Personal convictions?

[Sudsy]

Seems pretty simple to me that when we trust the Holy Spirit to work in each believer's heart to convict them of the way they should go and keep out of His business, we can have a unity around serving the Lord and allow God to work on the image He wants the church to focus on.

I may have a personal conviction on abstaining totally from alcohol or using the Internet because these are areas I can't control and it does me more harm than good. Another Christian does not have these issues that adversely affect their serving the Lord but they also feel convicted that they need to get out and associate more with the unchurched to lead them to Christ. Why do we need to establish common grounds to make a covenant on rather than allow for the diversity that exists within the Body of Christ ?

Outside of the New Covenant, where in the NT does it tell us to create these 'church covenants' ? I can't find any. And when these covenants differ from one group to another what does this say about Christianity to the unchurched ? Perhaps a problem in the church is more a pride issue in a group's distinctiveness than it is in seeking a uniform expression of Christianity that pleases God.

I grew up in one of these distinctive church cultures, probably more conservative than many on this form if we were to compare separation and holiness practises. We didn't get into church covenants but there certainly were expected practises in what to do and what not to do. And these were folk who believed strongly on being Spirit lead. And if often amounted to judging others and how well they lived out these expectations. Is that really what Christ following is about ? Not that I get from the NT.

I have had a chance to get away from all this and have been involved in various other groups in the Body of Christ. A church that preaches the bible and allows God to work in each individual's heart and is a group that encourages each other to be involved in the ministry God gives them is a wonderful thing. God doesn't make us into a bunch of robots. God has set us free to serve Him so why agree to go back under some kind of law beyond what scripture states.

On the other hand, although I have no desire to be part of a covenanted church system, if that is how you chose to live every day unto the Lord, that is your choice. That is how I see Romans 14.

[Wade]

Part of the issue here is the “next generation” problem. Their conviction is try to make their parents happy, so they wear certain cuts of clothing to make their parents happy, which is an odd state of affairs indeed.

This legislated conformity (I don't believe it is uniformity) is a problem if this is close to the heart of it.
I'm learning as I go but I hope that I get the picture across to my children that they don't do something because it is a rule but rather because of following Christ, self denial, submission, that He may increase. And that doesn't mean so "our" church or views increase, but Christ's. When the root isn't taught, no principle will be caught, making the practice ritual and eventually become rejected.

It's like head covering I have heard many conservative Mennonites say that it is a principle... It is not because a principle is not something you can physically take off, rather head covering is a biblical application of some principles, otherwise a woman taking it off ever would be disobedience. If the principles aren't spelled out eventually the application is lost as much of Christianity has done this with things like for example gold also. And then we come to a point where Christians are saying they do follow those principles but they define them by how the world defines things like modesty and humbleness, meekness, etc. Let's put a passion in our children and others not because we want them to but because we desire to know God's heart and how He defines these things ourselves. I believe it would be easier to avoid so many strifes about externals with us if we ourselves focused on God's character and principles by knowing Him and again how He defines these things...

[Heirbyadoption]

I'm learning as I go but I hope that I get the picture across to my children that they don't do something because it is a rule but rather because of following Christ, self denial, submission, that He may increase. And that doesn't mean so "our" church or views increase, but Christ's.

The rub comes in when submission to the application becomes synonymous with submission to Christ. You wouldn't think so, but it happens subtly and from the best of intentions.

[Wayne in Maine]

Seems pretty simple to me that when we trust the Holy Spirit to work in each believer's heart to convict them of the way they should go...

Whenever I hear the suggestion that we as individuals can rely on God to speak to our hearts, or that "God knows what's in my heart", I am reminded of what God once said to Jeremiah: "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick;
who can understand it?"

[Sudsy]

Part of the issue here is the “next generation” problem. Their conviction is try to make their parents happy, so they wear certain cuts of clothing to make their parents happy, which is an odd state of affairs indeed.

This legislated conformity (I don't believe it is uniformity) is a problem if this is close to the heart of it.
I'm learning as I go but I hope that I get the picture across to my children that they don't do something because it is a rule but rather because of following Christ, self denial, submission, that He may increase. And that doesn't mean so "our" church or views increase, but Christ's. When the root isn't taught, no principle will be caught, making the practice ritual and eventually become rejected.

