AssemblyBoard
December 10, 2022, 09:37:04 am *
The board has been closed to new content. It is available as a searchable archive only. This information will remain available indefinitely.

I can be reached at brian@tucker.name

For a repository of informational articles and current information on The Assembly, see http://www.geftakysassembly.com
 
   Home   Search  
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 8
  Print  
Author Topic: deeper life and scriptural interpretation  (Read 68854 times)
GDG
Guest


Email
« on: September 24, 2005, 07:19:01 am »

OK dear well studied scholars,
Here's the deal.  Last Sunday my daughter went to church with her fiance and his family.  They attend a Plymouth Brethren church.  When they pulled into the parking lot and before anyone could get out of the van, my daughter's future mother-in-law handed her a headcovering.  The implication was very clear that this "gift" was not an option for this and all future Sundays.  Now that I have calmed down and no longer wish to "snatch this woman bald headed!" (but I still would like to see her in a crew cut  Wink)  please give me your well learned opinions on this topic. 

Personally, I do not believe that sticking a doily on your head is what Paul was talking about.  Am I wrong?

Thanks in advance for your input,
Gay
Logged
vernecarty
Guest
« Reply #1 on: September 24, 2005, 07:34:46 am »

OK dear well studied scholars,
Here's the deal.  Last Sunday my daughter went to church with her fiance and his family.  They attend a Plymouth Brethren church.  When they pulled into the parking lot and before anyone could get out of the van, my daughter's future mother-in-law handed her a headcovering.  The implication was very clear that this "gift" was not an option for this and all future Sundays.  Now that I have calmed down and no longer wish to "snatch this woman bald headed!" (but I still would like to see her in a crew cut  Wink)  please give me your well learned opinions on this topic. 

Personally, I do not believe that sticking a doily on your head is what Paul was talking about.  Am I wrong?

Thanks in advance for your input,
Gay

There are probably good Scriptural reasons for wearing some kind of head gear while praying and worshipping.
At my mom's Pentecostal church the women all wore hats.
In this case, as in all others similar, I put grace before doctrine.
That lady could have at least asked...what was does IMHO was ungracious...a trait we were well-taught by the vulgar Geftakys...
Verne
« Last Edit: September 24, 2005, 07:38:12 am by VerneCarty » Logged
outdeep
Guest


Email
« Reply #2 on: September 24, 2005, 07:42:23 am »

Ironically, our pastor spoke on 1 Corintians 11 this last Sunday.  It was the best sermon I had heard on head coverings outside the Assembly (not that the ones in the Assembly were all that hot though I do remember a girl receiving Christ at a chapter summary at Cal State Long Beach when Tim preached on this chapter).

His take on it was that Paul was dealing not so much with head coverings, but a problem with the functional role of men and women in the church at Corinth (of which, in that culture head coverings would be a part).  His conclusion was that it is not wrong for a church to literally practice head coverings (many churches do even today in the middle east), but he isn't convinced that this was the primary issue that Paul was dealing with.

You can listen to the sermon (which I recommend and was thinking of posting anyway) at:

http://www.abfboone.org/Resources/messages.htm click on 9/18/05

If you do not have high speed internet, give me your address and I will make sure you get a tape or CD (your choice).

-Dave

« Last Edit: September 24, 2005, 07:44:55 am by Dave Sable » Logged
GDG
Guest


Email
« Reply #3 on: September 24, 2005, 08:05:00 am »

Thanks Dave,

I'm trying to download the sermon now.  If I can, I'll try to burn it onto a cd.  If I can't, you can be sure you'll be hearing from me  Grin.  Your offer is greatly appreciated!  From your post, it sounds like your pastor and I probably agree on this topic
I suppose what drives me nuts over this situation isn't the headcovering itself, but that it smacks so heavily of the leagalism we have been delivered from. 

Verne,

Viva la grace!!!


Gay
Logged
Oscar
Guest


Email
« Reply #4 on: September 24, 2005, 08:41:26 am »

Gay,

This issue is very much related to the question, "What is the New Testament?"

I Corinthians is a letter written by the apostle Paul to a specific church, at a specific time in history, in a specific culture, do address specific concerns that he knew about.

One of the problems we have in understanding the scriptures is that we frequently don't know what the details of the situation were.  But we do know many things. For example:

1. We know that in the pagan sacrifices the male priests covered their heads. 
2. We know that the temple prostitutes did not cover their heads.
3. We know that the male temple prostitutes frequently dressed as women and wore their hair long and used makeup.

