Welcome to De-Commissioned, a place for former members of the Great Commission movement (aka GCM, GCC, GCAC, GCI, the Blitz) to discuss problems they've experienced in the association's practices and theology.

You may read and post, but some features are restricted to registered members. Please consider registering to gain full access! Registration is free and only takes a few moments to complete.
De-Commissioned Forum
December 11, 2017, 08:21:43 am *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
  Home   Forum   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Head Coverings and the Core  (Read 3109 times)
Captain Bible
Regular (15-99 Posts)
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 83



« on: July 07, 2012, 12:58:17 am »

After lurking, I think a little post is in order...
 
Follower of Christ was inviting us to visit his church in Des Moines, thanks for the invite but I think I'll pass on that offer. His post did remind me of my old little “secret society”  Wink in Ames. It met at the mid week service on Wednesday night. The service was for the most faithful members, the original heart of the church. These were the people who had been around before the building project and the name change. To illustrate the difference in services I will quote:
Quote
1 Corinthians 11:2-9 2 “Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you. 3 But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife[a] is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. 4 Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, 5 but every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven. 6 For if a wife will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short. But since it is disgraceful for a wife to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her head. 7 For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man. 8 For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. 9 Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.”
 
This scripture could not be obeyed on sunday fully but could be obeyed on wednesday night. Believe me all the most committed women had their bandanas on. It is funny looking back with an unwashed brain: here was a passage of scripture that they wanted to fallow sunday morning but could not because it was in conflict with the greater mandate to reach the lost. (Nothing turns off the North American lost sheep more than burkas!)

On wednesday night we could see the church act as it really believed. All the bells and whistles of sunday morning were silent. Nothing but prayers and the songs of the old days (which where also as out dated as the head coverings). It was the real service because it was honest and true with no modern music and trendy catchphrases to hide behind. It was the same way at the GCLI training weekends, head coverings, old songs, small group prayers. The core... that was the phrase that was used, the core of the church.

I will say that to my memory woman in the church were respected, and the ones who covered their heads seemed to be the most respected women. It again was a commitment thing for a core woman, being the support structure for the men. This is the heart of the church we know, and it is  a traditional church with its eyes lusting for the good old days. Times before the evils of the sexual revolution, contraception and woman's liberation.

In a way it was a perfect setup, the church put up a flashing store front to get a lot of people in the door. Keeping all the unpopular doctrine far away from the public eye. Once inside you are admitted deeper toward the core by acts of service and numerous loyalty tests. We all know this. Once you get deep inside the hive leaving was not an option... thus when it happened you end up with your head spinning trying to figure out where years of your life went to...
 
aw well, live and learn. Smiley
Logged

"When you divide the land by lot as an inheritance, you must set aside a donation to the Lord, a holy portion of the land, eight and one-third miles long and six and two-thirds miles wide. This entire tract of land will be holy." Ezekiel 45: 1
newcreature
Regular (15-99 Posts)
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 86



« Reply #1 on: July 07, 2012, 09:57:24 am »

In a way it was a perfect setup, the church put up a flashing store front to get a lot of people in the door.
The flashing store front also included special deference to Christian med students, law students, professors, and conservative politicians.

I guess the ends still justify the means for GCx. Tim Rude and his church were out campaigning for a politician just like McCotter organized the Ames church to  campaign for Charles Grassley. Grassley was invited to speak to the church during his campaign. Jim introduced him to a resounding ovation. As for Tim, here is the ABC news article about Rude's rudeness: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2007/07/anti-catholic-b/

And today, members like Follower of Christ apparently still receive that special dispensation from GCX leaders which is reserved for potential doctors and lawyers. Now that I think about it, during all my years with GCx, I don't recall ever hearing a message from McCotter about James 2:1. Now I understand. He had his own book of James and he effectively propagated it among his minions.
Logged
Linda
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1649



« Reply #2 on: July 07, 2012, 10:30:07 am »

Hi Captain Bible. Nice to hear from you again. Missed you!

I think it is funny that they were all over the "head covering" thing, but missed the verse just before it.

"But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God." Obviously, Paul was in error or the translation is flawed because we all know that the head of every man is his local pastor/elder! Smiley

The head covering thing is another area where there is/was a double standard. I wish GC would just say what they mean and mean what they say. And, that they would act on what they believe consistently. Trying to keep up appearances is very misleading and confusing. The fact that we all know there is an "inside core group" is evidence of their true divisiveness.

There is ONE Church. And, yes, it's the Universal Church. Their teaching of commitment to "the local church" for life is not sound teaching and divides the Bride of Christ. I understand that Mark Darling took down the HSLT talk where he suggested commitment for life and said in a letter to us last Spring that he didn't believe people should commit to their local church for life. However, I could provide numerous teachings on that very topic that are still all over the GC sites. So, obviously, when pressed they say they don't believe in commitment to the local church for life, but in private, they continue to teach this error.
Logged

Thanks be unto God for his unspeakable gift.
EverAStudent
Private Forum Access
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 716



WWW
« Reply #3 on: July 07, 2012, 12:07:57 pm »

Some thoughts on the head covering issue:

You are all correct, GC was (is?) hypocritical when it came to such practices as head coverings (optional for evangelistic services but mandatory for small groups).  

Nonetheless, having studied head coverings as a 1st Century practice in Bible college and seminary my wife and I have concluded it was and is a trans-cultural obligatory but symbolic practice (like baptism).  We do not impose the practice on others, but when asked we do explain why we personally practice it.

Of course, the bandana is a relic of the past.  My wife prefers hats.  Smiley  And if she inadvertently forgets her symbolic "head covering" she simply does not lead out in prayer in public (she never has prophesied ... private joke).

