What is the standard?

[RSTEWART]

The world would consider me to be very conservative and I attend a non-denominational church, but I believe we should all follow the Bible standards of dress and behaviour. What I have always wondered is how standards are developed in the Amish/Mennonite church. It seems that are very many varieties of Anabaptist each having some standard they choose to follow. It seems so sad there has to be so many divisions when the Bible seems clear about the standards. Can anyone help to answer this question? I'm sure there are many others that have this same question.

 

[Jehane]

Hi. Welcome. I can't help, sorry; I'm not anabaptist.

 

[Danfrey]

First, let me say that after several years of attending various Anabaptist churches I have come to a place that I don't care for written dress standards. I believe that defining standards beyond what the Bible defines is dangerous. At the same time there are some who would consider my views of Biblical standards legalistic.

There are several verses used to defend a well structured dress standard for churches.

40Let all things be done decently and in order

I have heard this one used to support many things including length of hair, trimming of the beard, shaving of legs, etc.

19And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

This one I have heard used to support the church making rules that go beyond what the Bible teaches.

One big issue that comes up in conservative Mennonite churches is not being conformed to the world. This one can be used to support everything from dress length to style of hair. Amongst some, not being conformed to the world has also migrated to not being conformed to the church down the road. This is were the issues come in that seem so nit picky to many of us.

Well, I don't know if I have shed any light on this issue, but these are some of the things we have discovered over the years. I am content to stick with what the Bible defines; Modesty, no adornment and sexual distinction. We could discuss the application until the cows come home and then we would probably understand why there are so many standards.

 

[ACADEMIC]

how standards are developed in the Amish/Mennonite church.

I am not an insider either but have relatives (on my wife's side) with the background, had a good Menno friend while studying, and have an interest in many of the ideas in the tradition.

So I will suggest only a reply generally from a philosophical point of view.

[Philosopher's hat on]

Standards are either universal and transcendent or temporary and imminent. The first must come from a non- or super-human source. The second are the domain of culture and time-space. Obviously, there is some interplay between them as well.

I think the above holds true no matter the group.

With views toward the Bible, things can become complicated: which standards spoken of in the Scriptures were temporary and imminent rather than universal and transcendent?

[Philosopher's hat off]

 

[MrJim]

It's definitely a cultural thing. The plain folks wear European style clothes. It's not as though they thought that middle eastern garb circa 33 a.d. should be the standard since that's what Jesus & the apostles wore.

And when they go to China or Ghana it's probably not the best try to fit them into European/Western garb.

SIDE NOTE:

Here's a cultural mennonite story.

The wife of the retired mennonite pastor I worked for told me about a time when her husband was ministering at the hospital. He had stopped by a room a couple of times where a young lady was a patient. (Now this was early in his ministry and he was still dressing quite plain.) At one point the lady began "coming on" to him and he had to explain that he was married. She got a little upset with him and demanded to know why he wasn't wearing a wedding band. John explained that it wasn't what mennonites do.

I don't recall that John began wearing a wedding band, but it is an interesting point. Now I detest wearing jewelry & watches. I wear a watch for work but it comes off and I never wear one any other time. I can't stand rings on my fingers. But with my new work assignments where I'm going out in public I've thought about getting out that old wedding band and wearing it. It's just a plain band, and it sends a signal in today's culture that I'm married rather than sending a signal that I've got bling$.

What's your thoughts?

 

[ACADEMIC]

As a young-looking guy on college campuses, I have regularly been in situations where suddenly fiddling with or tapping my ring (while on my finger) against a table or something to draw attention to it suddenly changed a young lady's attitude toward me. Who knows how many times the ring headed it off before it even began? For me, wearing a wedding ring is part of fleeing temptation before you even have to flee it.

Also, yes, I do take all the passages about head coverings and women being silent and jewelry and so on to be culture-bound into a specific time-space. Far from discarding the passages, this view is the basis for drawing out the most relevant and accurate interpretations possible for the broad array of cultures and contexts Christians may find themselves in.

Jewelry is a method to "say" a certain something, many possible things. If I am in a given culture where jewelry is widely held among people to say "prostitute," it would probably be a very good idea for an apostle to make a temporary, situation-bound rule against wearing it. This is what Paul did lest the message of Christ be discredited.

In the general U.S. culture today, however, wearing jewelry can and does "say" many, many completely benign and even beneficial things, not just "prostitute" (!). Ironically, when we retain Paul's rule on its face while among the general U.S. culture of today, we are actually accomplishing the opposite of what Paul accomplished. We are violating the spirit of the concession by keeping its letter, actually discrediting the message of Christ thereby, and making outside women have to convert to a particular culture along with converting to Christ. That places a human barrier between people and God and is gravely serious.

 

[Jehane]

I usually check a man's hands for a wedding band if they stop to chat & I don't know them just as I wear a ring on my wedding finger, though it's not specifically a wedding ring. It is a subtle way of communicating necessary information & forming a barrier.