To me, the verses that place this in proper context are verses 13-14.  Paul appeals to the current cultural standard of what is proper and acceptable.  We, in our "spiritual" manner of interpreting scripture in our assembly days, saw this as some kind of cosmic issue relating to the "testimony".

 The Plymouth Brethren are still into this idea, in fact, that is where GG learned it from.  Reading the passage without any cultural context yields just about what they teach.  Personally, I believe that they are wrong. If you ask most Christians today, "If a man wears his hair long, is it a disgrace?"  Most would say, "No big deal."  Plus there is the problem of "how long is too long?"

So, to me it is no longer an issue.  When we attended the one assembly meeting I have gone to since leaving, right after GG's fall, Caryl did not wear one, and I didn't ask her to.  But if we were visiting a PB assembly it would be, to my mind, the courteous thing to do.  We are not the only bears in the woods.  Other people have feelings, sometimes very strong feelings.  Submitting to legalism is something we shouldn't do.  But wearing defiance as a flag is only necessary in the presence of real evil, not just another interpretation.

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux
Logged
vernecarty
Guest
« Reply #5 on: September 24, 2005, 08:53:33 am »

Gay,

This issue is very much related to the question, "What is the New Testament?"

I Corinthians is a letter written by the apostle Paul to a specific church, at a specific time in history, in a specific culture, do address specific concerns that he knew about.

One of the problems we have in understanding the scriptures is that we frequently don't know what the details of the situation were.  But we do know many things. For example:

1. We know that in the pagan sacrifices the male priests covered their heads. 
2. We know that the temple prostitutes did not cover their heads.
3. We know that the male temple prostitutes frequently dressed as women and wore their hair long and used makeup.

To me, the verses that place this in proper context are verses 13-14.  Paul appeals to the current cultural standard of what is proper and acceptable.  We, in our "spiritual" manner of interpreting scripture in our assembly days, saw this as some kind of cosmic issue relating to the "testimony".

 The Plymouth Brethren are still into this idea, in fact, that is where GG learned it from.  Reading the passage without any cultural context yields just about what they teach.  Personally, I believe that they are wrong. If you ask most Christians today, "If a man wears his hair long, is it a disgrace?"  Most would say, "No big deal."  Plus there is the problem of "how long is too long?"

So, to me it is no longer an issue.  When we attended the one assembly meeting I have gone to since leaving, right after GG's fall, Caryl did not wear one, and I didn't ask her to.  But if we were visiting a PB assembly it would be, to my mind, the courteous thing to do.  We are not the only bears in the woods.  Other people have feelings, sometimes very strong feelings.  Submitting to legalism is something we shouldn't do.  But wearing defiance as a flag is only necessary in the presence of real evil, not just another interpretation.

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

Tom you raise some good points about contextual relevance.
I think one has to be extremely careful though in emphasising the culutural aspect when dealing with the application of Scripture. I have heard that line of reasoning used to condemn women who wear pants to a worship service; a viewpoint  I consider ludicrous...arguments for modesty yes, but skirts versus pants, petty hogwash...we certainly would not deny the Lord's supper to our kilt-clad brethren now would we?
Verne
p.s my lovely wife set me straight on that one...she wears a mean pantsuit... Smiley
« Last Edit: September 24, 2005, 09:04:58 am by VerneCarty » Logged
GDG
Guest


Email
« Reply #6 on: September 24, 2005, 09:05:33 am »

Quote from Tom "[Submitting to legalism is something we shouldn't do.  But wearing defiance as a flag is only necessary in the presence of real evil, not just another interpretation."/color]

Point taken bro.  I guess I'm a bit sensitive on anything that looks assembly.  I think what you are saying here is to take a breath, step back and realize this isn't a heaven or hell issue.  I still can't say that I'm happy with it though, but it is something I am going to have to come to grips with.  My daughter will be moving to her fiance's hometown (the wedding is Nov 19, '05) and that is where they will be going to church.  I suppose there are worse things to do than to fellowship where the most comtempory music is by Fanny Crosby  Grin.