It would be improper to assume that only hypocrites, legalists, chauvinists, and cult members sincerely adhere to the head covering passages of Scripture.  Of course, to adhere to that practice one should first understand Paul's purpose in having instituted it "in all the churches."  That is a different thread topic I think.  

Blessings.
Logged
Linda
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1649



« Reply #4 on: July 07, 2012, 03:50:01 pm »

EAS, I know several people who wear head coverings in church (usual choice hats, also). The thing is, they always cover their head in church. They are consistent. The odd thing to me is the "sometimes we do, sometimes we don't" deception that seems to be happening in GC. Definitely smacks of an "inner ring" or "secret/special knowledge". What if a Sunday church attender showed up on Wednesday. Would they be reprimanded? Do any GC churches do the head covering thing anymore?

Also, don't some Anglican churches require head coverings? For those of us who watched the Royal Wedding last year, I wonder if the whimsical "fascinators" worn by the guests in Westminster Abbey were their way of covering their heads.

Logged

Thanks be unto God for his unspeakable gift.
EverAStudent
Private Forum Access
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 716



WWW
« Reply #5 on: July 07, 2012, 04:56:22 pm »

Linda, I tend to agree with all you have said.  For my wife whenever she is in a "service" (i.e. Sunday morning, Wednesday Bible study, small group prayer meeting) she wears a head covering.  If she forgets (about as often as I forget to carry my cell phone out of the house...not often) we still worship, but she does not lead out in public per Paul's directives.  It is, after all, a symbol and not a matter of criminal law  Cheesy.

Logged
theresearchpersona
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 418



« Reply #6 on: March 09, 2013, 01:17:41 pm »

It is funny looking back with an unwashed brain: here was a passage of scripture that they wanted to fallow sunday morning but could not because it was in conflict with the greater mandate to reach the lost. (Nothing turns off the North American lost sheep more than burkas!)

Ahhh!!! Someone critiquing them, by holding them to the supposed word of God, their standard of faith and practice and all... Good work: whether or not you yourself believe it. This is what is called "fair game". : )

On wednesday night we could see the church act as it really believed. All the bells and whistles of sunday morning were silent. Nothing but prayers and the songs of the old days (which where also as out dated as the head coverings). It was the real service because it was honest and true with no modern music and trendy catchphrases to hide behind.

Do have to add a correction here, however: if they don't believe it Sunday, they don't believe it Wednesday: that kind of inconsistency is called "denial" in Scriptural terms, and throwing-around "believe" after holding them to the Scriptural standard, you might as well hold their feet to this fire as well: of course, their "old days" doctrines are largely not old by historical terms, except as heresies (the self-proclaimed apostles, prophets, lording-it-overs, etc.).

It became rather funny to me, by the way, when someone like from this forum began pointing these things out, or writing here often, and doing so repeatedly, that leadership would dismiss it by calling people obsessed with it, or with negative things, etc., when really they're just doing (whether they realize it or not) the work of exposing lies in hypocrisy: which IS a biblical mandate.

Again, good work. Keep it up.
Logged
theresearchpersona
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 418



« Reply #7 on: March 09, 2013, 01:28:28 pm »

I wonder if the whimsical "fascinators" worn by the guests in Westminster Abbey were their way of covering their heads.

Unfortunately it was. The directives of the COE require this, and the Royal family upholds tradition as part of what lends to its legitimacy (even while it likely no longer believes any of what these symbols represent). What's funny is, that headcoverings are about respectful submission, humility, and modesty: their terrible hats were none of that.

It is, after all, a symbol and not a matter of criminal law  Cheesy.

: D is right though...I do tend to think of Paul's very stark words that 'those inclined to be contentious' [on this matter] 'are not recognized'. It is an apostolic directive. You would think any "believing" or "new testament" church wouldn't have fallen for "liberal" explications to read-away this passage.

When the NIV was published, the same translators surreptitiously produced the neutered version which became[ the (<--fixed "becames" and lack of article. 2013-04-14) NIVI, TNIV, and NIV 2011, yet when one among their number dared introduce (without their knowledge) a note signalling that the relevant passage could be rendered to indicate that hair is the headcovering, they revolted until that mis-rendering was excised from the NIV's notes! It makes is all the more sadly comical when "believing", "conservative" versions like the ESV actually imposed this "long hair" gloss into the text of their translation itself (and also neutralized language giving dictates on sexuality, i.e. "effeminate" was removed--and I communicate with one of the men who convinced the various parties involved to produce the ESV, who later discovered this, asked if it was accidental, and learned it was not).

It seems it's just more shame for what...biblical texts actual say on the part of translators who want their names on academically and broadly-acceptable versions made palatable for mass consumption.  : ( And it strikes one as...purely untellectual, illiberal, unscholarly...etc. It's also funny to me in that liberal "Churches" denounced the ESV as such things (everything but changes like this) when guys like Alan Bloom (in no wise a conservative) mocked how "even the liberals have themselves a bible now" (i.e. the RSV), and when the RSV was a looser version of the []SV, American Standard Edition mixed with some Moffatt and fad choices that its editors over the years began to repent of. Then again, the RSV at least didn't care about hiding the command for women to be "in domesticity". : ) It's offensive to modern readers but then it's being honest: and such wasn't even a "well they were in such a culture" (anyone who says this doesn't know ancient culture well...as several female, secular writers, have put it). [brackets in this paragraph indicate revision on 2013-04-14]

[snip older, but redundant, with ^ added, text.]
« Last Edit: April 14, 2013, 12:48:39 pm by theresearchpersona » Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  


Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC
SimplePortal 2.1.1