Anabaptist Theological Perspectives

Jerry Eicher of Anabaptist Theological Perspectives examines the escalating conflict between New York state and Amish communities over the removal of religious vaccine exemptions for children. He summarizes the state-imposed fines for running unvaccinated schools, the Amish refusal to pay, and the legal trajectory that has reached the Supreme Court.Eicher places the crisis in historical context, recalling mid-20th-century fights over private Amish schooling that helped establish current rights to private and home education, and he recounts the famous photograph that shifted public opinion. He also contrasts responses within Amish communities (e.g., Lancaster) where some vaccination occurs, and notes recent measles outbreaks tied to the debate.The discussion moves from practical and legal tactics—parental rights, community authority, and individual bodily autonomy during COVID—to deeper theological questions about whether Amish objections rest on biblical grounds or a broader commitment to resisting state control. Eicher explores how these arguments might play out in court and what a Supreme Court decision could mean for the future presence of Amish in New York and beyond, with wider implications for religious liberty, state power, and cultural diversity.

This is Jerry Eicher from Anabaptist Theological Perspectives. The subject this morning is, in a broad sense, the veiling of the head, particularly the woman, although I'm going to zero in on only one single point, which is the glory on the head, or the glory of the woman, the glory of the man, all that, the issue with glory. But some background first, I wrote it up as a Facebook post a week ago and was not expecting a whole lot, but it got 40,000 views and, it's not that extraordinary to me, but it appeared to generate a lot of interest. So I thought I should come on here, too, and give you the details of that in verbal form. And you can go on my Facebook page, it's public, and see it there. It's the latest post if you go on this week. And further background, so I opened up the little piece by pointing out, giving it some context, that, the issue of the head veiling, and particularly the woman, It sends to zero in on her while it's just as much an issue of the man. There's a big problem in religious circles, Catholics in particular, and the Jewish people still do it. Muslims do it. The men cover their heads during worship service, and that's a big issue. That's not made as much of an issue of as the woman is, but it still is, because they are representing the covering of Christ. Doesn't matter what they say, in their heart of hearts, that is the public persona they're presenting to the world, is they are still covering up Christ in some form or the other. But this issue was largely a dormant issue for over 1900 years. And I say dormant in the theological sense, not in practice. It was very broadly practiced, mentioned every once in a while by a church father. I think Calvin even mentioned it. It just was there. That's what women did, especially in church, but also outside church. It spread both ways and that's where things stood there was not a lot of theological development other than what Paul had said but, Paul's 15-17 verses there in the first Corinthians as he opens up the issue, is deeply complex and. To people who surfers read it incomprehensible at times And I remember back in my early days coming out of the Amish, going to United Bethel there and, Oh, it was the school that they had. Rosedale, yes, was big, big and conservative. Men in that circle. And the big argument then was over Paraballo and Cotoclipto. They were in the process of throwing off the veiling. So that's what they were arguing about. And one of the teachers at Rosedale, who is now gone because this is all a long time ago, a very highly respected man. And I heard him personally say, after going over all the Parabolo and Catecliffe, and by the way, those are the two Greek words for covering and bailing, the two different ones that are used. He said he doesn't know what it is. So here was this esteemed Rosedale Mennonite, teacher saying that with all this study of Greek and all his understanding. He doesn't understand it. That has always given me a bad taste of digging into Greek, even though I do it, because you still kind of see what you want to see. And if you don't want to see it, you don't see it, no matter how many Greek stuff is thrown at you. So that's my aside about Greek. Anyways, for my 1900 years up until the opening of the 20th century, not a lot of theological development. So the attack against the veiling started early 20th century. As you go into the woman's suffrage movement, pressure starts to build, and they, on the other side, see it very much as an authority issue. They are rejecting the authority of God and how the order of creation is done between not only man and woman, but as Paul says, Christ. God is supreme. Under him is Christ. That does not make... Christ any less God, and then the man is under Christ and the man and the woman. And because the woman is under the man, it does not make the woman of any less value. But that's where things stood going into the 20th, first part of the 20th century. And when the assault came, the bulwarks, the barrier just went down quickly. It's amazing how fast it went. By the early 1960s, when the the second wave of the feminist