steve-in-kville wrote:
Very valid point. I guess we're spoiled around here... just about every variety of Anabaptist there is. At one time I could pinpoint a woman's church affiliation, sometimes down to the congregation be the headcovering.
And, of course, it is all symbolic because none of them actually cover the hair or the head, unlike Islamic head coverings, or even African headwraps. It's really more just following northern European peasant fashions or puritan fashions from about the 17th Century.
And there's an example of ridicule...
No, ridicule would be "they look silly or ridiculous"
It is a fact that Menno head coverings do not actually cover the head or hair unlike veils, scarves, or head wraps used by many other Islamic and Christian traditions who take those passages more literally. It is also a fact that they are based on or descended from 17th Century northern European and Puritan fashions. Here is a portrait of a Dutch Peasant girl from 1650 https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... roject.jpg and a portrait of the the famous Puritan poet Anne Bradstreet from the 1650s: http://www.litstudyguides.com/american- ... treet.html
0 x
A fool can throw out more questions than a wise man can answer. -RZehr
joshuabgood wrote:The answer I am hearing basically is that these groups value their own rules because, well, they are their rules. If rules are placed on them by an external authority, unless they are coercively enforced, their isn't much gumption to submit.
Yes. In the church it has historically been referred to as "housekeeping". Anabaptist ministers went down in history as either good housekeepers or poor housekeepers.
It is actually a good analogy.
Some housewives focus on the major messes and let everything else go. Their children never really learn how to keep a clean house or do annual deep cleans. Other housewives do regular weekly cleaning and those children grow up learning how to have a relatively clean house, even if not spick and span. Still others spend most of their week trying to wipe up any skiff of dust and putting away any stray object. There comes a point of diminishing returns.
You can probably think of pastors or constituencies who fit all three scenarios.
joshuabgood wrote:The answer I am hearing basically is that these groups value their own rules because, well, they are their rules. If rules are placed on them by an external authority, unless they are coercively enforced, their isn't much gumption to submit.
Yes. In the church it has historically been referred to as "housekeeping". Anabaptist ministers went down in history as either good housekeepers or poor housekeepers.
It is actually a good analogy.
Some housewives focus on the major messes and let everything else go. Their children never really learn how to keep a clean house or do annual deep cleans. Other housewives do regular weekly cleaning and those children grow up learning how to have a relatively clean house, even if not spick and span. Still others spend most of their week trying to wipe up any skiff of dust and putting away any stray object. There comes a point of diminishing returns.
You can probably think of pastors or constituencies who fit all three scenarios.
Makes sense.
Underneath that is the question of what is the dirt that needs to be regularly cleaned? What are the social forces driving the cleaning...
Wade wrote:
And, if you lived where we do you'd see headcoverings are anything but "just going with the flow.". My wife has suffered a lot of misunderstanding and ridicule from it.
Very valid point. I guess we're spoiled around here... just about every variety of Anabaptist there is. At one time I could pinpoint a woman's church affiliation, sometimes down to the congregation be the headcovering.
Ken wrote:
No, ridicule would be "they look silly or ridiculous"
It is a fact that Menno head coverings do not actually cover the head or hair unlike veils, scarves, or head wraps used by many other Islamic and Christian traditions who take those passages more literally. It is also a fact that they are based on or descended from 17th Century northern European and Puritan fashions. Here is a portrait of a Dutch Peasant girl from 1650 https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... roject.jpg and a portrait of the the famous Puritan poet Anne Bradstreet from the 1650s: http://www.litstudyguides.com/american- ... treet.html
You know... I'd give you more credit if you actually believed in head covering. Otherwise you are being argumentative with someone's perception.
I personally would like the head coverings to cover more but Scripturally I don't see it to say cover all hair anymore then I see it to say cover the entire head.
I have objections to the style of head coverings used, but I believe in submission to authorities including the government.
You however, object to church standards and many other Scriptural teachings.
joshuabgood wrote:My question really was about why the dedication to rule following and authority or submission with regard to church rules that are not enforced with coercion or fines, but the feeling that if the state has a rule, unless it is enforced with coercion or fines it doesn't really apply or get practiced.
The answer I am hearing basically is that these groups value their own rules because, well, they are their rules. If rules are placed on them by an external authority, unless they are coercively enforced, their isn't much gumption to submit.
In its own way, it may seem to some that this is an excellent representation of enlightenment thinking and the American spirit.
The mirror image to the position of the groups you describe might be that of those who are fastidious about following what might be deemed arbitrary rules of civil authorities while decrying the authority of a church or denomination to enforce arbitrary rules. The call for liberty in terms of what churches should require of their members would probably also be an excellent representation of enlightenment thinking and the American spirit, no? And just as curious a position in some ways as that of these groups described in the OP...
joshuabgood wrote:My question really was about why the dedication to rule following and authority or submission with regard to church rules that are not enforced with coercion or fines, but the feeling that if the state has a rule, unless it is enforced with coercion or fines it doesn't really apply or get practiced.
The answer I am hearing basically is that these groups value their own rules because, well, they are their rules. If rules are placed on them by an external authority, unless they are coercively enforced, their isn't much gumption to submit.
In its own way, it may seem to some that this is an excellent representation of enlightenment thinking and the American spirit.
The mirror image to the position of the groups you describe might be that of those who are fastidious about following what might be deemed arbitrary rules of civil authorities while decrying the authority of a church or denomination to enforce arbitrary rules. The call for liberty in terms of what churches should require of their members would probably also be an excellent representation of enlightenment thinking and the American spirit, no? And just as curious a position in some ways as that of these groups described in the OP...
joshuabgood wrote:My question really was about why the dedication to rule following and authority or submission with regard to church rules that are not enforced with coercion or fines, but the feeling that if the state has a rule, unless it is enforced with coercion or fines it doesn't really apply or get practiced.
The answer I am hearing basically is that these groups value their own rules because, well, they are their rules. If rules are placed on them by an external authority, unless they are coercively enforced, their isn't much gumption to submit.
In its own way, it may seem to some that this is an excellent representation of enlightenment thinking and the American spirit.
The mirror image to the position of the groups you describe might be that of those who are fastidious about following what might be deemed arbitrary rules of civil authorities while decrying the authority of a church or denomination to enforce arbitrary rules. The call for liberty in terms of what churches should require of their members would probably also be an excellent representation of enlightenment thinking and the American spirit, no? And just as curious a position in some ways as that of these groups described in the OP...
I’m quite concerned about people who think they should obey whatever a government authority says, right down to requiring a particular cut and style of a piece of cloth to be worn in public, but think the church has no authority to direct lifestyle whatsoever.
It is very easy to see how “good people” could ignore clear biblical teachings and follow a government ordering them to turn in their neighbours to be sent to concentration camps. I suspect we have a few such people right here on MennoNet; they would be criticising me for being rebellious against government authority, and who am I to decide that my neighbours or the people I’m hiding in the basement aren’t actually guilty of the terrible crimes the authoritarian state is accusing them of?
aussieandy wrote:When I read this post, I thought hmm...a more progressive mennonite bashing on ultra conservative and intermediate mennonites post. But then I also thought, Nationwide generally obeys the orders given to it by the government with regards covid-19 restrictions, even if we don't like them much. We grudgingly follow them, but it is hard on us.
So I do think it's just cultural and not as a result of how conservative they are.
joshuabgood is of Eastern, and later Pilgrim, origin, and spends most of his time here in MennoNet criticising anyone who is more conservative than his current alignment, which is the far liberal wing of BMA.
Well, I learned something new today....didn't even know that BMA had a far liberal wing...