It's like head covering I have heard many conservative Mennonites say that it is a principle... It is not because a principle is not something you can physically take off, rather head covering is a biblical application of some principles, otherwise a woman taking it off ever would be disobedience. If the principles aren't spelled out eventually the application is lost as much of Christianity has done this with things like for example gold also. And then we come to a point where Christians are saying they do follow those principles but they define them by how the world defines things like modesty and humbleness, meekness, etc. Let's put a passion in our children and others not because we want them to but because we desire to know God's heart and how He defines these things ourselves. I believe it would be easier to avoid so many strifes about externals with us if we ourselves focused on God's character and principles by knowing Him and again how He defines these things...

I can't agree on subjects like not wearing a head covering and/or wearing gold are acts of disobedience driven by a worldly perspective. These issues to many bible scholars do have principles to be followed. For instance, take the gold issue. Looking at the context many scholars agree that in the context that this isn't saying 'don't wear gold' but rather it is saying that Christian women should not drawing attraction to themselves through gold and other adornments but rather their identification should be in their good deeds and godly spirit. There is a big difference in someone wearing a wedding ring than someone with all kinds of jewelry being worn to draw attention to themselves. So, not wearing a wedding ring is not the point. Unchurched people are not impressed to follow Christ by whether or not someone wears a wedding ring or a gold bracelet. But a godly spirit along with good deeds, well those can be very much used to create interest in Jesus.

I totally agree we should focus on God and especially what is most important to Him. We seem to have some big disagreements in Anabaptism in what God is desiring of us in representing Him.

[Heirbyadoption]

Part of the issue here is the “next generation” problem. Their conviction is try to make their parents happy, so they wear certain cuts of clothing to make their parents happy, which is an odd state of affairs indeed.

This legislated conformity (I don't believe it is uniformity) is a problem if this is close to the heart of it.
I'm learning as I go but I hope that I get the picture across to my children that they don't do something because it is a rule but rather because of following Christ, self denial, submission, that He may increase. And that doesn't mean so "our" church or views increase, but Christ's. When the root isn't taught, no principle will be caught, making the practice ritual and eventually become rejected.

It's like head covering I have heard many conservative Mennonites say that it is a principle... It is not because a principle is not something you can physically take off, rather head covering is a biblical application of some principles, otherwise a woman taking it off ever would be disobedience. If the principles aren't spelled out eventually the application is lost as much of Christianity has done this with things like for example gold also. And then we come to a point where Christians are saying they do follow those principles but they define them by how the world defines things like modesty and humbleness, meekness, etc. Let's put a passion in our children and others not because we want them to but because we desire to know God's heart and how He defines these things ourselves. I believe it would be easier to avoid so many strifes about externals with us if we ourselves focused on God's character and principles by knowing Him and again how He defines these things...

I can't agree on subjects like not wearing a head covering and/or wearing gold are acts of disobedience driven by a worldly perspective. These issues to many bible scholars do have principles to be followed. For instance, take the gold issue. Looking at the context many scholars agree that in the context that this isn't saying 'don't wear gold' but rather it is saying that Christian women should not drawing attraction to themselves through gold and other adornments but rather their identification should be in their good deeds and godly spirit.

Do I suppose correctly that you would apply the same criteria/logic to things like washing feet and greeting fellow believers with a kiss? Must the opinion of "many bible scholars" really force it down to an either/or dichotomy on these sorts things (apply the principle versus apply the literal application given)?

[Wade]

Part of the issue here is the “next generation” problem. Their conviction is try to make their parents happy, so they wear certain cuts of clothing to make their parents happy, which is an odd state of affairs indeed.

This legislated conformity (I don't believe it is uniformity) is a problem if this is close to the heart of it.
I'm learning as I go but I hope that I get the picture across to my children that they don't do something because it is a rule but rather because of following Christ, self denial, submission, that He may increase. And that doesn't mean so "our" church or views increase, but Christ's. When the root isn't taught, no principle will be caught, making the practice ritual and eventually become rejected.