movement started, they had a burn your veil day, openly said what it was about. The issues was about authority, rejecting the submission under man. And that's where maybe some of the later theologies kind of swirled around was that the veiling is about expressing the submission under the man. And that was a rabbit trail done, which there was no benefit at all. That's not, what it's about. It's about recognizing authority of God over you and how you are to conduct your life individually. So it's the man acting individually and the woman acting individually. And that goes out and out and on and on. So the barriers went down rather quickly and has been my contention that it was partly because those who were practicing it didn't know why, they just did it. And I've heard other people mention that. And. I could speculate on why that was. I don't really know, so I don't see a lot of benefit of that. But what has been a marvel to me, and this is what I then delved into, was that there is emerging a theological structure among Christians that is both beautiful and increasing in complexity. They are dealing with these multiple facets and issues that Paul is bringing up and weeding it into a tapestry that is worthy of God, as paraphrased Einstein. Many times he was noted for, as he looked for answers, not good enough yet, not good enough. And what is emerging is a very beautiful thing to me, and it's a marvel, it's a blessing. The sad part is that it's not coming out of the established Mennonite Bible schools, I wish it was. For whatever reason, again, they don't seem to have an interest or capability of doing that. It's occurring. Individual theologians kind of scattered all over the place. And most of them, I don't think, even have Anabaptist background. And they are coming up with the correct answers and putting it together in the proper order that it should be. And it's a very beautiful thing. And this and i'm just so focusing in on one subject one issue the glory, the glory of the woman and what does that mean what is that glory these are all questions and why is the woman called a glory she herself is called a glory and why is the hair called a glory, and what is this thing about the hair being a covering credit at the at the end there are pentecostal churches i understand. Yeah, I know some of them. Tony Coy, a pastor on Belle Fountain, his church. The women all have long hair, and that is the covering. That's how they feel that 1 Corinthians is fulfilled, by not cutting the hair. Not correct, but they pull that out of the very end of the verses and make it, cancel out everything else that was said, and it just doesn't work. So here is the structure in three parts that I'm going to lay out, or did lay out, and from what I can tell, it has withstood all attempts at this point to take it down, meaning that's one of the questions of a new perspective, a new theory that you put out, it's can it withstand the attacks that come against it? And this breakdown has withstood the attacks up to this point, at least from what I can tell. So let's break it down to three levels. Let's begin with the basic starting point that the apostle begins with. And in order for us to see it, because in this cacophony of noise that's associated with these 15, 17 verses, This can get lost. So let's strip it down to its basic starting point. And let's forget about hair right now. Let's forget about a covering. And let's just begin with the man and with the woman, just as a person, as a being, created being. The apostle claims, and claims correctly, that the man is a glory, has a glory about him. And we can go into that and butt first and support it. but it simply is. Just see, human beings have a glory around them. There's a presence, an aura, something. And the man has a glory about him just. As a person, and that is the glory of God. It's not all the glory, no, even a fraction of it, but it's a small representation of God's glory. And this is why masculinity is being so viciously attacked in our cultures is because it expresses the glory of God, the innovation, the self-motivated energy that a man has to his problem-solving, his taking charge. That's all expression of God's glory. In the same way, and again, leave the hair out of it, leave the covering out of it, the woman has a glory, a femininity it's called, just as a person, beautiful glory. And that is a representation not of God, but of the man himself. And you can take that broader, mankind, you can take it to represent glory of the church. And we don't look at humans often that way. We see them as something fallen, so on. In the original creation order, God sees humanity, created humans as a beautiful thing. They bear the image of God, and the woman reflects that glory, man's glory. That's it. Just think on that. Just absorb that point fully before you continue. Otherwise, it doesn't become a solid foundation that you're building your thought process on. So, enter the next level that the apostle introduces, which is the covering itself. So, take that just in isolation, just covering the head. This involves action from human beings. This is something that you choose to do, to put a covering on your head. And let's just kind of jump in here with practical application up front. There's nothing said about the size of it. Obviously, the covering has to be seen, so on and so forth. You have to be large enough to see