 

[Danfrey]

I find the wedding ring discussion interesting. There are some perspectives that have not crossed my mind before. Candice and I stopped wearing them when we started following Christ as we accepted Paul's teaching literally and universally. I would consider this much different than an issue such as what style of coat,or what color of shirt one must wear to Church. I haven't had too many issues with women trying to pick up on me, but this hasn't been much of an issue for me in the past either I guess a lack of hair and a few extra pounds does the trick as well.

 

[ACADEMIC]

I would consider this much different than an issue such as what style of coat,or what color of shirt one must wear to Church.

How is it "much different"?

 

[Danfrey]

How is it "much different"?

9In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;

3Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel;

In both of the verses listed above gold is specifically mentioned. This is not the case for style of coat or color of shirt. Here we find a case of those things the Bible defines and those things that the Bible does not define.

Some will consider this being too literal, but it is much easier for me to take it literally than to try and guess what parts of the scripture apply to me and which parts were written for people of a different time and place. I don't think I will stand before Christ at the day of judgement and have him say, you took my word too seriously.

 

[ACADEMIC]

In both of the verses listed above gold is specifically mentioned. This is not the case for style of coat or color of shirt. Here we find a case of those things the Bible defines and those things that the Bible does not define.

Some will consider this being too literal, but it is much easier for me to take it literally than to try and guess what parts of the scripture apply to me and which parts were written for people of a different time and place. I don't think I will stand before Christ at the day of judgement and have him say, you took my word too seriously.

Do you hold that view consistently?

Check 2 Timothy 4:13, 21.

2Ti 4:13 When you come bring the cloak which I left at Troas with Carpus, and the books, especially the parchments.

2Ti 4:21 Make every effort to come before winter. Eubulus greets you, also Pudens and Linus and Claudia and all the brethren.

And 2 Co 13:12 : Greet one another with a holy kiss.

Do you take those verses literally, or do you consider that they were written to people of a different time, culture, circumstance, and place?

 

[MadFingerPainter]

If you do Danfrey...I want to know just what a holy kiss is. ~Hehe~

 

[MrJim]

The Holy Kiss is (as I've witnessed it) done only between brothers and sister of the same gender. I generally see it done on the lips-I kid you not. In the mennonite church I was a part of there was a definite split between the older and younger generation and only the older were doing the Holy Kiss and generally it was at the feet washing ordinance that I witnessed it.

Everyone else sorta moved on to the Holy Hug.

 

[ACADEMIC]

According to Ralph Grower's Manners and Customs of Bible Times, kisses for greetings were done with a peck of the lips on the left cheek followed immediately by a peck of the lips on the right cheek. These were already the standard cultural form of greeting in Mediterranean and Semitic cultures of Paul's time, and pretty much remain so today. Paul was only adding the term holy to the cultural practice.

Given what we know about the sexual issues at Corinth, would it make sense for Paul to take up the greeting kiss and add the word "holy" to it?

Other cultures do not use a greeting kiss, however, but have other small rituals they do when greeting one another: flutter eyebrows; rub noses; rub elbows; pat heads; bow slightly; tip hats; raise hats; wave; make certain toungue-click noises; hit fists; give "fives"; kiss hands, etc. In the general U.S. culture, people shake hands.

Also, there are gender differences in cultures' greeting rituals. For example, take cultural greetings in Latin America. Males shake hands, usually by grasping right hands and then using their left hands to clasp over their joined right hands (all four hands are shaking, very firmly), often followed by a shoulder embrace; the women who know one another practice the greeting kiss the same way Mediterranean cultures do. Male and females who do not know one another greet each other with a limp shake of right hands, but the woman only uses her finger tips and thumb in the action. Males and females who are of differing age and who know each other well may practice the greeting kiss. Etc.

So was Paul meaning by his words in 2 Co 13:12 to lay down an immutable and universal command for all Christians of all times?

Or, given that he wrote 2 Co 13:12 "to the church of God which is at Corinth with all the saints who are throughout Achaia" (2 Co 1:1, emphasis added), was this something that was culture, situation, and time-space bound?

Is this culture, situation and time-space bound:

2Ti 4:13 When you come bring the cloak which I left at Troas with Carpus, and the books, especially the parchments.

Is this situation and time-space bound:

2Ti 4:21 Make every effort to come before winter. Eubulus greets you, also Pudens and Linus and Claudia and all the brethren.

Missiologically, do we madate upon elbow-rubbing, eye-brow fluttering, and nose-rubbing greeters that they must now use the holy lip-to-cheek left-and-right side kiss when they become Christians? What if I am reaching African-American street gangs, who culturally have elaborate, multi-step greetings involving hands, heads, arms, and toungue-clicks?

If I were translating the Scriptures to an elbow-rubbing culture, could I even dynamically translate the passage, "greet one another with holy elbow rubs"? Or at least when expositing the passage, could I "translate" it that way to listeners?