It's like head covering I have heard many conservative Mennonites say that it is a principle... It is not because a principle is not something you can physically take off, rather head covering is a biblical application of some principles, otherwise a woman taking it off ever would be disobedience. If the principles aren't spelled out eventually the application is lost as much of Christianity has done this with things like for example gold also. And then we come to a point where Christians are saying they do follow those principles but they define them by how the world defines things like modesty and humbleness, meekness, etc. Let's put a passion in our children and others not because we want them to but because we desire to know God's heart and how He defines these things ourselves. I believe it would be easier to avoid so many strifes about externals with us if we ourselves focused on God's character and principles by knowing Him and again how He defines these things...

I can't agree on subjects like not wearing a head covering and/or wearing gold are acts of disobedience driven by a worldly perspective. These issues to many bible scholars do have principles to be followed. For instance, take the gold issue. Looking at the context many scholars agree that in the context that this isn't saying 'don't wear gold' but rather it is saying that Christian women should not drawing attraction to themselves through gold and other adornments but rather their identification should be in their good deeds and godly spirit. There is a big difference in someone wearing a wedding ring than someone with all kinds of jewelry being worn to draw attention to themselves. So, not wearing a wedding ring is not the point. Unchurched people are not impressed to follow Christ by whether or not someone wears a wedding ring or a gold bracelet. But a godly spirit along with good deeds, well those can be very much used to create interest in Jesus.

I totally agree we should focus on God and especially what is most important to Him. We seem to have some big disagreements in Anabaptism in what God is desiring of us in representing Him.

That's fine if it isn't the point. But if we even get the point then we are going to obey what the scripture says!
Let's do both, that is rather what I was saying.

[Sudsy]

Do I suppose correctly that you would apply the same criteria/logic to things like washing feet and greeting fellow believers with a kiss? Must the opinion of "many bible scholars" really force it down to an either/or dichotomy on these sorts things (apply the principle versus apply the literal application given)?

Yes I do think foot washing and the kiss was related to that setting and culture. The kiss I believe in our culture is a hearty handshake and at times also an embrace. Any of these gestures can be just an expected practise or a genuine expression of brotherhood. When it comes to foot washing (not required when we enter homes from walking on dirt streets), there is an attitude of a servant here that we need to retain. Instead of a once a year foot washing practise, often serve your brother in a voluntary and lowly way. Our previous MB pastor often would go around refreshing people's coffee and working in the kitchen showing he didn't regard himself better than others. All kinds of creative ways to serve one another.

I don't think the view of 'many bible scholars' needs to be our ultimate practise but we should consider why they view things as a principle and not a literal practise as it was in those days. Some see this as dodging taking Jesus and the apostles in a literal way and therefore it is considered being disobedient. Imo, some practises that our outside our cultural norms or are suspect in today's culture (i.e. men kissing men) detract from the principles Jesus was teaching.

However, if a person is allowed to have their own personal convictions and they are not a practise they must covenant to follow, then if they take these things literally, then accept their choices on how they serve the Lord. Allow for that diversity to occur and not let it interfere with fellowship.

[Heirbyadoption]

Do I suppose correctly that you would apply the same criteria/logic to things like washing feet and greeting fellow believers with a kiss? Must the opinion of "many bible scholars" really force it down to an either/or dichotomy on these sorts things (apply the principle versus apply the literal application given)?

Yes I do think foot washing and the kiss was related to that setting and culture. The kiss I believe in our culture is a hearty handshake and at times also an embrace. Any of these gestures can be just an expected practise or a genuine expression of brotherhood. When it comes to foot washing (not required when we enter homes from walking on dirt streets), there is an attitude of a servant here that we need to retain. Instead of a once a year foot washing practise, often serve your brother in a voluntary and lowly way. Our previous MB pastor often would go around refreshing people's coffee and working in the kitchen showing he didn't regard himself better than others. All kinds of creative ways to serve one another.