it. That would be the only point. And let's take the woman first, because we see it the best there. Just think in your common, ordinary life, when a woman covers any part of her head in her normal existence. Let's say she is having a conversation and throws her hand up and covers her mouth. That is a distinctly feminine gesture. And it's beautiful. It enhances her femininity. It makes her more feminine by covering her head. So we're two steps in now. So we had an original glory as a person. When she covers her head, she increases it into whatever form. That's just a head. Just a head. Just emphasizing that's where we're at. Just think about the head, not the hair at this point. So, and the man is the same way, And we're not, again, a caveat, we're not speaking about a weather garment. You don't have to go out and catch pneumonia over this. Something religious or something in additional that serves no purpose other than just a covering. I mean, what purpose is served by a woman throwing her hand up to her mouth and covering it? Nothing. It's something kind of isolated in itself. And that is the kind of covering that the apostle would be speaking of. When a man, so go back to the man. So when the man covers his head, and we're talking about any kind of covering, if he throws his hand up on his mouth, he degrades his glory. Yes. When a man becomes, this is off the frackle a bit, but he becomes like a woman if he's feminine, it doesn't... It doesn't maximize it. It's degrading. Okay? Because what is he doing? He is, by that action, representing the covering of God's glory, since she is, his original glory is a representation of God's glory. And the same with the woman. When she covers her head, she is, by that action, representing a covering of man's glory, and so she honors God. It has nothing to do with submission. It has to do with honoring God as her own person. So this gets to the argument of whether it's just for married men, I mean women, married women, or all women once they become of maturity age, and it would definitely apply there. I think Tertullian came across that back in the second century or so. And so when she covers her head, she is representing a covering of man's glory, and so she honors God. This has nothing to do with a competition with God's glory. This is apparently a strain of this teaching that has taken off. I saw it in reform circles. I don't know where it is, but it's not correct. And nothing to do with competition. This covering of the woman's glory has nothing to do with the fact that it, so that it won't compete with God's glory. No, she is representing, as she represents man, she is representing the basic necessities of how one conducts his walk with God. This is an individual representation, nothing to do with competition. And what is she representing? So how is man's walk with God supposed to be? Well, we don't even get to start it before a man humbles himself, before God repents. And this is a humility which never must leave him if he wishes to succeed in his relationship with God. Amen. So she is representing not just something else. Was or once occurred, but a walk with God, how it's to be conducted, how man is to be conducted, and how mankind is to conduct itself, and how the church is to conduct itself. We are to cover ourselves, our own glory, and to walk in humility and brokenness before God. And that is, I didn't put it in the article, but that is, to me, has always tied directly into when he kind of throws this out about, and this is, something about, and because of the angels, and then she shall have power on her head. Well, what is it that gives us power? It's when the Holy Ghost, the Spirit of God, comes upon mankind, enables us, and what is the criteria for obtaining that type of thing and drawing, well, there's a verse that tells us, to humble ourselves and to draw nigh to God. Humility is the basis of it. So there's a big issue there that the woman is representing. And when that is no longer represented, this is tricky, but it's not, when it's no longer represented, it doesn't mean it no longer occurs. It's just not being represented. So a lot of people have justified that. Well, I live. As close to the criteria without a covering, as a lot of these people do cover. And I have never argued with that. It probably is true. But it doesn't do anything with this representation thing. I mean, why not do both? In fact, that's what we're supposed to do. Both do it and live it, not just live it and not do it. I don't know. Anyway, so now on to level three. Now, this is where things, what makes things often get complicated. So that's why I broke it down to one, two. Now we're back to level three. We're back to God's actions. This has nothing to do with us. We didn't choose this. Number three, return to God's actions, which is the long hair on the head. We had nothing to do with putting long hair on either the man or the woman. It just naturally grows long. And it's unrelated to anything that man can do. No choice is required. And this long hair, the apostle says, is a glory on the head because it's been given as a covering. What in the world is going on? This has caused more confusion and twirling and going around and, turning in the sand I've ever seen, almost, over anything in this chapter. Not chapter, but verses. And the answer is, that has emerged, and I think it's the correct one. It's one that I kind of