But neither does that assurance lead me to read the Scriptures through a OSAS lens, with its required caveat that anyone who seems to have turned away could never have been in Christ in the first place... Rather, it leads me (coupled with the prompting of the Holy Spirit) to hold tighter than ever to the Cross and His grace, and to bring my failings and stumbles to Him! As I read the Scriptures, the amazing fact that He hold me securely doesn't create a conflict with the fact that He would still allow me to jump out of the boat if I so choose (for lack of a better analogy).

I can confidently say that after nearly 20 years of marriage, I am equally secure with my relationship with my wife and I have complete faith and assurance she would never leave me or cease to love me, even though it boggles me some days why she puts up with me, but that doesn't mean I couldn't file for divorce from her if I chose to quit investing and growing in my love for her... A bit simplistic, perhaps, but its the only coherent way I've been able to reconcile the security and assurance I have and experience in my walk with Jesus Christ with the Scriptures about security, responsibility, and choice.

In a nutshell, He loves me and I trust Him and love Him in return. That doesn't require a OSAS line where I'm now IN, I'm locked in, and could never get OUT if (God forbid) I were to walk away from Jesus Christ - the Scriptures explicitly demonstrate that men have done so, in spite of the semantical twistings some theologians have engaged in over the years to make them say differently.

This got longer than I intended, but I do want to say that I very much appreciate your testimony of being secure in the Lord, and I'm not looking to start an argument over it; I just don't personally find the Scriptures to support that an assurance of salvation requires an adherence to the OSAS idea, and I have also found that assurance can be taught, even among Anabaptists, without going that route. Just my two cents.

I appreciate your explanation on how you believe. And to be clear I am not a TULIP Calvinist in my belief either. As you indicate there are scriptures that I believe can be read to say that we never lose our ability to become 'unsaved'. And there are scriptures, that I believe, can be read to say that when one is truly born again that they will never make a choice to become 'unsaved'.

I was raised in a very insecure understanding that my salvation had much to do with my sanctification and there were all kinds of failings in my life that would cause me to lose my salvation. It wasn't a matter of me rejecting what Jesus did to save me that I would forfeit my salvation but rather my living would not be perfect enough to ultimately be saved. It seems to me the more 'conservative' Christian groups tend to believe their salvation is more dependent on them than it is on God.

I also have been around those who appeared in many ways to live like they really had been born again. They went to church faithfully as expected and acted in a way that was expected at least enough to not be kicked out of the church. However, at some point they walked away from their religious ways and it was not a period of backsliding, where they later returned to their religious ways, but rather they walked away from their beliefs about Jesus and what He did to save us.

So, where they truly born again and had received the gift of eternal life that they could give back if they changed their mind ? Or would a person born from above, although they may wander like some sheep do (me included), would be found by the Shepherd and brought back to the fellowship of the fold ? Basically I think this is where we see differently.

I believe one of the misconceptions about the doctrine of OSAS is that it will lead to “carnal Christians” who believe that since they are eternally secure they can live whatever licentious lifestyle they wish and still be saved. And this may be the case for some but I believe they misunderstand what being saved is about. When one is saved/born again they receive a new spiritual heart and can never be 'unborn'.

Well, I guess we could throw scriptures back and forth on this til the cows come home. My father, saved in Pentecostalism and his best friend, a Plymouth Brethren disagreed on OSAS and it was an area they often challenged each other about in a loving brotherly way. Although I said I'm not a 'TULIP' believer, I guess I do have a belief in the 'P'. It is good to hear that you live in the assurance of your salvation. I, too, believe we can know and not just hope that we are saved should we die today and we can get on with living as saved people.

[Elmer]

Wendell Heatwole on Headcovering Styles:
https://www.youtube.com/live/rszeee30DuI?feature=shared

[MaxPC]

... After a few trips in our early married life, I asked my wife to wear a soft scarf when she traveled. It has been a tremendous improvement for her comfort (read, lack of neck pain) and also saves wear on her traditional mesh cap (either she couldn't lay her head back, or she crunched her cap, or she had to wear it differently while she rested anyway. To the posted statement, I can only speak from our own experiences and that of other Anabaptist acquaintances in several other countries, but the use of scarves in the mission field is often far less about comfort on an airplane and more about practicality, common sense, and an greater emphasis on doctrine than on certain denominational identity markers which are so easily available and maintained in a 1st world culture and country with conveniences like consistent electricity and running water, and easy access to cleaning agents and replacement materials. Doesn't mean a nice traditional Mennonite coffee filter can't be had in the mission field, there are just several legitimate reasons not to. Then again, some feel there are stronger arguments to be made for maintaining denominationally specific styles and materials in the mission field as well, but I realize that all of that is also a thread of its own though, sorry for the bunny trail...

Perhaps Steve will create a poll about it someday (if he hasn't already ).

This explanation certainly resonates with me as being a common-sense approach to different locales and activities.

[JayP]

Max, Are you married? If so, does your wife wear a veil or other head covering at mass?