Personal convictions?

General Christian Theology
User avatar
Bootstrap
Posts: 14445
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 9:59 am
Affiliation: Mennonite

Re: Personal convictions?

Post by Bootstrap »

I think we're seeing the need for grace on two fronts.

Different churches and denominations have different understandings of how to obey Scripture, and that includes groups that are very interested in being obedient. Most of this is not in the things that are emphasized in Scripture. I'm happy to serve others alongside Christians who were baptized in ways I don't think are quite right and who have a different understanding of 1 Corinthians 11 than I do.

In any given church, you have to agree on what you practice in your own fellowship. You have to decide whether your fellowship practices infant baptism or immersion only, whether to have frequent communion or infrequent, whether to wash each other's feet, etc.

Regardless, if we let these things become the acid test of Christianity, we cannot escape majoring in minors and losing track of what is central in the Gospels, the things that are repeated in every book of the New Testament and are at the heart of what Jesus did and taught.
0 x
Is it biblical? Is it Christlike? Is it loving? Is it true? How can I find out?
Heirbyadoption
Posts: 1012
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 1:57 pm
Affiliation: Brethren

Re: Personal convictions?

Post by Heirbyadoption »

Sudsy wrote:Is the head covering a personal conviction ? It sounds to me that it is a mandated practise by some and if not adhered to is an act of disobedience in following the Lord. If considered disobedience, then is it only willful disobedience if one interprets the text as required obedience by the scripture but refuses to wear one.

What if the practise of not wearing one is to keep from drawing attention to themselves like the Pharisees did with their clothes ? Some feel 'convicted' perhaps that unique clothing, like uniform types, are drawing attention to the wrong things that Jesus and Paul said should be a woman's main identifiers as a Christian woman.

Didn't want to get back on this topic but like the Pentecostals and their unknown tongues evidence of Spirit filling, many Anabaptists make this area one of their most prime topics to focus on. Our MB church leaves it up to the individual as a personal conviction not an area of disobedience.
Sudsy, since it was my comments originally (in sharing the faulty source material account) that got us back on this subject, I'll reply, but I'm going to shift your response paragraphs around just a touch in order to answer you. I think it may help me answer you, without doing any damage to your thoughts.
Didn't want to get back on this topic but like the Pentecostals and their unknown tongues evidence of Spirit filling, many Anabaptists make this area one of their most prime topics to focus on. Our MB church leaves it up to the individual as a personal conviction not an area of disobedience.
I admit it gets harped on to the detriment of other important issues, and becomes a less-than beautiful teaching very very quickly. I grieve over this fact, honestly. I submit this emphasis is due (simply as fact and not necessarily justification) in part to its immediate visibility (in opposition to broader professing Christian culture, and also to its linkage (by usage) with the concept of uniform cut/style of dress and covering in a lot of groups. And thirdly, because the Scriptures specifically commands its usage by women in general, whereas tongues is not commanded to be practiced by all, even if it is encouraged as a wonderful thing. The fundamental question here (and which leads some to let it be practiced only as personal conviction allows) is whether it was/is still relevant after the 1st century church at Corinth.

Is the head covering a personal conviction? It sounds to me that it is a mandated practice by some and if not adhered to is an act of disobedience in following the Lord. If considered disobedience, then is it only willful disobedience if one interprets the text as required obedience by the scripture but refuses to wear one.
Lester's comment touches on a point here that people kinda waffle around on so as not to create conflict sometimes (I don't mean he was): I'm not saying that women who don't cover their heads are never Christians. If they are doing it because of ignorance is one thing. But if they are doing it out of rebellion against God's command, then its a different story.
Is the head covering a matter of personal conviction? You asked "IS it", not "SHOULD it be", so I'm only going to answer that for myself at this point. After about 10 years study specifically focused on the subject (I got fed up with the endless arguments and division over it and went looking on my own), which is where the book developed from, I have come to the point that I will personally say with confidence, based upon what I have found in the text, the teaching and maintaining of the practice through history, and and additional evidences, that while we ought to have a personal conviction on the matter, no, it is too well documented and supported to be left in the nebulous area of what we contemporarily refer to as "personal conviction" rather than relevant "Biblical command." I don't think you personally are doing this, but such statements do tend to prompt the knee jerk reaction/response of assuming therefore that I'm lumping the practice of the headship veiling into the salvational issue file and anybody who doesn't cover is headed for Hades or are at least disobedient rebels.