stumbled on years ago, but it's gaining in strength, because it is the correct one. Okay, it's just a little more. This covering on the head is kind of natural and unrelated to what we have decided to think. Why would God do this? So it's his action. That's the question. Why would he put a covering, a natural covering, which we have no control over, on the head of both the man and the woman? Well, the answer seems to be, and it's the simplest one, and it's the correct one, I think, and it has withstood all attacks so far that I can see, is that these issues to God appear to be so important to him that he has not left it up just to us accidentally stumbling upon it. He has, in fact, put it in our face. So he has done what? I wasn't going to say it. I was going to say we are supposed to do, but he has done an action that provokes action from us. And he wrote, it appears to be that he wrote laws in the nature to urge us forward, give us a little help, perhaps the impetus to see the urgency of the underlying issues. Okay, so now we're at the hair. So let's apply it and see what nature is telling us. This is the lesson. So it's like God says, I'm not just going to leave this to chance to you stumbling upon it. Put it in your face. And also, this is an interesting comment that came up in the comment section against what I posted, was that this is the only scripture where this talks about and everything has to be confirmed by two or three witnesses. And I'm like, why don't you just read the post? Because there is your witness. You have it in nature. And that used to be called the two books of revelation or God speaking. It was the divine scriptures. And then it was a book of creation. So maybe that's why I did it, because everything has to be confirmed. So he wrote it in the laws of nature. So this is what happens. And this is not something that you have to spend a lot of time convincing yourself of. It just is true. Put long hair on a man, and you draw attention to him, not to God. You draw attention to himself. He exudes a dark force, a forbidden and a toxic aroma. still. You may convince yourself that, hey, I like that. That's what a man's supposed to be. Well, you're actually expressing an act of rebellion. You don't know it, maybe, but you are. You're exalting man and not God, and a man is supposed to exalt God. So what is that long hair that exudes this toxic and forbidden aroma? It's telling you to cut it off. Yeah, cut it off, because it offends God. It offends his testimony. Somebody that is, and I know it's crept into all these singers, but these singers up there are singing gospel songs with long hair. It's a contradiction of terms in the men. Like I'm singing about praises of God. In the meantime, I have this long hair, that is expressing myself. Maybe that's why there's so much problems. Shameful thing, the apostle says, because man exalting himself is shameful, throwing himself out, presenting himself as the face to the world. And I wrote that we know this in nature. No one needs to teach us. We just need to pay attention. And let me do a little aside here, which I did in the article, but this is a further expansion of it. This is why in the Old Testament, they had long hair because Christ had not come yet. Just absorb that a little bit, because I don't know if everybody has thought that deep or gone that far, but I've stumbled across that years ago. I said, well, why in the Old Testament, they weren't even allowed to trim their edges of their beards. Why that? Well, it's because God was staying true yet with his representation, and Christ had not been revealed. Once he was revealed, it all changed it. Okay, the same goes for the woman. We're talking about long hair. Place long hair on her, and the femininity is enhanced. Same thing with the hand going on the mouth. The glory that was there is increased by covering her. And God, like, put it in our face. Look at this. Look how much more beautiful she is with long hair. How more feminine. I've increased her glory by covering her. So what is he telling us? Cover her. Yes. Cover her. We open our eyes and we see it. Letting your hair down is not an axiom drawn from the thin air. The intended lesson stares us in the face. And because the issue is not resolved now. The natural covering, it's just increased. Intensity is increased. So this totally nukes the idea that these churches that teach that this is the covering as far as we go. No, it's there to teach us to put something on because that will increase it even more, her glory. So now the action is left to us. Will we follow the pattern laid out by God? Will we choose to follow God's example and cover the original glory of the woman, which is her head, and to which has been added the additional responsibility now to cover the natural glory of the woman, which is her hair. So you have two things that you have to cover when you cover. This is one of the beautiful things that has emerged. Back in Mennonite Bible study with the Rhodesle teachers, we were never at this level yet, but this is the level we've come to now. We actually have two things to deal with when we cover. We have the head, and we have the hair. So this is the question of how large the covering should be, because this is a raging discussion, too. People make big jokes out of it, and, well, blah, blah, and they went through the Menonite Church for a long time, probably still