More guided or less guided ?

[Sudsy]

What scripture exactly are you referring to? You keep referring to this thing - can't you give us chapter and verse so we can read what you're talking about?

Ephesians 6:5-8 Paul states, “Slaves, be obedient to your human masters with fear and trembling, in sincerity of heart, as to Christ” which is Paul instructing slaves to obey their master. Similar statements regarding obedient slaves can be found in Colossians 3:22-24, 1 Timothy 6:1-2, and Titus 2:9-10.

These are instructions to slaves and slave owners. One cannot obey these instructions without being a slave or a slave owner. Therefore to literally obey these texts one would need be a slave or a slave owner. Point being that there are scriptures that we can apply literally and ones we should not in our culture/setting. In the early years of the slave system in North America some Christians used scriptures in a literal way to support their belief that Jesus condoned the slave system.

Most today would disagree that Jesus condoned that system but in our culture He would say something similar to employer/employee relationships and to follow the instructions in that way. The fact remains we do not need to be a slave owner or a slave as they were in that era. The teachings of Jesus need not all be taken as literal practise for all time but rather obeyed on what Jesus was teaching about.

Well, that is all I can come up with on this example on why not everything in scripture can be taken as a literal practise. And going back to the issue of 'moderism' , in the case of the abolition of slavery, this break from the past I believe was a good thing and one Jesus would support. I believe this applies to other things also that we, here, disagree on, such as the role of women in the church in today's world, whether foot washing still holds water , the head covering, etc, etc. Those who take a more literal practise from the NT as best to follow differ from the practise of those who don't. Whether they are living 'more holy' or not, that is something God knows. These differences often get labelled in Anabaptism with the 'conservative' and 'liberal' labels.

Anyway, hope you are having a blessed Sunday. It is close to a perfect, sun shining day here in the deep south of Ontario, Canada. Good day for a ride through the country.

These texts regarding master/slave relationships, if taken literally, say specifically that these are instructions to be followed when you are in a certain situation. These are good examples of Biblical instruction for people in specific circumstances, where the text literally says that this is the case. Just as there are certain instructions for men, certain instructions for women, certain instructions for fathers and certain instructions for mothers. We are obeying the literal meaning of these instructions when we do what is instructed for us. So when men are instructed to pray with bare heads and with their lifted hands being holy, men should literally be praying with bare heads and lifting holy hands. When women are instructed to cover their heads when praying, they ought to literally be doing just that. The theory that we all ought to be obeying instructions specifically directed at a different segment of the population is not obedience to the literal meaning of the words.

I appreciate your consistent, literal application of scriptures for both men and women. I still believe cultural norms are involved in these instructions as the explanation below suggests. Regarding men and their praying 'everywhere' with lifted hands some believe this to be in all churches and others believe wherever and whenever men pray.

The lifting of holy hands is not taken very literal by most Christians I know when they pray and literal application of this is often ignored to get on to what women are to do in 1 Timothy 2. Not consistent. Do you know of any Anabaptists that always pray in this way ? I don't so would this not be disobedience ?

https://www.gotquestions.org/head-coverings.html

[ken_sylvania]

Ephesians 6:5-8 Paul states, “Slaves, be obedient to your human masters with fear and trembling, in sincerity of heart, as to Christ” which is Paul instructing slaves to obey their master. Similar statements regarding obedient slaves can be found in Colossians 3:22-24, 1 Timothy 6:1-2, and Titus 2:9-10.

These are instructions to slaves and slave owners. One cannot obey these instructions without being a slave or a slave owner. Therefore to literally obey these texts one would need be a slave or a slave owner. Point being that there are scriptures that we can apply literally and ones we should not in our culture/setting. In the early years of the slave system in North America some Christians used scriptures in a literal way to support their belief that Jesus condoned the slave system.

Most today would disagree that Jesus condoned that system but in our culture He would say something similar to employer/employee relationships and to follow the instructions in that way. The fact remains we do not need to be a slave owner or a slave as they were in that era. The teachings of Jesus need not all be taken as literal practise for all time but rather obeyed on what Jesus was teaching about.

