Would a moderate conservate Mennonite chuch (Like Beachy Amish) allow the prodigal son to be a member?

[mrbilliam]

I have not encountered this idea, either. Growing up (non-plain) we had many forms of plain people around us and I never heard anyone in the community surmise that the plain people were not married due to the lack of wedding bands. I could imagine the scenario where a new outreach was started and locals were surprised that these conservative people did not wear wedding rings. But once people learn to know them and their practice it should not be an issue. Unless, of course, they wore fancy watches or other inconsistencies that would fuel the confusion.

While "costly array" is indeed part of the Scriptures on modest attire, is not adornment equally important? As a whole, we avoid unnecessary extras. The most popular "jewelry" of my youth were simple hemp bracelets. Earrings (or nose rings for that matter) could be inexpensive, but we would not look with favor on them. Whatever extras we put on do shape our identity. My extended family members faithfully wear their wedding rings. They have commented various times that my marriage does not require a piece of metal to prove fidelity. Our life should be above reproach.

"Having a good conscience; that, whereas they speak evil of you, as of evildoers, they may be ashamed that falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ. For it is better, if the will of God be so, that ye suffer for well doing, than for evil doing." 1 Peter 3:16-17

Again, Jesus found it appropriate in his parable that the Father put a ring on the prodigal son's finger.

Mennonites are very much not in large cities, but rural and they become more known to the communities. In large cities where there are thousands of stores, garages, gas stations, etc., barely anybody knows the culture or customs of Mennonites. Men and women alike are not known to be married or not. The women probably mostly would not be approached because they would look "weird". Men may be. But the couple together with children very well could be judged as not married.

What else could be "the appearance of evil"? Us Mennonites would say "well if a single brother went inside a single lady's home frequently to repair something".... But the reality is how the world perceives the Christian. Is it so wrong to have a $10 little band of metal on a finger to tell others of your lifelong commitment. To symbolize marriage as the appropriate method of which God made for the family?

[Judas Maccabeus]

Do Christians give the appearance of evil to strangers or people they talk to some? My answer would be no.

Are you agreeing with others who have been responding in this thread or disagreeing with them by this last sentence?

I apologize, that was an error and I hit the backspace key from another sentence I typed and totally butchered the point. My answer would be YES - for clarity.

If a married Mennonite couple visited stores together, and they do not have wedding bands, strangers to the culture and customs of Mennonites would see man and woman together (often with children) and assume they are shacked up.

I doubt, and you have not addressed the fact that you misused 1 Thess 5:23. If the actual meaning of this passage is taken, the burden is on you to prove that not wearing a ring is evil. This you cannot do,

[mrbilliam]

On the question of whether moderate-conservatives should allow ring wearing folks to be a member, it might be helpful to think about what membership means to them. Moderate-conservatives functionally believe that they are an Order. They have certain practices that they want everyone who is part of their Order to follow. They don't believe that everyone needs to practice their faith the way they do. They believe that there are people who are members of The Church who are not members of their church.

What most moderate-conservatives don't do is commune with people outside of their Order or with a similar Order and many do not fully embrace people who following Jesus to the best of their ability, people who are submitting themselves to other Christians of like precious faith, but are people who haven't arrived at the same conclusions at themselves. I think this is a problem, but that is another discussion.

Indeed. We should 100% only be concerned with scriptures, and not addendums though (shouldn't we?)...

We have a clear directive towards loving our enemies, head coverings, etc. That said, it's really an insult to our intelligence to entertain brother's meetings full of grown men discussing the topic of women's shoes for an hour.

There IS a biblical directive to have communion.
There IS NOT a biblical directive to avoid a cheap wedding band (man made).

So if a cape dress wearing veiled woman and a plain dressed once married man wore $10 rings to signify their marriage, the "Order" of the church based on non-biblical values would prevent the couple from a direct order of Christ (communion) because the order itself would reign supreme over the command of Jesus.

Is this not putting a man made object (Order/idol) in front of God's will for us?

[Soloist]

Okay so Clement simply said that a wife can use a ring to adorn herself to make herself more pretty to a husband that is chaste towards her. There's a wife wearing a ring. Would your church allow it?