has, where the women let their hair hang long, and they put this little bobby thing on top that you have to have a helicopter or up there to see it, which that's fine for the one version of it, but it's not fine for the second problem, which is the long hair. So no rules need to be laid out. We just have to get the principle plane of what we're trying to cover. First of all, we're trying to cover the head in representation. Another side note, these religious people, Muslims in particular, but Catholics also delved in it a little bit, not as far, but the Muslims go completely off the rails. These, these, and they cover, it's related to men who cover in worship. When they get around to dealing with the woman's head covering, they become almost abusive. It's like they put their own taste on that too. And Muslim women have to, you know, kind of coverings they wear. Some of them, a complete head. That is all abuse. That's man interfering with the principles of God. So how large should the covering be? Well, the head covering, the head itself can be covered with any size cloth, as long as you can see it. And if you can't see it, it's so small you can't see it, the little button, you won't even notice it's a covering. So, that's what. Any version, they used to use the word symbol, but it got so meaningless. Any size, any covering of the woman's head, by representation, does the job for the head. But you also now have the hair. So, however the arrangement is, you have to cover the hair so that the glory of the hair is covered. Glory of the hair has to be covered. Figure that out yourself. That does not mean the sight of all hair. Keep that in mind. That means the sight of all hair, but the long hair. Since the hair is not the glory, but the long hair is the glory. That's why a man can have short hair. That's why a man can have short hair. He's not violating the principles. It's a long hair that becomes a glory. So if you want to do this correctly, you have to, whatever version you come up with, you have to cover the length, the display. So always this instinct to cheat on it. They do it, cover it, then they have a couple of wisp hanging out. I mean, I don't know if that's serious, but you're playing with it. You just don't have to be ritualistic about it or overbearing or legalistic, whatever, but that's the principle, okay? Apostle concludes, and he says, if we choose not to cover the hair, or if we choose not to play, to do this, you know, then we should go and cut off the long hair on the woman. In other words, either play the game as the rules are written, or withdraw. And somebody in the comment section, appropriately, put four pictures of Rachel Bedell, I think media person. She was a child, had nice, curly, fuzzy, long hair. She was a teenager, had beautiful long hair. She gets the left bottom, looks like she's starting in her business. Hair are very, very short. And now, today, in her present state, has almost no hair at all. And she's following whether she knows it or not. She's actually obeying the command of the apostle. So if you don't want to play the game, then get out of it. Then the apostles' final shot is that if we still want to argue, which this old generation wants to argue about this and contend with it, and they have a thousand reasons why they don't want to do this. Well, the apostles' answer is still as valid as it was back in those days. And to put it in our modern terms, there is no tradition in church history to support your argument. None. Zero. Look at it for 1900 years. What are the chances that you are right and they are wrong? I would put it at almost zero.

Jerry Eicher concludes his Romans series by focusing on Romans 12:1–2 and the central theme of sacrifice woven throughout Paul’s letter. He argues that sacrifice is the foundational posture of the new life in Christ — presenting our bodies as a living, holy, acceptable service and being transformed by the renewing of the mind.
Drawing on Anabaptist and Amish cultural examples, personal anecdotes (including family stories and a dramatic refugee bus journey), and practical concerns about gifts, obligation, and putting family first, Eicher explores how sacrificial service looks in ordinary congregational life and warns against lukewarm compromises.
He also surveys historical missionaries and revival movements — from Hudson Taylor’s faith-based endurance to Amy Carmichael’s lifelong service — to show how sacrifice has driven mass spiritual change. The episode invites listeners to rethink sacrifice as the core expression of post‑baptismal Christian living and to consider how that commitment might be recovered today.

Jerry Eicher (Anabaptist Theological Perspectives) walks listeners through Romans 8–11, focusing on the thorny passages in chapters 9–11 often cited in Calvinist debates. He examines key examples Paul uses—Isaac’s twins (Esau and Jacob), Pharaoh, and the potter and clay—asking what Paul means by foreknowledge, predestination, and election.Eicher contrasts deterministic Calvinist readings with an approach that sees God foreknowing types of people God can work with, not detailed individual destinies. He explores biblical examples (Abraham’s intercession, Moses, Sodom and Gomorrah), the role of human will and surrender, and how God can incorporate the ‘unknown’ into his purposes. Practical application emphasizes surrender and participation with God’s shaping work.