Well, that is all I can come up with on this example on why not everything in scripture can be taken as a literal practise. And going back to the issue of 'moderism' , in the case of the abolition of slavery, this break from the past I believe was a good thing and one Jesus would support. I believe this applies to other things also that we, here, disagree on, such as the role of women in the church in today's world, whether foot washing still holds water , the head covering, etc, etc. Those who take a more literal practise from the NT as best to follow differ from the practise of those who don't. Whether they are living 'more holy' or not, that is something God knows. These differences often get labelled in Anabaptism with the 'conservative' and 'liberal' labels.

Anyway, hope you are having a blessed Sunday. It is close to a perfect, sun shining day here in the deep south of Ontario, Canada. Good day for a ride through the country.

These texts regarding master/slave relationships, if taken literally, say specifically that these are instructions to be followed when you are in a certain situation. These are good examples of Biblical instruction for people in specific circumstances, where the text literally says that this is the case. Just as there are certain instructions for men, certain instructions for women, certain instructions for fathers and certain instructions for mothers. We are obeying the literal meaning of these instructions when we do what is instructed for us. So when men are instructed to pray with bare heads and with their lifted hands being holy, men should literally be praying with bare heads and lifting holy hands. When women are instructed to cover their heads when praying, they ought to literally be doing just that. The theory that we all ought to be obeying instructions specifically directed at a different segment of the population is not obedience to the literal meaning of the words.

I appreciate your consistent, literal application of scriptures for both men and women. I still believe cultural norms are involved in these instructions as the explanation below suggests. Regarding men and their praying 'everywhere' with lifted hands some believe this to be in all churches and others believe wherever and whenever men pray.

The lifting of holy hands is not taken very literal by most Christians I know when they pray and literal application of this is often ignored to get on to what women are to do in 1 Timothy 2. Not consistent. Do you know of any Anabaptists that always pray in this way ? I don't so would this not be disobedience ?

https://www.gotquestions.org/head-coverings.html

A common prayer posture is a kneeling position, with the hands upward and clasped. I do believe it would be disobedience for so-called Christians to lift up un-holy hands and pray with wrath and doubting.

[Sudsy]

These texts regarding master/slave relationships, if taken literally, say specifically that these are instructions to be followed when you are in a certain situation. These are good examples of Biblical instruction for people in specific circumstances, where the text literally says that this is the case. Just as there are certain instructions for men, certain instructions for women, certain instructions for fathers and certain instructions for mothers. We are obeying the literal meaning of these instructions when we do what is instructed for us. So when men are instructed to pray with bare heads and with their lifted hands being holy, men should literally be praying with bare heads and lifting holy hands. When women are instructed to cover their heads when praying, they ought to literally be doing just that. The theory that we all ought to be obeying instructions specifically directed at a different segment of the population is not obedience to the literal meaning of the words.

I appreciate your consistent, literal application of scriptures for both men and women. I still believe cultural norms are involved in these instructions as the explanation below suggests. Regarding men and their praying 'everywhere' with lifted hands some believe this to be in all churches and others believe wherever and whenever men pray.

The lifting of holy hands is not taken very literal by most Christians I know when they pray and literal application of this is often ignored to get on to what women are to do in 1 Timothy 2. Not consistent. Do you know of any Anabaptists that always pray in this way ? I don't so would this not be disobedience ?

https://www.gotquestions.org/head-coverings.html

A common prayer posture is a kneeling position, with the hands upward and clasped. I do believe it would be disobedience for so-called Christians to lift up un-holy hands and pray with wrath and doubting.

I agree with your last sentence, however, you do not say it is disobedient to not pray everywhere in a posture of lifting holy hands so you must be interpreting the posture as not necessarily literal but rather metaphorical. If that is true, I agree. Now looking at the following instructions for women as wearing gold, for example, a gold wedding ring, this too should be taken as metaphorical also, right ? A wedding band in our culture has been a quick identifier that this woman is married so back off. To me, this cultural identifier makes sense to practise rather than not wearing any gold whatsoever.

I do think what is most important is the 'wrath and doubting' part of the verse which in the ESV says 'without anger or quarreling' . So we best not be praying and guilty of those areas.

[ken_sylvania]

I appreciate your consistent, literal application of scriptures for both men and women. I still believe cultural norms are involved in these instructions as the explanation below suggests. Regarding men and their praying 'everywhere' with lifted hands some believe this to be in all churches and others believe wherever and whenever men pray.