Blessings,
Gay
Logged
M2
Guest
« Reply #7 on: September 24, 2005, 10:16:49 am »

OK dear well studied scholars,
Here's the deal.  Last Sunday my daughter went to church with her fiance and his family.  They attend a Plymouth Brethren church.  When they pulled into the parking lot and before anyone could get out of the van, my daughter's future mother-in-law handed her a headcovering.  The implication was very clear that this "gift" was not an option for this and all future Sundays.  Now that I have calmed down and no longer wish to "snatch this woman bald headed!" (but I still would like to see her in a crew cut  Wink)  please give me your well learned opinions on this topic. 

Personally, I do not believe that sticking a doily on your head is what Paul was talking about.  Am I wrong?

Thanks in advance for your input,
Gay

Hi Gay,

The topic of headcoverings, to wear or not to wear, is a discussion in itself.

However, I find this part interesting, "When they pulled into the parking lot and before anyone could get out of the van, my daughter's future mother-in-law handed her a headcovering."   Sounds scary to me.

Marcia
Logged
Oscar
Guest


Email
« Reply #8 on: September 24, 2005, 11:21:43 am »

Verne,

Quote

Tom you raise some good points about contextual relevance.
I think one has to be extremely careful though in emphasising the culutural aspect when dealing with the application of Scripture. I have heard that line of reasoning used to condemn women who wear pants to a worship service; a viewpoint  I consider ludicrous...arguments for modesty yes, but skirts versus pants, petty hogwash...we certainly would not deny the Lord's supper to our kilt-clad brethren now would we?
Verne
p.s my lovely wife set me straight on that one...she wears a mean pantsuit... 

Seems to me that the cultural context idea would favor relaxing the older standard.  Once upon a time a brother in the assembly announced to some of us that he had ordered his wife not to wear pants, and pointed to the OT verse that says any woman who dresses up in men's clothes should be put to death.

One of the guys he was talking to said..."there are pants designed for women."

I never heard him mention it again.

There must have been some reason that Moses addressed the issue so strongly.  Whatever it was, it doesn't seem to be around any more.

btw, Caryl wears slacks to church at times.  No biggie to me.

Thomas Maddux
Logged
Oscar
Guest


Email
« Reply #9 on: September 24, 2005, 11:24:22 am »

Quote from Tom "[Submitting to legalism is something we shouldn't do.  But wearing defiance as a flag is only necessary in the presence of real evil, not just another interpretation."/color]

Point taken bro.  I guess I'm a bit sensitive on anything that looks assembly.  I think what you are saying here is to take a breath, step back and realize this isn't a heaven or hell issue.  I still can't say that I'm happy with it though, but it is something I am going to have to come to grips with.  My daughter will be moving to her fiance's hometown (the wedding is Nov 19, '05) and that is where they will be going to church.  I suppose there are worse things to do than to fellowship where the most comtempory music is by Fanny Crosby  Grin.

Blessings,
Gay


Does your daughter want to do it, or is she going along with it to avoid problems?

Thomas Maddux
Logged
vernecarty
Guest
« Reply #10 on: September 24, 2005, 05:17:18 pm »

Verne,

Seems to me that the cultural context idea would favor relaxing the older standard. 


Absolutely! That is what is so ironic about that kind of argument.

Quote
One of the guys he was talking to said..."there are pants designed for women."

I never heard him mention it again.
Brilliant!
As any husband who mistakenly tried to slip into his wife's jeans discovered... Grin

Quote
There must have been some reason that Moses addressed the issue so strongly.  Whatever it was, it doesn't seem to be around any more.

btw, Caryl wears slacks to church at times.  No biggie to me.

Thomas Maddux

Brothers in the assembly were taught to excercise tyrannical control over their wives to the point of being lieterally abusive. I remember being in California at the home of a couple, I think the names were Brad and Verlie and was flabbergasted at the way her ordered her to quit what she was doing and go get something that he needed.
It was unspeakably vulgar and disrespectful the way he said it and I could tell his poor wife (they had been recently married) was totally humiliated. She nevertheless obediently complied. It was evident that his sole pirpose was to demonstrate to all present that he was large and in charge.
Brad if you read the BB and you still treat you wife that way, I doubt she will stick around- she seemed like a brght person.
Verne
 p.s Which of your Fullerton mentors did you learn that kind of rudeness from?
« Last Edit: September 24, 2005, 07:55:27 pm by VerneCarty » Logged
GDG
Guest


Email
« Reply #11 on: September 24, 2005, 05:55:03 pm »

Marcia,
Hope you are enjoying your b'day  Smiley and you are right, it is scary.  I don't think my daughter is getting any pressure from the felowship itself.  but rather from her future mother-in-law, which is a real kicker because the lady's church attendance over the years and even recently has been sporadic at best.  It's a control thing on her part and an attempt, I believe, at looking spiritual.  Her past has been less than Christ honoring and I think she's a bit intimidated by my daughter's pressence in her son's life.

