Do Anabaptists "own" the women's headcovering?

[steve-in-kville]

I've heard the headcovering preached a variety of ways:

1- Its simply a symbol of headship.

2- It is literally meant as a headcovering.

And I've heard variations in between.

[MaxPC]

From my experiences, those who lean to the traditional interpretations of the Bible and the Greek translations will pursue headcoverings. I've seen a lot of headcoverings in my lifetime, from simple to complex. Before the Anabaptists there were the religious sisters. Their coverings reflect the styles worn in the nation or culture where each order originated.


Byzantine
Orthodox

Before the religious sisters were those in the Middle East.

[Josh]

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...

Would it somehow be better if either:

(a) Anabaptists all adopted an identical dress code so you couldn't tell them apart, or

(b) Anabaptists adopted worldly, individualistic fashions so every "individual" is kind of unique and has no visible identity (other than being a good little consumer)?

[Heirbyadoption]

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?

Mike, I apologize. My comment was a pretty good bunny trail starter, and ought to be sent to its own thread if pursued. But I'll try and answer your question very briefly before getting back to the OP. I think you may have misunderstood me, and I apologize in that I wasn't clear. I would lean strongly toward just the opposite. I don't think there's any question that I consider the woman's veiling to be both Scripturally taught and still relevant, but I believe that the very fact that we (and many individuals in the community) can pick out the various fragmented Anabaptist groups by their very specific uniform details, including specific coverings by strings, cut, shape, size, etc - far more than by the testimony of their lives, their relationships with one another, interactions in the community, etc...is a black mark on our Christian testimony of the Anabaptist community, other than to folks who fan-girl over Plain folks. A lot of folks around here in our area know (or can at least vaguely reference) who broke off from who and formed another group, and who got kicked out of where and formed a new group with thus and so, and whose bishops didn't get along and now there are two conferences, etc. Being visibly known as "of Christ (and Apollo)" and "of Christ (and Paul)" really seems to have very little difference from being of Apollo or of Paul, when you get right down to it.

More in keeping with the OP, then - if group/denominational styles, measurements, pleat counts, colors, string lengths, etc were less prominent in discussion and fundamental principles like humble obedience, godly relationships, Biblical headship, relevance etc were taught in greater detail, we might have less daughters and sisters viewing (and eventually pitching) headcovering as part of an Anabaptist-specific or conference-identifying package... Does that make sense?

[Ken]

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...

Would it somehow be better if either:

(a) Anabaptists all adopted an identical dress code so you couldn't tell them apart, or

(b) Anabaptists adopted worldly, individualistic fashions so every "individual" is kind of unique and has no visible identity (other than being a good little consumer)?

Did early Christians wear ultra distinctive costumes with enforced uniformity that allowed one to identify their specific sect at a distance?

[Josh]

More in keeping with the OP, then - if group/denominational styles, measurements, pleat counts, colors, string lengths, etc were less prominent in discussion and fundamental principles like humble obedience, godly relationships, Biblical headship, relevance etc were taught in greater detail, we might have less daughters and sisters viewing (and eventually pitching) headcovering as part of an Anabaptist-specific or conference-identifying package... Does that make sense?

Then one ought to join a group or church that has practice similar to BMA, Lancaster Conference, the CMC, MC USA, the Mennonite Brethren, etc., who have all wholeheartedly embraced the idea that people should make individual decisions to dress however they want.

The burning question is if fundamental principles like humble obedience, godly relationships, Biblical headship, relevance, etc. are somehow burning with a stronger flame in such settings.

[temporal1]

Please correct if I’m mistaken, I don’t believe Muslims and some others who cover are following Biblical directives.
Does that matter?

In its traditional form, it is worn by women to maintain modesty and privacy from unrelated males.

According to the Encyclopedia of Islam and Muslim World, modesty in the Quran concerns both men's and women's "gaze, gait, garments, and genitalia". The Qur'an instructs Muslim women and men to dress modestly.

en.m.wikipedia.org › wiki › Hijab
Hijab - Wikipedia

Another question, without covering distinctives established by belief groups, wouldn’t this open the path to “any hat” or scarf to be used, as happened in many Christian demons, including Catholic, that led to no covering?

I appreciate complaints of over-emphasizing, nit-picking, clannishness, etc. But, when it comes to “how humans work” I’m not sure it can be avoided - and, there’s always worse.

Humans are not very good at recognizing the harm that didn’t hit them.

I don’t cover, probably won’t, wonder if I should? My grandmothers wore hats to church and some other times. My mother did not, as far as I know, not a faith decision.

I have sensitive skin, my skin is happiest when clean, dry, with as much air as possible. It’s been a learning process and trips to dermatologists since I was a teen, sometimes requiring meds, mostly instructions to avoid any perfumed products - which are far easier to find today than years ago.

I’m grateful I’m not banned from going without a covering, and I respect those who cover.

[Josh]

Please correct if I’m mistaken, I don’t believe Muslims and some others who cover are following Biblical directives.

It comes from the exact same source of such traditions, though.

Another question, without covering distinctive established by belief groups, wouldn’t this open the path to “any hat” or scarf to be used, as happened in many Christian demons, including Catholic, that led to no covering?

This is exactly what some people say. I don't agree with this, as I don't think stiff traditions are really effective in the long run against something nobody wants to do anyway.

It is notable that when a group that allows its members to wear whatever covering they wish finally abandons requiring a covering at all, nearly all of the young women immediately cease to do so. Why this is the case is a good topic for more study, but it should be paired alongside why allowing a "personal conviction" to prevail in matters of nonresistance seems to result in 90% of young men packing heat, with the attendant 10% getting involved in liberal politics and agitating for gun control. One can presume they were all better off united in agreeing not to shoot people regardless of "personal convictions".

[temporal1]

I agree head covering discussions are interesting. I’ve learned. I would follow/submit to requirements of any faith group I joined.

[Valerie]

Please correct if I’m mistaken, I don’t believe Muslims and some others who cover are following Biblical directives.

It comes from the exact same source of such traditions, though.

Another question, without covering distinctive established by belief groups, wouldn’t this open the path to “any hat” or scarf to be used, as happened in many Christian demons, including Catholic, that led to no covering?

This is exactly what some people say. I don't agree with this, as I don't think stiff traditions are really effective in the long run against something nobody wants to do anyway.

It is notable that when a group that allows its members to wear whatever covering they wish finally abandons requiring a covering at all, nearly all of the young women immediately cease to do so. Why this is the case is a good topic for more study, but it should be paired alongside why allowing a "personal conviction" to prevail in matters of nonresistance seems to result in 90% of young men packing heat, with the attendant 10% getting involved in liberal politics and agitating for gun control. One can presume they were all better off united in agreeing not to shoot people regardless of "personal convictions".

This didn't happen at Wayne Weaver's Church in sugarcreek, Oasis Tabernacle. The women there where scarves to cover their heads of all types it seems they were taught the understanding without being forced into uniform covering. They also dress modestly but not in uniform fashion. So I think they are a good example of having the understanding of both modesty and head covering and practicing it without uniformity