Let's go ahead and shoot that elephant. A couple guys have gotten a bit of a start on it, but for my 2 cents, perhaps my perspective is more lenient than some are comfortable with, but why should I spank my 3 year old son when he tears the protective nets off of my berry bushes after he has been told not to, simply because he hasn't yet realized that there are beautiful berries coming in a couple months and the instructions I received are to cover the bushes with nets to protect them from the birds? Should I discipline his lack of conviction (on the instructions we have on how to specifically protect the berries) as that of a disobedient and rebellious child, or should I patiently recognize that in his life he has not yet seen or does not yet understand the purpose and effectiveness of the instructions to cover the berries? After I have explained it to him, perhaps multiple times (those of you with 3 years olds will understand this), there may come a point where we both know why the berries are to be covered, but it’s rarely immediate. In our zeal, we too easily forget our Father’s graciousness at times.

I know some of my non-veiling friends may take that analogy as arrogant. I wish they didn’t. All I’m saying is that I have come to recognize (in my interactions with many of them over the years) that A. many of my non-veiling friends base their belief and practice (as regards headship veiling) simply on what they have been taught, and sometimes from the reactions of other friends/family who have left Anabaptist (and similar churches) and dropped veiling as part of the package, and B. that they have accepted the contemporary Christian culture (most of whom have never studied the subject or accepted the (demonstrably inaccurate {yes, I said that and will back it up if you want}) interpretations and objections given by sincere contemporary teachers and study materials (refer back to the faulty source reference that started us back on veiling here, lol).

Let me ask you this. If you’re wrong, and there’s a chance that it’s actually NOT a matter of personal conviction but rather a relevant Biblical command that the children of God are asked to utilize to bring glory to Him, would that be important enough to you to want to know if somebody told you they could show you? Or does the concept of personal conviction appeal to you enough that you’d rather just take the risk of it not being relevant for the church today? I’m not interested in beating a dead horse; heaven knows there are a pile of them buried way back in MD and a few in here. But by the same token, if you or anybody are interested, I’d be willing to go through The Evidence and absolutely any Objections or Reasons not to teach and practice the headship veiling. In the end it’s a very personal decision, but for all our convictions, it seems we don’t always look at the fact. As for objections, I haven’t found one yet that holds water, but I’m always interested in considering where I may have missed something, and I’m always glad for brothers or sisters who are willing to help me see such a thing. I just put it out there if you or anybody would be interested.
What if the practice of not wearing one is to keep from drawing attention to themselves like the Pharisees did with their clothes? Some feel 'convicted' perhaps that unique clothing, like uniform types, are drawing attention to the wrong things that Jesus and Paul said should be a woman's main identifiers as a Christian woman.
I completely agree, uniform clothing can very often draw attention to the wrong things. What if? I submit to you we’re talking hypothetically here, which pales next to the common objections/reasons… I have only found 1 person in all my personal discussions that every seriously offered me this reason not to veil, and it wasn’t even her primary. However, in the end, everyone answers to God, not me. I’m simply coming to the discussion from a study that believes my convictions must square with the evidence for the relevance of the teaching. I submit to you that, when it comes to specific commands, the headship veiling gets more Scripture time than the other “main” identifiers for a Christian women. But unless we start up a thread to look at that, it’s just my word versus somebody else’s, and I’m not really anybody special that people will just assume I’m right… Hopefully I’ve answered your question somewhere in all that…? If not, I apologize for rambling.
0 x
Heirbyadoption
Posts: 1012
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 1:57 pm
Affiliation: Brethren

Re: Personal convictions?