The context is important here to understand what Clement is actually saying

But there are circumstances in which this strictness may relaxed. For allowance must sometimes be made in favour of those women who have not been fortunate199 in falling in with chaste husbands, and adorn themselves in order to please their husbands. But let desire for the admiration of their husbands alone be proposed as their aim. I would not have them to devote themselves to personal display, but to attract their husbands by chaste love for them - a powerful and legitimate charm. But since they wish their wives to be unhappy in mind, let the latter, if they would be chaste, make it their aim to allay by degrees the irrational impulses and passions of their husbands. And they are to be gently drawn to simplicity, by gradually accustoming them to sobriety. For decency is not produced by the imposition of what is burdensome, but by the abstraction of excess. For women’s articles of luxury are to be prohibited, as things of swift wing producing unstable follies and empty delights; by which, elated and furnished with wings, they often fly away from the marriage bonds. Wherefore also women ought to dress neatly, and bind themselves around with the band of chaste modesty, lest through giddiness they slip away from the truth. It is right, then, for men to repose confidence in their wives, and commit the charge of the household to them, as they are given to be their helpers in this.

Besides, Clement has a habit of saying “this is the goal, but if you can’t, at least do this”.
We don’t recognize him as superior to Scripture. Interesting to read, perhaps better then modern commentaries but not authoritative.

In the mean time, can you explain why the father put a ring on the prodigal son's hand? If Jesus found it appropriate to symbolize this gift from the Father to the prodigal son, would your church have him remove such a ring?

What did the early church teach on this parable? What did they say the ring meant? Have you studied that?
It also gives a reference in James to a man with a gold ring.
If signet rings were still used today perhaps a discussion on this would be reasonable. Signet rings are not used though, and your argument is about a different kind of ring. It is very clear that the wedding ring does not preserve a marriage. It in the world symbolizes if someone is hard to get or available. If I don’t wear a wedding ring no one is confused as I talk about my children and my wife. No one thinks I am available as I share about my faith.
In contrast, The wedding ring seems to come off whenever someone wants to cheat. It’s like swearing an oath.

There are several parables Jesus gives that are not acceptable for the Christian. We don’t lead armies, most of us don’t build towers. Farmers do not throw seed on the walk path.
Parables teach things. If you focus on one aspect of the parable that wasn’t even the point you can come to some conclusions that are not being intended by the passage.

[Josh]

(FYI) Jews also anciently used the wedding band. There are Ante Nicean writings on the wedding band too.

Can you provide these writings?

Can we change if proven?

https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/Page:A ... 4.djvu/319

It is not surprising people who lived in Roman provinces adopted Roman pagan customs.

[mrbilliam]

Are you agreeing with others who have been responding in this thread or disagreeing with them by this last sentence?

I apologize, that was an error and I hit the backspace key from another sentence I typed and totally butchered the point. My answer would be YES - for clarity.

If a married Mennonite couple visited stores together, and they do not have wedding bands, strangers to the culture and customs of Mennonites would see man and woman together (often with children) and assume they are shacked up.

I doubt, and you have not addressed the fact that you misused 1 Thess 5:23. If the actual meaning of this passage is taken, the burden is on you to prove that not wearing a ring is evil. This you cannot do,

Don't throw out that accusation. To use an Ad hominem argument against me creates irony to your statement itself.

1 Thess 5:23 - “And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

The scripture I was using was about the "APPEARANCE OF EVIL". I did not say not wearing a ring is evil. I said it can give the appearance of evil. Thus it may be a good idea for a couple to have simple cheap $10 rings to bear witness to their marriage to those unfamiliar.

[mrbilliam]

Can you provide these writings?

Can we change if proven?

https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/Page:A ... 4.djvu/319

It is not surprising people who lived in Roman provinces adopted Roman pagan customs.

Well... it's a deep well if you want to go down there, especially when our churches have Christmas programs and Sunday "Easter". But that's another thread.

[Josh]

I believe this is one reason we Anabaptists need to be in major metropolitan areas more. If you look on churchindex.org, you'll barely see any churches in major cities that are abundantly populated with plain people. They skirt major cities or are in the countryside.

My denomination has established congregations in NYC and Phoenix and within an hour from Minneapolis, Sacramento, Tampa, Dallas, and many other places. (It is normal in a metro area to drive an hour.)

It is not practical to try to live in high cost metros though. For example, in NYC typical rent for a studio is now $3500/mo. Most of us can’t afford to spend $40k a year after tax on rent.

