Do Anabaptists "own" the women's headcovering?

[Valerie]

Yes it does "identify". When we attend the various and a Baptist held benefit auctions in Holmes county ohio, it's gotten pretty easy for me to identify the different sex of anabaptist by head covering and dress, from old order Amish, to Old order Amish from Pennsylvania versus ohio, to Holdeman (rate to see them at auctiona), to German Baptists, etc.

You meant "different sects" right?

I was assuming this was auto-correct at its finest when you typed that!

It is rather ironic, but yes i meant sects. Im here to make everyone else feel better about themselves

I started covering my head I think about 10 years ago, at first I was uncomfortable about showing up in anabaptist areas since I didn't fit a particular dress code and I didn't want to offend anyone but what I found was it seemed I sense and appreciation from anabaptist women even though I didn't have the appearance of any particular group.

[Neto]

We haven't had a proper headcovering thread in a while and this subject has been on my mind as of late.

Do we as Anabaptists feel like the concept of the woman's headcovering is exclusive to us and us alone? Like if another woman who professes to be a Christian, yet not among our circles, but chooses to wear a covering for corporate worship, what is our attitude toward her? Is she not "doing it right"?

I have no agenda here. Just trying to encourage some discussion.

Just looking at this thread for the first time, and haven't read any further than the first (opening) post. But what came to mind was how the disciples told Jesus that when they found someone casting out demons in Jesus' name, they tried to make them stop, because "they were not one of us".

Edit to add: I first heard it taught by a Jewish Christian who was an ordained minister in the C & MA (and my theology professor).

[Heirbyadoption]

We haven't had a proper headcovering thread in a while and this subject has been on my mind as of late.

Do we as Anabaptists feel like the concept of the woman's headcovering is exclusive to us and us alone? Like if another woman who professes to be a Christian, yet not among our circles, but chooses to wear a covering for corporate worship, what is our attitude toward her? Is she not "doing it right"?

I have no agenda here. Just trying to encourage some discussion.

Was going to watch from afar. Can't resist, I guess...

Something I have observed among the various Anabaptist and Brethren groups I'm acquainted with, especially across the more conservative/Plain/OO circles, is that when more often than not, when young women move out of said groups, and especially outside of Plain circles, the vast majority drop the covering (either immediately or in stages) rather quickly, and certainly by a second generation. The few I've talked to on the subject (who were comfortable enough to do so) seem to reveal a rather widespread assumption among them that wearing a covering was indeed a "Plain" or "Anabaptist" tradition, much more than a relevant Biblical practice, or at least they were rejecting it as part of the cultural or denominational parcel.

Ergo, it makes sense that they would tend to move away from it or pitch it altogether, when it is so interconnected with Plain culture and specifically with group identity, even though Anabaptists might not articulate (or even think of themselves) as "owning" the woman's covering? The other factor is the cultural isolation (deliberate or incidental) of many Plain Anabaptists, similarly re-inforcing the idea of head covering as an Anabaptist or at least "Plain" thing... So to the OP, I would say at least a partial Yes, whilst recognizing it as incidental, or by default of not clearly teaching it as a fundamentally Scriptural practice, or even by default of not mingling with other non-Anabaptists who share the practice.

[Heirbyadoption]

To another note in the discussion, I live in Franklin County, PA, and if I put my mind to it, I can generally pick out both kinds of River Brethren, the different conservative (now-ex) Church of the Brethren folks, Holdemans, Bible Brethren, Dunkard Brethren, Joe Wengers, OO Amish, BMA folks, the Hornings, the Wash Cos, the Easterns, the Nationwides (Pilgrim, MidAtlantic, Keystone, and Cumberland Valley tend to get a bit fuzzy there), the home churchers and some Independent Brethren, the OGBB Old Conference folks, the OGBB New Conference folks (the 300-400 recent OGBB OC breakaways still look like the OCs for now), and there are a few others I just pick out because we're acquainted. That's just within 20-30 minutes of my house. I realize everybody has a different opinion on the subject, but laying aside the general question of conservative/Plain dress for a moment, the recognizability of so many distinct groups is somewhere between shame-worthy and absolutely appalling. And that's from a guy who has only lived in this particular sardine can for 5 years...

[mike]

the recognizability of so many distinct groups is somewhere between shame-worthy and absolutely appalling.

Why is that so bad? You would prefer all the groups to be organizationally interconnected and of cookie-cutter similarity?

[Neto]

the recognizability of so many distinct groups is somewhere between shame-worthy and absolutely appalling.

Why is that so bad? You would prefer all the groups to be organizationally interconnected and of cookie-cutter similarity?

My feeling is that it ought to be drastically the opposite - no typical or designated or standard veil design. To those who ask how it could then be "regulated", I say, Should it need to be regulated, and if it needs to be, what purpose does it serve?

[Ken]

the recognizability of so many distinct groups is somewhere between shame-worthy and absolutely appalling.

Why is that so bad? You would prefer all the groups to be organizationally interconnected and of cookie-cutter similarity?

My feeling is that it ought to be drastically the opposite - no typical or designated or standard veil design. To those who ask how it could then be "regulated", I say, Should it need to be regulated, and if it needs to be, what purpose does it serve?

It's probably more about group conformity than adherence to biblical teachings. Especially given that few if any of the Menno head coverings actually cover the woman's hair. Unlike say... Islamic head coverings. Which are probably much closer to the original intent of the scriptures.

[KrisKramer]

If the want is to actually follow scripture then a woman should actually cover her head and not with a see through net. What is actually being covered there? We would not call a person covered if they were walking around wearing that as a shirt or pants.

[steve-in-kville]

Kind of a bunny trail... it was on the old MN site that I first heard about Victoria Secrets headcoverings. That term still makes me smile....

[Neto]

If the want is to actually follow scripture then a woman should actually cover her head and not with a see through net. What is actually being covered there? We would not call a person covered if they were walking around wearing that as a shirt or pants.

Correct. As far as the Biblical text is concerned, it is a HEADcovering, not a HAIRcovering. I personally think that one of the main things that prevents it from actually fulfilling the intended purpose is that it is worn outside of services, when it is impractical to actually cover the head, as is intended. It's fine if a culture wants to promote an idea that says that no one but a woman's husband should see her with her hair down, but that is cultural, not Biblical. As others have pointed out already, presenting cultural practices as though they are Biblical injunctions discredit the actual Biblical truth, taking down the truth along with the lies. (I'm reminded of Eve's lie in the garden, that they were not to even touch the forbidden fruit. Maybe Adam and Eve had decided that it was unwise to even touch it, and that may well have been true. But that is not what God told them.)