Post by Heirbyadoption »

Hats Off wrote:Sudsy, we have been over the head covering and baptism many times on MennoDiscuss and MennoNet. You and I both know that we don't agree and aren't likely to agree on these and more topics. We obviously have our reasons for our position on both topics mentioned; I stand ready to explain if someone truly wants to know the "why" but to just go in circles is not helpful. On Sunday noon we visited in the home of Brethern friends, staunch dispensationalists and eternal security. We had a long visit, just talking about areas that we agree on but staying a reasonable distance from areas where we differ. I will do the same with JW people I meet - I know I have little chance of converting them. I suggest we do the same here. Respect and appreciate each other despite our differences and go from there. I realize there are areas where you wonder how we look at certain aspects and that is okay. But those areas that we have gone over many times, we may as well leave those dicussions for others.
What kind of Brethren have degenerated to the point of promoting Eternal Security? :oops:
0 x
Sudsy
Posts: 5859
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2017 3:32 pm
Affiliation: .

Re: Personal convictions?

Post by Sudsy »

Hats Off wrote:Sudsy, we have been over the head covering and baptism many times on MennoDiscuss and MennoNet. You and I both know that we don't agree and aren't likely to agree on these and more topics. We obviously have our reasons for our position on both topics mentioned; I stand ready to explain if someone truly wants to know the "why" but to just go in circles is not helpful. On Sunday noon we visited in the home of Brethern friends, staunch dispensationalists and eternal security. We had a long visit, just talking about areas that we agree on but staying a reasonable distance from areas where we differ. I will do the same with JW people I meet - I know I have little chance of converting them. I suggest we do the same here. Respect and appreciate each other despite our differences and go from there. I realize there are areas where you wonder how we look at certain aspects and that is okay. But those areas that we have gone over many times, we may as well leave those dicussions for others.
I thought we were trying to sort through what might be seen as a 'personal conviction' and what is a direct command that cannot be interpreted in only one way. I, too, have many friends from various belief areas and we do respect one another as we attempt to apply the scriptures in our practise. I don't mean any disrespect for those who practise their Christianity different from how I do and I certainly couldn't say like Paul to follow Christ in the way I do.

When the 'Corinthian Prostitute' theory was brought up, I took the bait to get back into this issue as it read to me as a 'put down' and some here do see the head covering as an act of disobedience and not something that can fall into the category of a personal conviction as in Romans 14.

I have gained a greater appreciation and got some clarity on how a group, such as Josh's group, treats this subject. From Lester's perspective it seems to be more a "Bible command. And I don't think we should nonchalantly just decide that it doesn't mean what it clearly says." This, I thought needed some 'push back' as other views on this are thought out views and not 'nonchalant decisions'. So, I provided those links that show how these subjects are looked at nonchalantly. However, I do agree with Lester that we should not just 'fluff off' areas that are uncomfortable for us such as 'not the way of our culture'. Some might suggest not immersing is 'fluffing off' that mode matters.

Just trying to work through this idea of a personal conviction or personal convincing in our mind versus commands that there is a no room for squirming out of. (love those dangling participles). :oops: Voting and foot washing and the holy kiss are some other areas. Are they areas of obedience today or are they personal convictions ?

As has been pointed out in the past when a thread goes in a direction we don't care to participate in any longer and/or a thread that isn't even a Kingdom concern in our view, we can bail out anytime.

I think it is hard when you are totally convinced on a subject with scriptural backing to not see it and talk about it as if it is the one and only way it can be interpreted. Sometimes it just comes out that way in our sharing. If I keep this in mind, I really don't need to defend some of the ways things appear to me to be meant.

Anyway, I have enjoyed all the input. I have learned something more.

