Do Anabaptists "own" the women's headcovering?

[Josh]

Who can say for sure who nudges more? In all our seeking, learning, visiting, fellowshipping, "judging" & criticizing other denominations is unfortunately a very common practice, and I'm afraid is probably a stench in the Lord's nostrils

Indeed. The proper thing is an attitude of humility towards other believers. This is something both conservative and liberal people do not excel at.

Any specific ideas or suggestions on how to accomplish or move toward that attitude, especially in the wide spectrum of Anabaptist "conservativity"?

Show respect towards people who still maintain a uniform appearance out of desire to follow plain traditions.

Realise the way you mock more conservative people is exactly how liberal aligned people mock you. My conclusion is everyone should stop doing this.

[Josh]

I'm pretty sure Josh wasn't fingering anyone specific, and my comment wasn't meant toward just Josh but perhaps all of us. I will admit his comment did ring home with me. Go back and look at threads from four years ago. There's a lot of people that no longer post and I have to ponder why at times.

One thing I always liked about MN is the diversity. Diversity (should) keep people from getting judgmental. And in my experience being judgmental keeps a group from being productive. I could tell story after story of churches that didn't really accomplish much because of the in-fighting and bickering. But I won't....

I do not feel that “diversity” in the form of several prolific MN posters who openly advocate for abortion and full homosexual/transsexual affirmation really improves MN that much. That is what I was specifically referring to when I said “resident liberals”.

Your own denomination tried to maintain this level of diversity. (For comparison, the only COB church I ever have attended a service at was one in San Diego whose embrace of homosexuality was so complete that their COB logo was adorned with rainbow or pink colours (can’t remember which right now.)

Obviously, trying to maintain unity amidst that level of “diversity” wasn’t possible. I don’t think we gain much at all in every discussion here seemingly derailing into why it’s wrong to be against abortion, or why it’s wrong to be against more mandatory “rights” exclusively for practicing homosexuals and transsexuals. But that’s where a lot of conversations here keep going.

Ultimately, I think these resident liberals would find a better home over at MennoNerds. I felt, along with a few other conservative leaning people, that my continued discussion there didn’t bring peace and wasn’t helpful, and peacefully withdrew. The liberals never show the common decency to just leave conservative people in peace.

[steve-in-kville]

I do not feel that “diversity” in the form of several prolific MN posters who openly advocate for abortion and full homosexual/transsexual affirmation really improves MN that much. That is what I was specifically referring to when I said “resident liberals”.

I think you and I are on the same page, but what we mean by diversity is different. I was thinking more along the lines of how we view applications like the afore mentioned headcovering, wardrobe, church policies, structure, etc.

And I do not know of any active member that promotes abortion here on MN, but then I tend to stay out of the Politics section

[Josh]

I do not feel that “diversity” in the form of several prolific MN posters who openly advocate for abortion and full homosexual/transsexual affirmation really improves MN that much. That is what I was specifically referring to when I said “resident liberals”.

I think you and I are on the same page, but what we mean by diversity is different. I was thinking more along the lines of how we view applications like the afore mentioned headcovering, wardrobe, church policies, structure, etc.

And I do not know of any active member that promotes abortion here on MN, but then I tend to stay out of the Politics section

I don’t level criticisms at people who don’t have a uniform standard for (for example) coverings, or car colours.

But it seems the rest of us could stop criticising those who do. If people have a spiritual problem, well, that isn’t exactly unique to any particular level of conservatism. Some of the most spiritually well rounded people I’ve met are very plain. Others aren’t plain at all.

[steve-in-kville]

I never wore a battery down on a device this fast before.... *sigh*

[Ken]

I do not feel that “diversity” in the form of several prolific MN posters who openly advocate for abortion and full homosexual/transsexual affirmation really improves MN that much. That is what I was specifically referring to when I said “resident liberals”.

I think you and I are on the same page, but what we mean by diversity is different. I was thinking more along the lines of how we view applications like the afore mentioned headcovering, wardrobe, church policies, structure, etc.

And I do not know of any active member that promotes abortion here on MN, but then I tend to stay out of the Politics section

I don’t level criticisms at people who don’t have a uniform standard for (for example) coverings, or car colours.

But it seems the rest of us could stop criticising those who do. If people have a spiritual problem, well, that isn’t exactly unique to any particular level of conservatism. Some of the most spiritually well rounded people I’ve met are very plain. Others aren’t plain at all.

