| Re: What happens when a church group discards the veiling? pt. 5|
What impact did the discarding of the application of headship principles have on the Mennonite church?
If any one wants to have a clue what church history looks like in miniature, all you have to do is study what has happened to the Mennonite Church in the past 140 years. The details I am sharing here is not uncommon. The same devil that worked to undermine God's people uses the same methods from one era to another, from one church group to another.
During the 1800s the Mennonite church had fallen into serious spiritual decline. Alcohol and tobacco use was wide spread as was rumspringa, or partying with its associated sins.
John F. Funk was living in Chicago when he experienced conversion (1858) and became closely associated with D.L. Moody. He was so impressed with with the revival that followed Moody, Funk decided to move to Elkhart, IN to work among the Mennonite people. He began by starting a publishing house which printed his literature which had a profound impact on the Mennonite church.
In time God rose up evangelists that ministered to the people and revival set in. Conviction against sin, burden for the lost became the norm, as did assisting the poor, helping those in distress. Missions were started and youth went there to minister. Sunday Schools were introduced to the churches, vacation Bible Schools as well. In time winter Bible Schools were held at churches for intense Bible study for the parents.
Until Funk, most of the ladies - at this time - wore only their head coverings for prayer and worship services. Teachings concerning divorce and remarriage came to the fore and were dealt with.
In the meantime there were several evangelists that went from community to community preaching, convictions growing, holiness becoming part and parcel of life; revivals commonplace. Among them was George R. Brunk II, Andrew Jantzi. Their ministry had a profound impact on my parents' generation. (I remember them both, as well.)
In the meantime, the devil worked feverishly to undo the spiritual fervor that had gripped the Mennonite people. He began by asking questions, exactly like he did to Eve, "Yay, hath God said?"
About this time - in the 1960s - people had gotten richer, got more educated, thanks to the Mennonite colleges that came on the scene years earlier in response to the high drop-out rate of the Mennonite youth that attended secular schools. And the Vietnam war era came on the scene with the mindset that it is fashionable and acceptable to challenge the elders in matters that were long assumed to be true! Unfortunately, there were among the Mennonite scholars/professors minds that were ready and willing to challenge the old paths and they did. Since they were so eloquent in their rhetoric they succeeded quite well.
Among the Bible issues challenged was the doctrine of the head-covering. Many church leaders decided it was no longer essential so it was discarded. But like a lot of other things being discarded there were other doctrines that fell by the wayside: the virgin birth, e.g.
Before too many years, a problem, that here-to-for was practically non-existent showed up: people were getting divorced! Now you had divorced people here who wanted to remarry and since they are such wonderful people, we need to allow them to remarry. And they did. It was not long until this became the norm for the general Mennonite church. (Today the issue many are grappling with is same-sex marriage and many are accepting it.)
Today, the larger Mennonite church is so liberal that we conservatives find a greater kindred spirit with Paul Washer then we do with liberal Mennonites! In fact most of us are very ashamed of them...we wish we could be known by another name instead of Mennonite!
The point is that the path from revival to apostasy was very short, very rapid. When ladies, with the help of the men, discarded the principles of headship and its practical application, you saw rapid spiritual decline, evidenced by divorce and remarriage. The home broke down!
| 2011/10/4 15:54||Profile|
| Re: |
Please go back and honestly read your second post. C'mon bro...
| 2011/10/4 16:13|
| Re: |
About the link that HisDelight posted, etc -
This time, my wireless connection only held long enough to post and then quickly download the two pages that were given to us through the link that was posted -- that I've just read and have to say that I disagree with their conclusions completely.
I do not at all believe that we should discourage another Sister from wearing a veil when praying or prophesing within their fellowship. I do have strong feelings against doing so, regardless of our differences on opinions on what the "veil" is and when it should be worn.
It is important to understand the customs of the days in which Paul wrote this command and understand that in the Greek, the "veil" that he was speaking of, covered the face of the woman as well and he 'was' referring to the angels with the 6 wings that covered their faces, as I posted earlier - and the word "covered" as we can see by looking under Strong's for the word Paul uses in 1Corth 11:6 as "covered" being #G2617 = "to cover wholly, hide".
The "shaven head" was a sign of an adultress and of a slave girl [A.T. Robertson].Some say that in Corinth, which was a Greek city and a very corrupt one at that, that women with short hair were also of ill-repute, so the article posted by that link is not correct in saying that Paul was speaking to Jews in Corinth and is incorrect to allude that there are "female angels" - Angelos is a masculine gendered noun ... and surprisingly enough, the Jewish women did not veil as much as the Greek women did - but did or were to veil, when praying or prophesing in the Christian congregations at that time.
Just one more Greek expositor - Vincent,
"1Co 11:5 "Her head uncovered"
Rev., unveiled. The Greek women rarely appeared in public, but lived in strict seclusion. Unmarried women never quitted their apartments, except on occasions of festal processions, either as spectators or participants. Even after marriage they were largely confined to the gynaeconitis or women's rooms. Thus Euripides: As to that which brings the reproach of a bad reputation upon her who remains not at home, giving up the desire of this, I tarried in my dwelling (Troades, 649). And Menander: The door of the court is the boundary fixed for the free woman. The head-dress of Greek women consisted of nets, hair-bags, or kerchiefs, sometimes covering the whole head. A shawl which enveloped the body was also often thrown over the head, especially at marriages or funerals. This costume the Corinthian women had disused in the christian assemblies, perhaps as an assertion of the abolition of sexual distinctions, and the spiritual equality of the woman with the man in the presence of Christ. This custom was discountenanced by Paul as striking at the divinely ordained subjection of the woman to the man. Among the Jews, in ancient times, both married and unmarried women appeared in public unveiled. The later Jewish authorities insisted on the use of the veil.