Sorry. I have to go now but will look at the post that just is ahead of this one when I return.
0 x
Pursuing a Kingdom life in the Spirit
Heirbyadoption
Posts: 1012
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 1:57 pm
Affiliation: Brethren

Re: Personal convictions?

Post by Heirbyadoption »

Sudsy wrote:
Hats Off wrote:Sudsy, we have been over the head covering and baptism many times on MennoDiscuss and MennoNet. You and I both know that we don't agree and aren't likely to agree on these and more topics. We obviously have our reasons for our position on both topics mentioned; I stand ready to explain if someone truly wants to know the "why" but to just go in circles is not helpful. On Sunday noon we visited in the home of Brethern friends, staunch dispensationalists and eternal security. We had a long visit, just talking about areas that we agree on but staying a reasonable distance from areas where we differ. I will do the same with JW people I meet - I know I have little chance of converting them. I suggest we do the same here. Respect and appreciate each other despite our differences and go from there. I realize there are areas where you wonder how we look at certain aspects and that is okay. But those areas that we have gone over many times, we may as well leave those dicussions for others.
I thought we were trying to sort through what might be seen as a 'personal conviction' and what is a direct command that cannot be interpreted in only one way. I, too, have many friends from various belief areas and we do respect one another as we attempt to apply the scriptures in our practise. I don't mean any disrespect for those who practise their Christianity different from how I do and I certainly couldn't say like Paul to follow Christ in the way I do.

When the 'Corinthian Prostitute' theory was brought up, I took the bait to get back into this issue as it read to me as a 'put down' and some here do see the head covering as an act of disobedience and not something that can fall into the category of a personal conviction as in Romans 14.

I have gained a greater appreciation and got some clarity on how a group, such as Josh's group, treats this subject. From Lester's perspective it seems to be more a "Bible command. And I don't think we should nonchalantly just decide that it doesn't mean what it clearly says." This, I thought needed some 'push back' as other views on this are thought out views and not 'nonchalant decisions'. So, I provided those links that show how these subjects are looked at nonchalantly. However, I do agree with Lester that we should not just 'fluff off' areas that are uncomfortable for us such as 'not the way of our culture'. Some might suggest not immersing is 'fluffing off' that mode matters.

Just trying to work through this idea of a personal conviction or personal convincing in our mind versus commands that there is a no room for squirming out of. (love those dangling participles). :oops: Voting and foot washing and the holy kiss are some other areas. Are they areas of obedience today or are they personal convictions ?

As has been pointed out in the past when a thread goes in a direction we don't care to participate in any longer and/or a thread that isn't even a Kingdom concern in our view, we can bail out anytime.

I think it is hard when you are totally convinced on a subject with scriptural backing to not see it and talk about it as if it is the one and only way it can be interpreted. Sometimes it just comes out that way in our sharing. If I keep this in mind, I really don't need to defend some of the ways things appear to me to be meant.

Anyway, I have enjoyed all the input. I have learned something more.

Sorry. I have to go now but will look at the post that just is ahead of this one when I return.
That sounds like a "thanks but now thanks", but I'm not entirely sure... To put it simply, based on the text and evidence, I have actually found that it cannot be left to personal conviction. Unless we look at WHY it is or isn't a matter of personal conviction, though, that's just another dismissable statement on my part, and its irrelevant to discuss whether its even a matter of personal conviction.
0 x
User avatar
Josh
Posts: 23826
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 6:23 pm
Location: 1000' ASL
Affiliation: The church of God

Re: Personal convictions?

