Head covering question

[ken_sylvania]

We became friends by me visiting her business. She is anything but malcontent in her faith.

A former Amish then Mennonite woman stopped covering telling me God cares very little about what He says little about. I don't necessarily degree but she was fed up with the Anabaptists rules in "specific requirements" it seems and left Anabaptism for what she called a "Full Gospel" Church. She distanced herself from me when I started covering (I was sad at this, as so did women from my church at the time). Parkside people don't comment except couple people asking where I came from- I feel most comfortable at Oasis Tabernacle where most women cover, but not "Uniformity" where Holy hands are lifted and spiritual gifts believed in and not criticized.

Sure sounds like a malcontent to me.

[ken_sylvania]

The Bible never teaches to "earnestly desire to babble nonsense", though.



Is it not near blasphemy to claim the Holy Spirit makes people spew gibberish?



As I have said often, Valerie, a lot of ex-Mennonites are people who decide to abandon the simple truth of the gospel and embrace other, strange doctrines. I generally don't consider them much of an authority on, well, much of anything, and particularly would avoid them for any opinions they might hold on doctrine.

I could make a very good case that the tongues of the Bible are actually known languages, given to reach unbelievers. It surely is not the babbling heard in many places.

Everyone who makes this claim totally ignores and makes the mistake of considering the teaching of Apostle Paul regarding the "gift" of tongues and other spiritual gifts he taught in 1 Corinthians 12 & 13- clearly these were a different type of tongues than Acts 2- different purposes. Anytime I hear this argument I realize there is a lack of understanding, fine- but it is also erroneous teaching.

It's too bad if you think it's a mistake to consider the teaching of the apostle Paul regarding speaking in tongues.

[Judas Maccabeus]

The Bible never teaches to "earnestly desire to babble nonsense", though.



Is it not near blasphemy to claim the Holy Spirit makes people spew gibberish?



As I have said often, Valerie, a lot of ex-Mennonites are people who decide to abandon the simple truth of the gospel and embrace other, strange doctrines. I generally don't consider them much of an authority on, well, much of anything, and particularly would avoid them for any opinions they might hold on doctrine.

I could make a very good case that the tongues of the Bible are actually known languages, given to reach unbelievers. It surely is not the babbling heard in many places.

Everyone who makes this claim totally ignores and makes the mistake of considering the teaching of Apostle Paul regarding the "gift" of tongues and other spiritual gifts he taught in 1 Corinthians 12 & 13- clearly these were a different type of tongues than Acts 2- different purposes. Anytime I hear this argument I realize there is a lack of understanding, fine- but it is also erroneous teaching.

Anyone who tries to make this case is forced to say that the NT uses the word in very different ways in two similar contexts. The whole “heavenly languages “ position hangs on taking Paul’s statement in 1 Cor 13 about “the languages (tongues ) of angels that is obviously a hyperbole as being literal. It is not, clearly so. Its useage in the tongue speaking movement is inconsistent with the scripture.

Walking into one of these places, I agree with Paul, and “think ye are mad.”

[Judas Maccabeus]

It was comforting to meet As Anabaptists that were Baptized in the Holy Spirit and received gifts

Every Anabaptist has been baptised and received the Holy Spirit, and received spiritual gifts as well (other than a tiny fraction who are not legitimately converted and fake their baptism, but in my experience this is rare).

It would be great if you would stop disparaging Anabaptists as not having spiritual gifts or not being baptised in the Spirit.

They have an obsession on tongues to the point of it being pathological, and ignore the many gifts that are in daily operation in our churches.

[Valerie]

It was comforting to meet As Anabaptists that were Baptized in the Holy Spirit and received gifts

Every Anabaptist has been baptised and received the Holy Spirit, and received spiritual gifts as well (other than a tiny fraction who are not legitimately converted and fake their baptism, but in my experience this is rare).

It would be great if you would stop disparaging Anabaptists as not having spiritual gifts or not being baptised in the Spirit.

They have an obsession on tongues to the point of it being pathological, and ignore the many gifts that are in daily operation in our churches.

False. They've been in your churches, and know the difference. Don't blasphrme and teach erroneously that only foreign language is the gift of tongues. If you don't believe, that's your misunderstanding. It can be foreign, but clearly, reading 1 Corinthians, it is NOT foreign language and there are those with the gift of interpretation, and some can interpret their own utterance in the Spirit. It's better to be silent on the issue than to blasphrme the Holy Spirit.

[Josh]

I grew up around charismatic and Pentecostal circles. (Hmm, I guess that makes me as credible about charismatic issues as an ex-Amish person is about Amish things.)

I witnessed and was part of fake tongues, fake healings, fake "shaking in the spirit", fake "being slain in the spirit", fake "laughing in the spirit", and all other matter of outright nonsense, ranging from laughing to barking like dogs to roaring like lions to claiming that jewels were falling from the sky to claiming that silver amalgam fillings turned to gold.