We do not have the street smarts or massive diversity of living amongst millions of people, integrating, or experiencing day to day judgments by the masses of people. This isn't a perfect equation, but the equation exists is true. If you frequent the corner gas station in the country (along with 9/10ths of your church), the gas station people may know you and the culture.

In the metro Cleveland, Columbus, Philly, and NYC area, people regularly visit Amish country are fairly familiar with plain people. Lancaster is also itself a sizeable city.

But if your church lives within a 20 mile radius within let's say, Atlanta, GA, then each member will visit 10 gas stations and NOBODY there basically knows what a Mennonite is, nor the culture, nor the customs.

Which is an argument to try to be part of a small, local community.

So yes, I can see isolated people in the countryside being safer from judgment, but we are also called to be missionaries. People unfamiliar to us seeing a simple wedding band would know this couple is married and stable, not shacked up with children.

Then that’s another argument not to live in the godless cities of Sodom and Gomorrah.

[Josh]

Can we change if proven?

https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/Page:A ... 4.djvu/319

It is not surprising people who lived in Roman provinces adopted Roman pagan customs.

Well... it's a deep well if you want to go down there, especially when our churches have Christmas programs and Sunday "Easter". But that's another thread.

My church doesn’t have special Easter or Christmas services, but what is wrong with remembering Jesus’ death and resurrection and celebrating Jesus’ birth?

[mrbilliam]

Okay so Clement simply said that a wife can use a ring to adorn herself to make herself more pretty to a husband that is chaste towards her. There's a wife wearing a ring. Would your church allow it?

The context is important here to understand what Clement is actually saying

But there are circumstances in which this strictness may relaxed. For allowance must sometimes be made in favour of those women who have not been fortunate199 in falling in with chaste husbands, and adorn themselves in order to please their husbands. But let desire for the admiration of their husbands alone be proposed as their aim. I would not have them to devote themselves to personal display, but to attract their husbands by chaste love for them - a powerful and legitimate charm. But since they wish their wives to be unhappy in mind, let the latter, if they would be chaste, make it their aim to allay by degrees the irrational impulses and passions of their husbands. And they are to be gently drawn to simplicity, by gradually accustoming them to sobriety. For decency is not produced by the imposition of what is burdensome, but by the abstraction of excess. For women’s articles of luxury are to be prohibited, as things of swift wing producing unstable follies and empty delights; by which, elated and furnished with wings, they often fly away from the marriage bonds. Wherefore also women ought to dress neatly, and bind themselves around with the band of chaste modesty, lest through giddiness they slip away from the truth. It is right, then, for men to repose confidence in their wives, and commit the charge of the household to them, as they are given to be their helpers in this.

Besides, Clement has a habit of saying “this is the goal, but if you can’t, at least do this”.
We don’t recognize him as superior to Scripture. Interesting to read, perhaps better then modern commentaries but not authoritative.

In the mean time, can you explain why the father put a ring on the prodigal son's hand? If Jesus found it appropriate to symbolize this gift from the Father to the prodigal son, would your church have him remove such a ring?

What did the early church teach on this parable? What did they say the ring meant? Have you studied that?
It also gives a reference in James to a man with a gold ring.
If signet rings were still used today perhaps a discussion on this would be reasonable. Signet rings are not used though, and your argument is about a different kind of ring. It is very clear that the wedding ring does not preserve a marriage. It in the world symbolizes if someone is hard to get or available. If I don’t wear a wedding ring no one is confused as I talk about my children and my wife. No one thinks I am available as I share about my faith.
In contrast, The wedding ring seems to come off whenever someone wants to cheat. It’s like swearing an oath.

There are several parables Jesus gives that are not acceptable for the Christian. We don’t lead armies, most of us don’t build towers. Farmers do not throw seed on the walk path.
Parables teach things. If you focus on one aspect of the parable that wasn’t even the point you can come to some conclusions that are not being intended by the passage.

I understand this. Totally.

Thing I believe we are missing is when an outsider is unfamiliar with the Mennonite culture. They see a man, woman, and a child in a store. Do they "know" you are married? That's a huge assumption.

It does matter, as I've personally been asked how many children I have and was responded with "all from the same woman??". Just with a humble "yes, with my wife".

People don't know Soloist. We assume they know.

The question still stands that Jesus found it completely appropriate for the prodigal son to have a ring. WE can't dismantle that just to be right.