Post by Josh »

Heirbyadoption wrote:
Hats Off wrote:Sudsy, we have been over the head covering and baptism many times on MennoDiscuss and MennoNet. You and I both know that we don't agree and aren't likely to agree on these and more topics. We obviously have our reasons for our position on both topics mentioned; I stand ready to explain if someone truly wants to know the "why" but to just go in circles is not helpful. On Sunday noon we visited in the home of Brethern friends, staunch dispensationalists and eternal security. We had a long visit, just talking about areas that we agree on but staying a reasonable distance from areas where we differ. I will do the same with JW people I meet - I know I have little chance of converting them. I suggest we do the same here. Respect and appreciate each other despite our differences and go from there. I realize there are areas where you wonder how we look at certain aspects and that is okay. But those areas that we have gone over many times, we may as well leave those dicussions for others.
What kind of Brethren have degenerated to the point of promoting Eternal Security? :oops:
I’m going to assume Grace Brethren (who in turn have their own split these days based on how serious to be about a literal 6 day Creation)
0 x
silentreader
Posts: 2511
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2016 9:41 pm
Affiliation: MidWest Fellowship

Re: Personal convictions?

Post by silentreader »

Heirbyadoption wrote:
Hats Off wrote:Sudsy, we have been over the head covering and baptism many times on MennoDiscuss and MennoNet. You and I both know that we don't agree and aren't likely to agree on these and more topics. We obviously have our reasons for our position on both topics mentioned; I stand ready to explain if someone truly wants to know the "why" but to just go in circles is not helpful. On Sunday noon we visited in the home of Brethern friends, staunch dispensationalists and eternal security. We had a long visit, just talking about areas that we agree on but staying a reasonable distance from areas where we differ. I will do the same with JW people I meet - I know I have little chance of converting them. I suggest we do the same here. Respect and appreciate each other despite our differences and go from there. I realize there are areas where you wonder how we look at certain aspects and that is okay. But those areas that we have gone over many times, we may as well leave those dicussions for others.
What kind of Brethren have degenerated to the point of promoting Eternal Security? :oops:
I'm going to assume "Plymouth Brethern" type people.
Last edited by ohio jones on Tue Sep 15, 2020 12:41 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Plymouth Brethren split to separate thread: http://forum.mennonet.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=3195
0 x
Noah was a conspiracy theorist...and then it began to rain.~Unknown
User avatar
Josh
Posts: 23826
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 6:23 pm
Location: 1000' ASL
Affiliation: The church of God

Re: Personal convictions?

Post by Josh »

Do Darbyite Brethren promote eternal security? The last time I endured a service, the topic was on all the dangers that can cause you to lose your salvation without you even realising it...
0 x
Sudsy
Posts: 5859
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2017 3:32 pm
Affiliation: .

Re: Personal convictions?

Post by Sudsy »

Heirbyadoption wrote:
Sudsy wrote:Is the head covering a personal conviction ? It sounds to me that it is a mandated practise by some and if not adhered to is an act of disobedience in following the Lord. If considered disobedience, then is it only willful disobedience if one interprets the text as required obedience by the scripture but refuses to wear one.

What if the practise of not wearing one is to keep from drawing attention to themselves like the Pharisees did with their clothes ? Some feel 'convicted' perhaps that unique clothing, like uniform types, are drawing attention to the wrong things that Jesus and Paul said should be a woman's main identifiers as a Christian woman.

Didn't want to get back on this topic but like the Pentecostals and their unknown tongues evidence of Spirit filling, many Anabaptists make this area one of their most prime topics to focus on. Our MB church leaves it up to the individual as a personal conviction not an area of disobedience.
Sudsy, since it was my comments originally (in sharing the faulty source material account) that got us back on this subject, I'll reply, but I'm going to shift your response paragraphs around just a touch in order to answer you. I think it may help me answer you, without doing any damage to your thoughts.

I'm back from my bodily exercise and will respond in blue (hope you're not coloured blind :lol: )
Didn't want to get back on this topic but like the Pentecostals and their unknown tongues evidence of Spirit filling, many Anabaptists make this area one of their most prime topics to focus on. Our MB church leaves it up to the individual as a personal conviction not an area of disobedience.
I admit it gets harped on to the detriment of other important issues, and becomes a less-than beautiful teaching very very quickly. I grieve over this fact, honestly. I submit this emphasis is due (simply as fact and not necessarily justification) in part to its immediate visibility (in opposition to broader professing Christian culture, and also to its linkage (by usage) with the concept of uniform cut/style of dress and covering in a lot of groups. And thirdly, because the Scriptures specifically commands its usage by women in general, whereas tongues is not commanded to be practiced by all, even if it is encouraged as a wonderful thing. The fundamental question here (and which leads some to let it be practiced only as personal conviction allows) is whether it was/is still relevant after the 1st century church at Corinth.