You DO realize you depart rather radically from historic Anabaptist Christianity in this, yes? And hence the dichotomy-creating usage of "instead"? I forget you mennos tend to only wash feet once a year... And I don't know your background, so this is a sincere question, but have you considered that the principle and the literal act might still both be relevant and not mutually exclusive, or is that simply incompatible with the view you find yourself holding?

I don't think the view of 'many bible scholars' needs to be our ultimate practise but we should consider why they view things as a principle and not a literal practise as it was in those days. Some see this as dodging taking Jesus and the apostles in a literal way and therefore it is considered being disobedient. Imo, some practises that our outside our cultural norms or are suspect in today's culture (i.e. men kissing men) detract from the principles Jesus was teaching.

However, if a person is allowed to have their own personal convictions and they are not a practise they must covenant to follow, then if they take these things literally, then accept their choices on how they serve the Lord. Allow for that diversity to occur and not let it interfere with fellowship.

I do agree with you, though, that we need to take into account why scholars view things as principles and not as literal practices. Although, it's interesting how many scholars base their work on previous scholars and can perpetuate error as easily as fact through that. If I may digress for a moment, case in point being the promotion of the Corinthian Prostitute View of the headship veiling which we find referenced in at least 5 of the study Bibles and 4 of the commentaries on the shelf in front of me now. Sorry, can't resist.

The “Corinthian Prostitute” theory, held by many Bible scholars, proposes that Paul’s teaching of the headship veiling was primarily intended to set 1st century Christian women apart from harlots, but this tantalizing little ditty did not appear on the scene (at least as far as I can find thus far, until it was presented in 1885 by T.C. Edwards. He, bless his well-meaning and sincerely-theorizing scholar's heart, offered it with no source references nor evidence, after which his hypothesis was later picked up over the next century by several other commentators and expositors, including G.G. Findlay, A.T. Robertson, Grosheide and Zodhiates, and now seems quite well established in the collective consciousness. Unfortunately, at least in the materials I have accessed, none of the aforementioned individuals quote any sources prior to Edwards, and to date, neither they nor any other evidences have actually presented anything to back up the “Corinthian prostitute” theory. Therefore, with respect to sound documentation of many Bible scholars, this theory seems to have evolved from one Bible scholar’s guess into another Bible scholar’s fact into another Bible scholar's footnote and on into many of our contemporary study Bibles and commentaries, becoming an unfortunate assumption now taken as fact by the majority of professing Christians when it was a relatively recent idea and to date has no evidence to support it. It doesn't mean they weren't sincere, dedicated Christian men, it just means they took material at face value, and people still do, to support a certain (and now in many cased, a preferred) view.

I will grant that this may not be the thread to debate the relevance of practices like the veiling, salutation, foot washing, etc, and I use study material copiously like any bibliophile, but I am also admittedly leery of placing overmuch emphasis on the opinions of Bible scholars, whether they be many or few, if it discounts a historical practice of the Church. I am open to evidence, but too often it begins with words like "it may have been" and turns into "it was." Just something to chew on...

(as another random aside, if somebody would like to pursue the Corinthian Prostitute View, and perhaps a dozen other objections to the relevance of the headship veiling, there's much more info to debunk it...)

[Bootstrap]

Whenever I hear the suggestion that we as individuals can rely on God to speak to our hearts, or that "God knows what's in my heart", I am reminded of what God once said to Jeremiah: "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick;
who can understand it?"

Sure ... but Paul also warns us to look out for false teachers and tells us to stand up to those who want certain kinds of rules and regulations, Jesus warns us against the hypocrisy of some leaders, and Ananias and Sapphyra teach us that following your husband's guidance can get you in trouble. So we can't entirely trust ourselves, our leaders, our brethren, or our spouses.

Discernment has to take that into account.

God speaks to us primarily as his gathered body, but if you look at the instructions on worship in 1 Corinthians, it starts with God speaking to us as individuals, individuals bringing what they hear to the group, and the leaders helping discern what is actually God's voice. Clearly, the Bible tells us over and over about the way God can speak to individuals, that's not a crazy unbiblical idea. But individual leading does need to be discerned by the group.