"All one as if she were shaven"
Which would be a sign either of grief or of disgrace. The cutting off of the hair is used by Isaiah as a figure of the entire destruction of a people by divine retribution. Isa_7:20 Among the Jews a woman convicted of adultery had her hair shorn, with the formula: Because thou hast departed from the manner of the daughters of Israel, who go with their head covered, therefore that has befallen thee which thou hast chosen. According to Tacitus, among the Germans an adulteress was driven from her husband's house with her head shaved; and the Justinian code prescribed this penalty for an adulteress, whom, at the expiration of two years, her husband refused to receive again. Paul means that a woman praying or prophesying uncovered puts herself in public opinion on a level with a courtesan."
And this from Wesley -
"1Co 11:5 But every woman - Who, under an immediate impulse of the Spirit, (for then only was a woman suffered to speak in the church,) prays or prophesies without a veil on her face, as it were disclaims subjection, and reflects dishonour on man, her head. For it is the same, in effect, as if she cut her hair short, and wore it in the distinguishing form of the men. In those ages, men wore their hair exceeding short, as appears from the ancient statues and pictures."
Trying to just nutshell here, we should never try to remove the veil from those who use it as Paul has described - but my only feelings are that we should never condemn those who do not as well - as the Church tradition of veiling varies much, from one group and another.
Having been forced since '76 to be a "Church hopper" because of being in the military when I got saved and because of how very-very many times I've moved ever since. I've enjoyed Black-Methodist Churches, CoG, AoG, Independents, Messianics, house church, the PCA and not a few others ... anywhere that born-again believers congregate and I truly respect each and every one for their practices, as long as they demonstrate and preach a Holiness, as onto The LORD and His Love.
| 2011/10/4 16:20|
| Re: |
We seek for ways if we really want to do a thing, otherwise we will seek for excuses and alibis.
Man is a rational being, but we tend to only see what we want to see.
It is written in a plain language but we make them overly complicated.
| 2011/10/4 18:30||Profile|
| Re: |
I have been listening to a couple of other sermons on 1 Cor 11.
Chuck Missler:Made these points
That when Corinthian women put aside their headcovering it was a form of rebellion.She was renouncing her subordination of her husband.
He said that Paul was also talking about and arguing against the blurring of the lines or the distinction between man and women.Basically men should be men and women should be women.
Chuck Smith said this:
That in their new found freedom in Christ women began coming to meeting without veils which was the custom.
However the Pagan temple in Corinth was supported by Prostitution and these women didnt wear any veil.The Christian women then opened themselves up to being misidentified as a prostitute and thus dishonouring their husbands.Paul urges them to continue in the custum of Corinth.
I will look around and see can I find some more sermons on the subject.
| 2011/10/4 18:40||Profile|
| 2011/10/4 19:17||Profile|
| Re: |
They are a little lacey arent they!lol
Thats not exactly what Paul was talking about I would say!
| 2011/10/4 19:25||Profile|
| Re: |
Quote: Thats not exactly what Paul was talking about I would say!
In my current state of thinking, it is good enough for me. I believe in head covering, but I really don't want to overdo this thing either.
| 2011/10/4 19:30||Profile|
| Re: |
Thanks for the pictures anyway,it gives me an idea what we they look like.Id like to see examples of what Paul was talking about and see would their be a rush to buy one!
As I understand it the veil covered part of the face and head.I would say that if you were going to take that scripture as for today as it pertains to the actual covering then you would have to use a full veil and head covering which I think would be a nonsense.
I think the importance of the subject is the headship of Christ over man and man over women.
I am interested in the specific relationship between covering and headship and prayer and prophesy.
We could have a christian women that use head covering in rebellion to her husband or you could have a christian women with no head covering that is under correct sub ordination to her husband and Christ.I think the christian women that is not in proper authority may effect the womens prayer and prophesty in some way and thus effect the Church.
The veil or head covering was common place in Corinth seemingly but today would not achieve the desired effect of being a symbol of headship.Today it would just look wierd in alot of churches and would be a stumbling block for potential new converts.The Holy Spirit still uses Christian women that dont use head covering and of all the christian women I know I never hear them say God told me to wear one but all know their position as it pertains to headship.I dont hear the husbands saying they are dishonored either.Head covering will not be a hinderance in any way to revival but incorrect headship will be.
| 2011/10/4 20:23||Profile|
| Re: |
I don't want to suffocate somebody or cause anyone unnecessary discomfort or obsession. Head covering represents submission and loyalty to our faith.
What it represents is the real point, although others will do or overdo it, or do not submit to it at all for some other reasons.
Although women we so admire and respect do not practice head covering, is it proper for us to teach and encourage otherwise and still be loyal to the scriptures when asked point blank?
| 2011/10/4 20:57||Profile|