The lifting of holy hands is not taken very literal by most Christians I know when they pray and literal application of this is often ignored to get on to what women are to do in 1 Timothy 2. Not consistent. Do you know of any Anabaptists that always pray in this way ? I don't so would this not be disobedience ?

https://www.gotquestions.org/head-coverings.html

A common prayer posture is a kneeling position, with the hands upward and clasped. I do believe it would be disobedience for so-called Christians to lift up un-holy hands and pray with wrath and doubting.

I agree with your last sentence, however, you do not say it is disobedient to not pray everywhere in a posture of lifting holy hands so you must be interpreting the posture as not necessarily literal but rather metaphorical. If that is true, I agree. Now looking at the following instructions for women as wearing gold, for example, a gold wedding ring, this too should be taken as metaphorical also, right ? A wedding band in our culture has been a quick identifier that this woman is married so back off. To me, this cultural identifier makes sense to practise rather than not wearing any gold whatsoever.

I do think what is most important is the 'wrath and doubting' part of the verse which in the ESV says 'without anger or quarreling' . So we best not be praying and guilty of those areas.

The literal meaning of the text does not prohibit other prayer postures. Your theory about gold wedding rings, boiled down to its essence, seems to be that if a certain practice is cultural then any scriptural prohibitions against it are metaphorical and can be disregarded.

[ohio jones]

Now looking at the following instructions for women as wearing gold, for example, a gold wedding ring, this too should be taken as metaphorical also, right ? A wedding band in our culture has been a quick identifier that this woman is married so back off. To me, this cultural identifier makes sense to practise rather than not wearing any gold whatsoever.

If you're looking for a cultural identifier that doesn't involve the wearing of gold, a silicone band works just fine and is quite economical.

[RZehr]

I appreciate your consistent, literal application of scriptures for both men and women. I still believe cultural norms are involved in these instructions as the explanation below suggests. Regarding men and their praying 'everywhere' with lifted hands some believe this to be in all churches and others believe wherever and whenever men pray.

The lifting of holy hands is not taken very literal by most Christians I know when they pray and literal application of this is often ignored to get on to what women are to do in 1 Timothy 2. Not consistent. Do you know of any Anabaptists that always pray in this way ? I don't so would this not be disobedience ?

https://www.gotquestions.org/head-coverings.html

A common prayer posture is a kneeling position, with the hands upward and clasped. I do believe it would be disobedience for so-called Christians to lift up un-holy hands and pray with wrath and doubting.

I agree with your last sentence, however, you do not say it is disobedient to not pray everywhere in a posture of lifting holy hands so you must be interpreting the posture as not necessarily literal but rather metaphorical. If that is true, I agree. Now looking at the following instructions for women as wearing gold, for example, a gold wedding ring, this too should be taken as metaphorical also, right ? A wedding band in our culture has been a quick identifier that this woman is married so back off. To me, this cultural identifier makes sense to practise rather than not wearing any gold whatsoever.

I do think what is most important is the 'wrath and doubting' part of the verse which in the ESV says 'without anger or quarreling' . So we best not be praying and guilty of those areas.

In India, their culture is to slather the bride in gold for her wedding. I guess we make exceptions for their cultural norm too?
I’d rather trade secular culture for the values taught by scripture.

[Sudsy]

A common prayer posture is a kneeling position, with the hands upward and clasped. I do believe it would be disobedience for so-called Christians to lift up un-holy hands and pray with wrath and doubting.

I agree with your last sentence, however, you do not say it is disobedient to not pray everywhere in a posture of lifting holy hands so you must be interpreting the posture as not necessarily literal but rather metaphorical. If that is true, I agree. Now looking at the following instructions for women as wearing gold, for example, a gold wedding ring, this too should be taken as metaphorical also, right ? A wedding band in our culture has been a quick identifier that this woman is married so back off. To me, this cultural identifier makes sense to practise rather than not wearing any gold whatsoever.

I do think what is most important is the 'wrath and doubting' part of the verse which in the ESV says 'without anger or quarreling' . So we best not be praying and guilty of those areas.

The literal meaning of the text does not prohibit other prayer postures. Your theory about gold wedding rings, boiled down to its essence, seems to be that if a certain practice is cultural then any scriptural prohibitions against it are metaphorical and can be disregarded.