Tom,
The use of headcoverings is a topic that we have discussed in my home and my daughter understands that we feel they are not necessary.  She feels this way too, however, she sees the need to try to keep the peace.   I have no doubt but that she and her finace will be having more discussions on this.  Frank and I have chosen to remain mute on the subject until we are approached by them.  No need for a family feud over this one.  After the first of the year, my daughter and her husband will probably move to another part of the state to get away from this woman  Cry.  As you can imagine, this is only the tip of the iceburg concerning issues with her.

Dave,
Frank and I listened to your pastor's sermon last night and we both agree that it was a very balanced way of looking at the text.  If our future son-in-law asks us for our input on the subject, a cd of the sermon will be one of the resources we will use.  Thanks  Smiley

Blessings,
Gay
Logged
Jem
Guest


Email
« Reply #12 on: September 24, 2005, 07:11:12 pm »

I think Marcia nailed this one. The problem is not so much, what does the Bible mean about headcoverings, but what did the mother-in-law mean with the van incident. It is the control that is scary.

It was like that in the assembly, eh? The issue debated was never really the issue at all; it was what was behind it.

Isn't my use of the word "issue" annoying. I'll never forget Chuck Sullivan saying about coming into the assembly, "I thought I had problems until I found out I had issues." Funny line, but a lot to ponder in that.

Gay, you are wise to not interfere in your daughter's affairs unless they come to you. They will notice that and bless you for it. But when it comes time for them to move be way over the top in your supportiveness!
Logged
al Hartman
Guest


Email
« Reply #13 on: September 24, 2005, 08:28:39 pm »


Regarding the practice of headcovering, I agree with the opinions that have been shared by those who posted before me. 

From Gay's description of the situation, my guess is that the woman in question is probably far more concerned that her future daughter-in-law's uncovered head may cast an unfavorable reflection upon her than she is with caring about the young lady's sensibilities.  She is more to be pitied than disliked (although that perspective is much easier from my position than from Gay's Undecided)



Isn't my use of the word "issue" annoying. I'll never forget Chuck Sullivan saying about coming into the assembly, "I thought I had problems until I found out I had issues." Funny line, but a lot to ponder in that.


Jem, your use of the word "issue" is perfectly normal.  It isn't annoying to me now, although it would probably have been at one time.  What annoys me these days is the propensity we all have for being intimidated by words & phrases from our past.  This is the result of the mind-control that was exercised upon us, and we all should fight against its symptoms to be free of it.  God has given us the Spirit of a sound mind, and we need to reclaim it.


al
Logged
GDG
Guest


Email
« Reply #14 on: September 24, 2005, 08:36:22 pm »

Quote from Jem:
I think Marcia nailed this one. The problem is not so much, what does the Bible mean about headcoverings, but what did the mother-in-law mean with the van incident. It is the control that is scary. Gay, you are wise to not interfere in your daughter's affairs unless they come to you. They will notice that and bless you for it. But when it comes time for them to move be way over the top in your supportiveness

Jem,
You are right.  The issue really isn't the issue at all.  It is the control and not the headcovering that's the root of the problem.  I suppose I am still touchy (even after 25 years) over assembly stuff or anything that looks assembly and I am still processing certain things.  I have spent hours and hours going over the old threads to continue to put things into perspective.  When we visited Bobby's (future son-in-law) church, my gut reaction to the headcoverings was....hmm...picture trying to stuff a cat in a toilet...I was inwardly defiant although outwardly, there was no evidence of this except I didn't participate in the practice.  Then when this woman, who has caused my baby girl no end of stress already, tries to throw her IMHO phony spirituality around...well, it caused a severe knee jerk reaction.

In a conversation with my daughter a few months ago, I mentioned that the best thing that her dad and I did after we were married was to move away from family for a couple of years.  I told her that it might be something for her and Bobby to think about.  Would you believe that very night Bobby brought up that very subject?  It is something that they are considering and you are right Jem, they are getting our support on it.  My daughter knows that I will miss her, but the marriage needs to come first and foremost.

Blessings,
Gay
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 8
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!