After enough decades of that, it is obvious that lives aren't actually changed and nobody gets closer to following Jesus through that stuff. Nearly all the young people I grew up around aren't remotely Christian anymore. And for some reason, holiness was never preached from the pulpit. Instead chasing "being filled with the Spirit" was.

I don't think that signs of being filled with the Spirit are shaking uncontrollably, laughing uncontrollably, or making barking or roaring or sounds. Nor is it babbling nonsense words without an interpretation even when in a general assembly of believers. Nor is it "prosperity" with repeated testimonies of people saying how the Lord blessed them financially... after they donated to some kind of church, of course.

Anabaptism was a bit of a shock to me. Donations? Those are concealed in a little box in the back of church and visitors (or even members) are barely ever reminded to donate. (If church coffers run a bit low, one of the deacons simply shares a financial report of the church's current financial condition.) Young people don't have to have all kinds of "manifestations" of the "Spirit". Instead, the sign of a born again person is a changed life and freedom from sin.

And finally, there is no hemming and hawing about whether someone is "filled with the Spirit" or not. We believe what the scriptures teach:

Repent, and be baptised in the name of Jesus, and you WILL receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

[Sudsy]

Do you believe we need to eagerly desire spiritual gifts

Yes, I do. Note that I don't think babbling nonsense is a "spiritual gift", just to head off that discussion.

But to your question, I believe a woman should seek to know if God wants her to cover her head materially,

There is nothing to "seek". The Bible clearly teaches what should be done.

when and where and with what and that the local church should keep away from requiring specifics on things when the scriptures do not get that specific. I believe a local church should be able to have unity with diversity of practise unless that practise is one in a scriptural list that will keep one from the Kingdom. I don't believe in forced sanctification which, imo, is a hindrance to spiritual growth for each Christian.

I believe a local church should at least agree on the very basics of how to follow obvious scriptures. If it doesn't, the church is lacking any unity or useful witness at all.

Wow, how it got to tongues speaking from head coverings was certainly not my intention. The point I was trying to make is that there are various interpretations on subjects, such as spiritual gifts and worship practises, that I do not believe are salvation issues.

You can believe regarding the headcovering that there is nothing to "seek" in what women today should do whereas others do not regard this as an application for today in our culture. In our local MB church in town, the latest trend is for young men to wear various ball styled caps during worship (even the worship leaders) and they don't remove them the entire service. This is something I wouldn't do but mainly based on how our culture today still shows respect for things like the national anthemn and every guy removes his hat. So, imo, a guy wearing a hat in church is disrespectful but that is not a view that the church is making a rule about.

What you believe 'the Bible clearly teaches' and what is obvious is what you should live by but that does not make your understandings of the Bible to be the undisputable truth. I think it is good to have convictions and live by them but all of us still see through a glass darkly and all of us only know in part at this time. And thats the truth. Well, my conviction anyway.

If my wife doesn't wear a head covering of sorts in church, that is up to her. I would not wear a ball cap as that is up to me. We each will account for our own understandings and application of scriptures.

Regarding unity I believe unity can be had with diversity and still be a shining light to the world. I have experienced this. I don't see the pursuing that some do to get everyone practising exactly the same is being a useful witness. Forced unity in practise, imo, especially in Anabaptism, has resulted in many church splits trying to get everyone looking and acting the same. My view and experience is that when a church quits navel-gazing and instead focuses on reaching the unsaved, they become fruitful in growing the Kingdom. Otherwise, they spend much time in how they are more free or more godly than the other group.

[Neto]

A 'tongue' is a 'tongue' - a language. As a linguist, my thinking is that all languages, whether they are earthly or "of angels" must have grammatical structure. The fact that there are some fakes out there make it difficult to approach this question from the perspective of a linguistic analysis. Also, one cannot elicit phrases or ask the speaker to verify grammatical correctness, which is a large part of learning an unwritten language.

[Sudsy]

Tongues speaking has nothing to do with the OP head covering question. I think gracefortoday is being quite patient with us.

[ken_sylvania]

A 'tongue' is a 'tongue' - a language. As a linguist, my thinking is that all languages, whether they are earthly or "of angels" must have grammatical structure. The fact that there are some fakes out there make it difficult to approach this question from the perspective of a linguistic analysis. Also, one cannot elicit phrases or ask the speaker to verify grammatical correctness, which is a large part of learning an unwritten language.

A "tongue" might be a language, or it might refer to a style of speaking. For instance, a "golden tongue" or a "caustic tongue". I personally think that the most logical understanding of Paul's comment about "speak[ing] with the tongues...of angels" refers to skilled oratory rather than some sort of unearthly jabbering.