Agree. (my underlining)
Is the head covering a personal conviction? It sounds to me that it is a mandated practice by some and if not adhered to is an act of disobedience in following the Lord. If considered disobedience, then is it only willful disobedience if one interprets the text as required obedience by the scripture but refuses to wear one.
Lester's comment touches on a point here that people kinda waffle around on so as not to create conflict sometimes (I don't mean he was): I'm not saying that women who don't cover their heads are never Christians. If they are doing it because of ignorance is one thing. But if they are doing it out of rebellion against God's command, then its a different story.
Is the head covering a matter of personal conviction? You asked "IS it", not "SHOULD it be", so I'm only going to answer that for myself at this point. After about 10 years study specifically focused on the subject (I got fed up with the endless arguments and division over it and went looking on my own), which is where the book developed from, I have come to the point that I will personally say with confidence, based upon what I have found in the text, the teaching and maintaining of the practice through history, and and additional evidences, that while we ought to have a personal conviction on the matter, no, it is too well documented and supported to be left in the nebulous area of what we contemporarily refer to as "personal conviction" rather than relevant "Biblical command." I don't think you personally are doing this, but such statements do tend to prompt the knee jerk reaction/response of assuming therefore that I'm lumping the practice of the headship veiling into the salvational issue file and anybody who doesn't cover is headed for Hades or are at least disobedient rebels.

I respect your conviction as one well thought through scripturally that it is a command.

Let's go ahead and shoot that elephant. A couple guys have gotten a bit of a start on it, but for my 2 cents, perhaps my perspective is more lenient than some are comfortable with, but why should I spank my 3 year old son when he tears the protective nets off of my berry bushes after he has been told not to, simply because he hasn't yet realized that there are beautiful berries coming in a couple months and the instructions I received are to cover the bushes with nets to protect them from the birds? Should I discipline his lack of conviction (on the instructions we have on how to specifically protect the berries) as that of a disobedient and rebellious child, or should I patiently recognize that in his life he has not yet seen or does not yet understand the purpose and effectiveness of the instructions to cover the berries? After I have explained it to him, perhaps multiple times (those of you with 3 years olds will understand this), there may come a point where we both know why the berries are to be covered, but it’s rarely immediate. In our zeal, we too easily forget our Father’s graciousness at times.

So, you are suggesting a different view on this from yours is a sign of spiritual immaturity. ;) Just kidding but others may think that while dropping the veil symbol they can still believe and live out the order of headship and that this is a more spiritually mature way of practise. Would you say those who continued as believers with the slavery system of Jesus day were immature spiritually until slavery was abolished ? Should we still stick with slaves and masters of slaves and follow how a Christian should live as one or the other ? Or should we 'roll with the culture we are in' so to speak ?

I know some of my non-veiling friends may take that analogy as arrogant. I wish they didn’t. All I’m saying is that I have come to recognize (in my interactions with many of them over the years) that A. many of my non-veiling friends base their belief and practice (as regards headship veiling) simply on what they have been taught, and sometimes from the reactions of other friends/family who have left Anabaptist (and similar churches) and dropped veiling as part of the package, and B. that they have accepted the contemporary Christian culture (most of whom have never studied the subject or accepted the (demonstrably inaccurate {yes, I said that and will back it up if you want}) interpretations and objections given by sincere contemporary teachers and study materials (refer back to the faulty source reference that started us back on veiling here, lol).