Josh:

You are one of the most hyper-critical and opinionated people I have ever encountered. This forum is full of hundreds of examples of you criticizing church groups or organizations or practices that don't meet your own narrow standards.

It is a discussion forum. People should be able to discuss and defend their religious, political, and social stands on a wide variety of topics. And yes, raise questions about others. That is what discussion is. You just look silly and hypocritical if you try to declare certain areas of discussion "off limits" while spending the rest of your time railing about other similar topics with which you disagree.

This tangent started with discussion about people who are more interested in conformity than the reasons behind their standards. Which describes some of my elderly aunts to a "T." In fact, I'm looking forward to two family reunions this summer, one on each side of the family. And I fully expect to hear running commentaries about all the things the youth are doing wrong these days. It comes with the territory.

[Soloist]

One point to consider, (derailing all the nonsense)

Is the modesty factor a part of concealing the hair as it is the woman's glory an aspect of the reason to cover? and thus the same is true for the man? Since the man is the glory of God and should be uncovered? (ie, no baseball hats, or church mandated hats, although if one needs protection from the sun or cold weather, I would personally have room for that)

1 Cor: 11: 7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.

15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.

I make no claim one way or another on the later part of that verse. Just pointing out a view I would hold as for the modesty aspect. There is enough stories floating around that there is a probable spiritual aspect to the covering as well. The headship is clear, we can get bogged down as the early church did about single ladies or covering children, but I think those are more disputable aspects. While my wife would use an opaque covering, we would certainly not judge someone else for not using opaque.

[Josh]

I think you and I are on the same page, but what we mean by diversity is different. I was thinking more along the lines of how we view applications like the afore mentioned headcovering, wardrobe, church policies, structure, etc.

And I do not know of any active member that promotes abortion here on MN, but then I tend to stay out of the Politics section

I don’t level criticisms at people who don’t have a uniform standard for (for example) coverings, or car colours.

But it seems the rest of us could stop criticising those who do. If people have a spiritual problem, well, that isn’t exactly unique to any particular level of conservatism. Some of the most spiritually well rounded people I’ve met are very plain. Others aren’t plain at all.

Josh:

You are one of the most hyper-critical and opinionated people I have ever encountered. This forum is full of hundreds of examples of you criticizing church groups or organizations or practices that don't meet your own narrow standards.

It is a discussion forum. People should be able to discuss and defend their religious, political, and social stands on a wide variety of topics. And yes, raise questions about others. That is what discussion is. You just look silly and hypocritical if you try to declare certain areas of discussion "off limits" while spending the rest of your time railing about other similar topics with which you disagree.

This tangent started with discussion about people who are more interested in conformity than the reasons behind their standards. Which describes some of my elderly aunts to a "T." In fact, I'm looking forward to two family reunions this summer, one on each side of the family. And I fully expect to hear running commentaries about all the things the youth are doing wrong these days. It comes with the territory.

You seem to have confused this with Reddit. This is a forum that was started by a conservative Beachy Amish youth fellow, and it has always had this to focus. Mennonitism and particularly conservative Mennonitism is the focus here. Whatever you are into, really isn’t.

I criticised you and the other resident liberal because you openly affirm and support homosexual acts, and seem to think this forum should be a “big tent” where your opinions form the centre. They don’t. If I wanted to endlessly hear pro-homosexual opinions, admonitions to get the vaccine, and criticism of right wing politicians, I’d just go back to my tab reading the New York Times or The Atlantic. If I wanted to hear it from Central District MC USA members, I’d go read MennoNerds.

[KrisKramer]

I had never heard of MennoNerds before so I tried Google since I was curious but either I am bad at Google (possible) or it no longer exists (this seems to be the case)

[Ken]

I criticised you and the other resident liberal because you openly affirm and support homosexual acts, and seem to think this forum should be a “big tent” where your opinions form the centre. They don’t. If I wanted to endlessly hear pro-homosexual opinions, admonitions to get the vaccine, and criticism of right wing politicians, I’d just go back to my tab reading the New York Times or The Atlantic. If I wanted to hear it from Central District MC USA members, I’d go read MennoNerds.

Perhaps you just need a better internet filter if you don't want to hear about gays, vaccines, Trump, and MCUSA I'm sure there are some enterprising internet-savvy plain folk here who can fine-tune your filter for you!

BTW, we can always tell when you have reached the end of your argument because that's when you bring up the gays. No matter how unrelated it is to the subject at hand [head coverings ??] you always find a connection back to gay sex. Its very impressive actually.