Not what I meant and perhaps metaphorical was not the right word to use. I think regarding the wearing gold thing that this was not meant as an itemized prohibition but rather some examples of what some wear to get attention to themselves and Paul says it is good deeds that should be what they are noted for and draws the right kind of attention, not outward adornments. I seldom hear the emphasis here on what to do rather than what not to do. Godly women should reflect godliness through good deeds. If Paul wrote this today in our culture the things he gave as examples would perhaps be things like tight fitting clothes, excessive makeup, dyed hair, tattoos, etc.

I do believe there are practises, such as foot washing, that was a cultural norm and in our culture the lesson behind the practise can be done in a modern way. The once a year observance that some do to obey in a literal way I don't believe represents an on-going practise of humbly serving each other in what was once a daily job of servants. I think Jesus used this frequent cultural practise as an example of how we should regard each other. And the Holy kiss, another cultural practise that today is more of a hearty handshake. That is why most Christian groups practise just 2 ordinances as was the case in my previous MB church.

I agree the literal meaning of the lifting of hands text does not prohibit other prayer postures but it certainly was a more common posture in Jesus day then it is today. We don't see it much today as it is not a cultural norm anymore. Same goes for lying prostrate when praying. Charismatic are big into lifting hands but it is not very common in many Anabaptist groups that I am aware of.

[Outsider]

If scripture tells slaves and slave owners how to conduct themselves as Christians and we take the scriptures literally to be applied then we would have to go somewhere where slavery still exists to apply those scriptures. That was all I was trying to say regarding literal practise. Some instructions have a meaning behind them that does not require a literal application. Thats all.

Probably a less confused way to say this would be that laws regarding slavery are only relevant when slavery is a part of society. I agree.

However, the conditional on women wearing a head-covering is "praying or prophesing". IOWs women don't have to cover their head all the time, just as men don't have to go without hats all the time. But they should cover their heads when they pray.

It doesn't have a thing to do with what they do out in the world- as it would be if the societal norm was all women having their heads covered.

As to it not applying to "all the churches in the NT and now", rather than just something addressing the Corinthians:

1 Cor 11:16
16 If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God.(A)

That would seem to indicate it was meant for more than just Corinth.

It is a ritualistic practice and it separates interactions with this world from interactions with God. And it clearly has an impact on the world of spiritual struggle, "because of the angels".

Ritual is, indeed, not the "weightier matters of the law", but it is still the law. And there is reason beyond what men can know with their carnal minds.

[Sudsy]

If scripture tells slaves and slave owners how to conduct themselves as Christians and we take the scriptures literally to be applied then we would have to go somewhere where slavery still exists to apply those scriptures. That was all I was trying to say regarding literal practise. Some instructions have a meaning behind them that does not require a literal application. Thats all.

Probably a less confused way to say this would be that laws regarding slavery are only relevant when slavery is a part of society. I agree.

However, the conditional on women wearing a head-covering is "praying or prophesing". IOWs women don't have to cover their head all the time, just as men don't have to go without hats all the time. But they should cover their heads when they pray.

It doesn't have a thing to do with what they do out in the world- as it would be if the societal norm was all women having their heads covered.

As to it not applying to "all the churches in the NT and now", rather than just something addressing the Corinthians:

1 Cor 11:16
16 If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God.(A)

That would seem to indicate it was meant for more than just Corinth.

It is a ritualistic practice and it separates interactions with this world from interactions with God. And it clearly has an impact on the world of spiritual struggle, "because of the angels".

Ritual is, indeed, not the "weightier matters of the law", but it is still the law. And there is reason beyond what men can know with their carnal minds.

Thankyou for giving your understandings with text reference.

"Because of the angels" is a text that has been given quite a range of interpretations many of which can be obtained on the Internet. It would seem in this verse that angels are observing our public worship services and if this is true I wonder what they think of such a wide range of worship music from uniform acapella to more popular, modern day worship bands with all kinds of musical instruments, sometimes with dancing and electronic sound systems. Something we can ask them when we get home.

Here is one of those explanations -

[ohio jones]

"Because of the angels" is a text that has been given quite a range of interpretations many of which can be obtained on the Internet. It would seem in this verse that angels are observing our public worship services and if this is true I wonder what they think of such a wide range of worship music from uniform acapella to more popular, modern day worship bands with all kinds of musical instruments, sometimes with dancing and electronic sound systems. Something we can ask them when we get home.

Here is one of those explanations -

At 8:12: "They are watching those of us who have been redeemed live in rebellion against him" and two of the three people are rebelling against the very passage they are prophesying about.