Agree. Many if not most professing Christians don't study these issues for themselves and are willing to go with who is their 'authority' on these things. Also, we tend to do what is most comfortable in our culture. I've known some people would not be immersed just because they don't want to be seen as a wet head. Or they have ugly feet and don't want anyone washing them. Or the 'holy kiss' could be viewed as a gay practise in our culture today.

Let me ask you this. If you’re wrong, and there’s a chance that it’s actually NOT a matter of personal conviction but rather a relevant Biblical command that the children of God are asked to utilize to bring glory to Him, would that be important enough to you to want to know if somebody told you they could show you? Or does the concept of personal conviction appeal to you enough that you’d rather just take the risk of it not being relevant for the church today? I’m not interested in beating a dead horse; heaven knows there are a pile of them buried way back in MD and a few in here. But by the same token, if you or anybody are interested, I’d be willing to go through The Evidence and absolutely any Objections or Reasons not to teach and practice the headship veiling. In the end it’s a very personal decision, but for all our convictions, it seems we don’t always look at the fact. As for objections, I haven’t found one yet that holds water, but I’m always interested in considering where I may have missed something, and I’m always glad for brothers or sisters who are willing to help me see such a thing. I just put it out there if you or anybody would be interested.

Personally, since I'm not a woman, I have scanned the various views on internet sites but since it doesn't involve me, I don't have much interest. It isn't a personal conviction or a command meant for me as far as I know. But if there is an area of command that applies to me I am glad to explore other views.

What concerns me is that men especially will go into so much study and argument on an area like this and don't get into areas affecting themselves as men anywhere close to this topic. When the headship order is focused on it can lead to this 'submit woman' attitude and the next command to love our wives as Christ loved the church and gave Himself for her gets little and sometimes no study. If we love our wives as Christ loves the church any wife would find submission to be an easy headship order to follow. Sadly, men throughout history, including church history if it were fully known, I believe have abused their wives with a twisted view of wife submission. I know I went through some times of doing some verbal abuse. Various forms of abuse are coming more to the surface today, which I think is about time.

What if the practice of not wearing one is to keep from drawing attention to themselves like the Pharisees did with their clothes? Some feel 'convicted' perhaps that unique clothing, like uniform types, are drawing attention to the wrong things that Jesus and Paul said should be a woman's main identifiers as a Christian woman.
I completely agree, uniform clothing can very often draw attention to the wrong things. What if? I submit to you we’re talking hypothetically here, which pales next to the common objections/reasons… I have only found 1 person in all my personal discussions that every seriously offered me this reason not to veil, and it wasn’t even her primary. However, in the end, everyone answers to God, not me. I’m simply coming to the discussion from a study that believes my convictions must square with the evidence for the relevance of the teaching. I submit to you that, when it comes to specific commands, the headship veiling gets more Scripture time than the other “main” identifiers for a Christian women. But unless we start up a thread to look at that, it’s just my word versus somebody else’s, and I’m not really anybody special that people will just assume I’m right… Hopefully I’ve answered your question somewhere in all that…? If not, I apologize for rambling.

No apology needed. I enjoy learning from others and like to challenge beliefs to determine if they hold water and what I will adopt as my own.
0 x
Pursuing a Kingdom life in the Spirit
User avatar
gcdonner
Posts: 2025
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 11:17 am
Location: Holladay, TN
Affiliation: Anabaptiluthercostal

Re: Personal convictions?

Post by gcdonner »

Hats Off wrote:As has been noted elsewhere, old order people do not normally make official statements that their way of doing things is mandated in scripture (other than issues like D/R). I will apologize to a seeker for the way we do things even while continuing to explain that "this is the way we do this." If you want to be part of our body, you will want to do this the way we do.

The one reason I like to continue with the plain suit is that it stops us from going down the road of unchecked fashion.
So with your moniker, should I expect that you don't wear hats at all? :geek:
0 x
Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed
rightly dividing the word of truth
.
Post Reply