Simple Questions About Head Coverings

Christian ethics and theology with an Anabaptist perspective
Josh

Re: Simple Questions About Head Coverings

Post by Josh »

I think kneeling for prayer is an excellent tradition and I'm glad it's still alive in my own church's circles.

I think it's important to understand why so many moderate conservatives abandon it: evangelicals don't do it, so why should we?
0 x
RZehr

Re: Simple Questions About Head Coverings

Post by RZehr »

:pray Does something like this qualify as lifting holy hands? If so I do practice this, just not every time.

Last night at prayer meeting, as I knelt on the floor with my upper body on the pew seat, I realized that myself and others often have our elbows on the seat and our hands lifted up to our face, either covering our face with open palms or fingers clasped together.
0 x
cmbl

Re: Simple Questions About Head Coverings

Post by cmbl »

RZehr wrote: :pray Does something like this qualify as lifting holy hands? If so I do practice this, just not every time.

Last night at prayer meeting, as I knelt on the floor with my upper body on the pew seat, I realized that myself and others often have our elbows on the seat and our hands lifted up to our face, either covering our face with open palms or fingers clasped together.
Score another one for kneeling prayer! :D
(I had actually thought of this myself, just didn't post it.)

Lifting hands aside, I agree with those who think kneeling is a good tradition.
0 x
Josh

Re: Simple Questions About Head Coverings

Post by Josh »

I think the principle behind "lift up holy hands", "kneel", etc. are good principles to put in force when praying. The specifics will vary a lot. Some people aren't physically able to kneel, for example.

Likewise, the principle of the "head covering" doesn't mean someone needs to be wearing a niqab. The principle is more important, and the specifics might end up being a partial head covering, a hair covering, and all kinds of other things. Other than the Old Testament's instructions to the Levites, the Bible tends to not be big into very specific details on how to follow its ordinances.
0 x
silentreader

Re: Simple Questions About Prayer

Post by silentreader »

ohio jones wrote:So what does "without wrath/anger and doubting/quarreling" mean and how does it relate to this context? Isn't the inward condition of the heart at least as important as the outward position of the hands? Is this something that is commanded of us (or just the men?) or can it be ignored as freely as Sudsy ignores the first part of the verse, the following verse, and this post? :)
I think that was MacArthur's focus, that the heart condition when praying is more important than the posture.
0 x
silentreader

Re: Simple Questions About Head Coverings

Post by silentreader »

KingdomBuilder wrote:Seems quite obvious that the verses discussing veiling and lifting of hands are on totally different wavelengths.
There's much authority in the instruction to veil (creation order, Angels, nature, and disgrace); we see nothing of the sort in the verses surrounding the lifting of hands.

since everyone else is saying it, allow me: im not intending to sound angry 8-)
I think with the veiling passage, we would be better off starting in the 'middle' with the creation order principle rather than at the beginning with the 'gathering to worship', since the beginning instruction is probably based on the creation order principle.
0 x
Ernie

Re: Simple Questions About Head Coverings

Post by Ernie »

Neto wrote:After I shut down last night, I thought of this other "sort of command", and I suspect that it is the same one Matt is talking about here. But I'll go ahead & open the can of worms, because it is commonly taught as an ordinance (at least in our congregation), and as a command of Scripture - "the holy kiss". The context of this "command" seems to be of a similar type as the "command" to "lift holy hands in prayer".
I think foot washing is the "other sort of command" since we are not aware that it was an early church practice. Holy kiss and lifting hands are both found in early church writings indicating this was a practice.

I don't think any of these though are on the same level as head-veiling. I put head-veiling on the same level as showing hospitality. i.e. a universal Christian custom to be practiced when practically possible
0 x
Sudsy

Re: Simple Questions About Head Coverings

Post by Sudsy »

Josh wrote:I think the principle behind "lift up holy hands", "kneel", etc. are good principles to put in force when praying. The specifics will vary a lot. Some people aren't physically able to kneel, for example.

Likewise, the principle of the "head covering" doesn't mean someone needs to be wearing a niqab. The principle is more important, and the specifics might end up being a partial head covering, a hair covering, and all kinds of other things. Other than the Old Testament's instructions to the Levites, the Bible tends to not be big into very specific details on how to follow its ordinances.
First thanks everyone, that verse on lifting hands was certainly not ignored this time. :up: Gives me different perspectives to consider. There certainly is a different line drawn among Christians, including us Anabaptists, regarding literal scripture following.

Regarding myself praying without lifted hands, I basic follow the custom in our church. However, raised Pentecostal, my habit was to lift hands in prayer as well as kneel. Every Sunday morning in the middle of the service the whole congregation would kneel to pray. I agree with Neto that postures in prayer do have an affect on my prayer attitude. Sitting affects me the least as I feel too laid back and less God honoring but that could just be me.

Using the same logic, that it is not the actual lifting of the hands as required, I would suggest that a 'hearty handshake' keeps the principle behind the "holy kiss" in tact. And besides we don't need to act out same sex inappropriate activity nowadays, do we ? :?
0 x
Josh

Re: Simple Questions About Head Coverings

Post by Josh »

Sudsy wrote:Using the same logic, that it is not the actual lifting of the hands as required, I would suggest that a 'hearty handshake' keeps the principle behind the "holy kiss" in tact. And besides we don't need to act out same sex inappropriate activity nowadays, do we ? :?
A typical Western church service has a "holy hug" with random strangers seated next to you, which I find neither holy, nor does it really serve the same purpose as "greeting one another with a holy kiss".

It remains a mystery to me why greeting one another with a holy kiss is "sex inappropriate activity" - people in Europe & the Middle East frequently greet one another, even people who are business associates and their friendship is based around that, that way. There's something weird about how prudish Americans are about this.
0 x
KingdomBuilder

Re: Simple Questions About Head Coverings

Post by KingdomBuilder »

Josh wrote:There's something weird about how prudish Americans are about this.
It's odd. No one seems to be very prudish about the rest of the sex-saturated culture.
0 x
Post Reply