 

[Danfrey]

2Ti 4:13 When you come bring the cloak which I left at Troas with Carpus, and the books, especially the parchments.

This is Paul speaking directly to Timothy. In the passages that I quoted, they are addressed to women in general.

2Ti 4:21 Make every effort to come before winter. Eubulus greets you, also Pudens and Linus and Claudia and all the brethren.

Again, Paul is speaking directly to Timothy.

And 2 Co 13:12 : Greet one another with a holy kiss.

Yes, I do take this literally. When I visit a church were it will not make people uncomfortable I greet the brothers with a holy kiss.

If we look at the way the early church applied the teaching of scripture, we will find a very simple approach to scripture. They took the New Testament as a whole and applied it quite literally. Now, there are instances of parables, metaphores and other figures of speach that are obviously word pictures, but when we start discounting biblical teachings as cultural, we start a downhill slide that has no way to stop. I have heard the culture agrument to justify, female leadership, lack of the veil, many dress issues, homosexuality, the list goes on. I am not saying that anyone else has to believe like I do, but it sure is easier to just take the Bible as it is written rather than reinterpret it every time our culture changes.

Leonard Ravenhill had a saying that applies to my attitude about scripture and culture.

"The bible is either absolute or obsolete."

 

[MrJim]

"The bible is either absolute or obsolete."

I see where you are coming from though I've been burned enough times in 19 years of being Christian to cautiously approach some issues.

Remember how Viola speaks of the cut-and-paste approach to scripture? I've done it too many times. I think I may be a bit more circumspect these days but I'm not taking any chances

 

[ACADEMIC]

This is Paul speaking directly to Timothy. In the passages that I quoted, they are addressed to women in general.

Not true.

Paul addressed 1 Timothy "To Timothy..." (1Ti 1:2). And Timothy was situated in a specific culture and time in history.

Peter addressed 1 Peter "To those who reside as aliens, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia" (1 Pe 1:1). They all lived situated in a specific culture and time in history, too.

 

[Danfrey]

Not true.

Paul addressed 1 Timothy "To Timothy..." (1Ti 1:2). And Timothy was situated in a specific culture and time in history.

Peter addressed 1 Peter "To those who reside as aliens, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia" (1 Pe 1:1). They all lived situated in a specific culture and time in history, too.

It is interesting that Peter and Paul have the same attitude toward the wearing of Gold when addressing two different cultures.

 

[ACADEMIC]

...when addressing two different cultures.

Again not true, bro.

The hellenist world was dominanted by one dominant hellenic culture. Both Jews and Gentiles in the hellenistic world were predominantly hellenic. Roman imperialism ensured that hellenization occurred among its far-ranging subjugated peoples. The entire New Testament was written by hellenic people to hellenic peoples within the hellenist world.

The Bible did not drop put of the sky recently. We make grievous errors when we read it as such. Our task is to deeply understand the Graeco-Roman world so we may faithfully interpret the New Testament for our own larger world and worlds, both which we must also deeply know. This is a key most part and prerequisite step to taking the New Testament seriously indeed!

Toward that task, here are two really great books you might want to have a look at:

Gospel and Spirit: Issues in New Testament Hermeneutics

The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament

 

[Danfrey]

Again not true, bro.

The hellenist world was dominanted by one dominant hellenic culture. Both Jews and Gentiles in the hellenistic world were predominantly hellenic. Roman imperialism ensured that hellenization occurred among its far-ranging subjugated peoples. The entire New Testament was written by hellenic people to hellenic peoples within the hellenist world.

The Bible did not drop put of the sky recently. We make grievous errors when we read it as such. Our task is to deeply understand the Graeco-Roman world so we may faithfully interpret the New Testament for our own larger world and worlds, both which we must also deeply know. This is a key most part and prerequisite step to taking the New Testament seriously indeed!

Toward that task, here are two really great books you might want to have a look at:

Gospel and Spirit: Issues in New Testament Hermeneutics

The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament

Let me ask a question. When people who interpret the Bible culturally address the issue of the headcover (veil) they often sight problems that are supposed Corinthian problems. This is the reason given for Corinthians to cover. Are you saying that all of the Hellenic culture had these problems and were being told by Paul to wear a headcover?

I have a hard time believing that the whole hellenized world had the same culture. I am sure there were things that were universal, but to believe a people group drops their culture when assimilated into another group is an over simplification in my view. One need only look as far as the United States to see an example. The Asian, German, Native American, Hispanic and many other people groups living in this country have the same language and influences yet retain much of their ethic culture as well.

Of course I realize that we are not going to come to an agreement on this issue. I have chosen to accept the scripture regardless of culture and I don't believe there is harm in this. I respect the fact that you take the time to study and try to understand how to apply the scriptures in our current world. The danger I see in this is that it can and has been used as a tool to discount many Biblical teachings.