Cons. Anabaptist covering practices

[Heirbyadoption]

I suggest you start a new thread and list the sort of things that you believe are salvation issues. That could make for an interesting discussion.

Sudsy, I'd be interested in hearing from you in the aforementioned potential thread as well. In particular, I'd be interested to hear (based on the above couple posts) whether you think a minister, congregation, church fellowship, etc should:

A. Avoid ever teaching that the Bible DOES say Christians should do or avoid certain things if they are not on the "salvation issues" list, or
B. Go ahead and teach them things the Scriptures DO teach should Christian should do or avoid, so long as such things aren't actually required or taught as being "salvation issues?"

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...

[Heirbyadoption]

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.

Could you point me to a church where women practice this?

I was thinking of what men and women do outside the church. Inside the local church when they pray and worship it would seem to me that men keeping hats off and women keeping their coverings on would be most practical. But outside the church it would seem to me that women leaving their covering on all the time in case they pray would also require men to keep their hats off in case they pray.

And some of us men actually do so, as much as possible, but its usually more out of respect to the fundamental headship and gender-testimony aspects of headcovering rather than simply boiling the instructions in 1 Cor 11 down to a "prayer covering" practice... But more to the OP and comments above, I have also been in various Slavic, Romanian, and Central American congregations where the women consistently did put scarves on as they came into worship services, and the men removed their hats; that does happen, just not so much in our rather ethnocentric North American circles...

[Sudsy]

Sudsy, I'd be interested in hearing from you in the aforementioned potential thread as well. In particular, I'd be interested to hear (based on the above couple posts) whether you think a minister, congregation, church fellowship, etc should:

A. Avoid ever teaching that the Bible DOES say Christians should do or avoid certain things if they are not on the "salvation issues" list, or
B. Go ahead and teach them things the Scriptures DO teach should Christian should do or avoid, so long as such things aren't actually required or taught as being "salvation issues?"

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.

[Josh]

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...

[Judas Maccabeus]

For some reason I have a problem with other men (those in leadership) telling women what to wear on their heads and otherwise, in the privacy of a bedroom. (I heard that PJ's on women is also forbidden) The bedroom is to be shared with a wife's husband and NO ONE else! What happens in the bedroom and what the woman (or man) wears is no business of another man, even church leaders, in my opinion. Many years ago I worked with an Eastern young lady, who was also a bride to be. The outfits she purchased at Victoria's Secret for her wedding night, certainly would not have meshed well with a covering.

I am on our church Ministry team, and I can confirm, as far as I know, it is none of our business, and never has been.

I would wonder what the proposed enforcement mechanism for this would be. I cannot fathom this. I know our statement of faith and practice inside and out, most NMB’s do, and I have never seen anything like this. Is this really in EPMC’s, or is it just some bishop making things up as they go along.

I do not know what Eastern’s statement of faith and practice really is. I would be quite interested in knowing what it actually is. I teach history and have every Lancaster conference version that has ever been published in English, I wonder exactly what the progression was from the pre split version to the current one. The details of the Mid Atlantic separation are particularly interesting.

Would you be open to a history class here on MN? Sounds intriguing.

It would not be hard to get you a copy of Eastern's standards, but that wouldn't enlighten you much. It would look like many others. Eastern relies on "Bishop statements" which are not available to the laity. I believe it is a power play. Many members have asked for copies of particularly confusing statements only to be told they are not available because they could be misconstrued.

A few true examples- a long time school teacher, in good standing of the church had her loyalty questioned because of a statement made in the classroom. One of the questions she was asked was concerning her night time covering. It was still a veil, as she had always used aside from time at Bible School where a cap style night time covering is required (the matrons will replace veils that they see). She was told that she must change or stop teaching.

A different member was called into question for using a cranial therapist for her child after raising several concerns about her immoral husband. She was told she must cease using the therapist or loose her membership [this Bishop Statement, which I heard personally years ago, has apparently been altered along the way without anything public since ministry are now using cranial therapist and recommending them to the laity...]

Another member who had made statements that were taken as being disloyal was drilled and it was discovered that they use homeopathics at times. There was a distant Bishop Statement on that so it became a test of membership. Since others knew they used homeopathics, it also required a public confession. [This one actually occurred multiple times]

So how is it enforced? Some of these horror stories get out and ladies make sure they are doing what is expected of them. It works.

These things happen all too often, while known gross sin requires vague non-shaming confessions and little if any restriction.

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. We are NMB and remember well the "book" and doing our best to comply, we really worked at it. I suppose we drove our bishop crazy with all of the questions, and my wife was very good at pointing out what was not there in writing. This lead to a revision of the church covenant to correct the omissions. It was not the rules that bothered her, it was the fact they were not where they were supposed to be. He "got" that, and was more than understanding, he had worked with NMBs before. Even if "everyone knew that" outsiders do not, and they need to if they are ever to become "insiders." In short, we typically do not operate that way, and if we did, I never would have joined. To my Pastor's credit, he gave us the "book" on our first meeting with him.

I sometimes write, and if you get "Sword and Trumpet" you have seen my articles.

As to teaching, 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."

[Josh]

The more I learn about Eastern, the more I wonder if they were inspired by the Soviets and other totalitarian societies.

[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.

[RZehr]

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.

Ours is in three sections.
1. Faith - What We Believe
2. Practice - Standards of Discipline
3. Church Government - How We Operate

As might be expected, section 2 gets the most attention.

In all my years, I think there has only been one small change in section 1. It was on baptism, a change in wording from:
“We believe the Scriptural mode for baptism is pouring, and see this as a type of the baptism of the Holy Spirit…”
Now it reads:
“We believe aScriptural mode for baptism is pouring, and see this as a type of the baptism of the Holy Spirit…”

We change two things in section 3. We put in a section that says every six years our church will review all three sections. This is in order to keep them current with what we actually believe and practice.
And we also changed the super majority vote needed to make changes from 75% to 70%.

[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.

Ours is in three sections.
1. Faith - What We Believe
2. Practice - Standards of Discipline
3. Church Government - How We Operate

As might be expected, section 2 gets the most attention.

In all my years, I think there has only been one small change in section 1. It was on baptism, a change in wording from:
“We believe the Scriptural mode for baptism is pouring, and see this as a type of the baptism of the Holy Spirit…”
Now it reads:
“We believe aScriptural mode for baptism is pouring, and see this as a type of the baptism of the Holy Spirit…”

We change two things in section 3. We put in a section that says every six years our church will review all three sections. This is in order to keep them current with what we actually believe and practice.
And we also changed the super majority vote needed to make changes from 75% to 70%.

Just curious - are there printer copies out where people can pick one up if they want?

[RZehr]

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.

Ours is in three sections.
1. Faith - What We Believe
2. Practice - Standards of Discipline
3. Church Government - How We Operate

As might be expected, section 2 gets the most attention.

In all my years, I think there has only been one small change in section 1. It was on baptism, a change in wording from:
“We believe the Scriptural mode for baptism is pouring, and see this as a type of the baptism of the Holy Spirit…”
Now it reads:
“We believe aScriptural mode for baptism is pouring, and see this as a type of the baptism of the Holy Spirit…”

We change two things in section 3. We put in a section that says every six years our church will review all three sections. This is in order to keep them current with what we actually believe and practice.
And we also changed the super majority vote needed to make changes from 75% to 70%.

Just curious - are there printer copies out where people can pick one up if they want?

I think some are in a drawer in the foyer.