Jerry Eicher of Anabaptist Theological Perspectives tackles the difficult passages in Romans 7, setting them against Romans 6 and 8 to clarify Paul’s message about law, sin, and new life in Christ. He focuses on key verses (e.g., Romans 7:15), the baptism imagery of being "alive from the dead," and the marriage metaphor that explains freedom from the law through Christ’s death.
The episode explores the struggle between flesh and mind: how engaging the law with our flesh leads to condemnation and spiritual death, while acknowledging God’s law with the inward mind and offering sacrificial surrender allows the Spirit to work. Practical points include using reason to discern God’s will, the role of sacrificial surrender over performance-based obedience, and how the Spirit enables victory.
Listeners can expect a clear, pastoral unpacking of doctrine and application for everyday Christian living—honest wrestling with failure, steps toward surrender, and the hopeful transition into Romans 8’s promise of no condemnation and Spirit-led obedience.

This is Jerry Eicher from Anabaptist Perspectives exploring Romans 3—particularly the phrase "the faith of God" in verse 3—and arguing for the plain reading that God himself has faith in and through his own purposes. Jerry traces biblical support (including Isaiah 63), examines how God’s faith relates to human failure, law, and conscience, and reflects on the cosmic stakes of redemption.Topics covered include the priority of faith before works, how the law exposes human failure, historical and liturgical echoes (Feast of Fools, medieval imagery), a Timothy Keller observation on moral truth as a matter of faith, and the development of atonement theories—from early church Christus Victor to Anselm’s penal-substitution emphases. Jerry argues that penal substitution is necessary but not the whole story: the goal of redemption is the defeat of Satan and the vindication of God’s truth through the shedding of blood.No guests; key points: God’s faith carried the redemptive plan, human unbelief does not nullify God, faith precedes sacrificial works, and the deepest meaning of the cross is cosmic victory over evil—not merely internal legal satisfaction. Listeners can expect theological reflection, biblical exegesis, historical background, and practical implications for why faith remains central.

This episode features Jerry Eicher from Anabaptist Theological Perspectives taking a deep dive into Romans 2–3. He focuses on contested passages about judgment, works, and faith — distinguishing the works of the law from works of sacrifice — and explores how sacrifice, repentance, and baptism relate to justification. Eicher engages with historical and modern interpreters (including a note on Jordan Peterson), examines Paul and James on Abraham and works, and argues for a coherent reading that preserves both God’s righteousness and the believer’s path of patient, sacrificial faith.

Host Jerry Eicher (Anabaptist Theological Perspectives) explores Romans chapter 1—especially verses 16–17—to ask what Paul means by “the righteousness of God,” surveying theological controversies about whether God’s righteousness is inherent in his nature or defined by his will.The episode traces the biblical foundation from Genesis through Paul: the fall’s effect on the human will, idolatry and God giving people over to sinful desires, the role of conscience vs. the law, and how moral choices relate to true righteousness.Eicher contrasts Anabaptist (Menno Simons) and Protestant/Reformed/Catholic readings, arguing for the necessity of a real new birth (dying to the old self) rather than merely forensic imputation or moral reform, and discusses pastoral implications—including sensitive treatment of sexual sin, human inclination, and the limits of moralism.

Host Jerry Eicher explores the growing debate over the annihilation of the soul at death, arguing for the traditional biblical view of eternal punishment and critiquing annihilationist readings of scripture.Drawing on a quote from George MacDonald and on Stephen Hawking’s work on black holes and Hawking radiation, Eicher argues that annihilation is both theologically and scientifically problematic: evil must ‘live its evil’ until it chooses good, and matter appears to be returned to the universe rather than erased.Key points include the impossibility of ultimate annihilation, the idea of hell as containment and preservation rather than simple obliteration, and the ethical urgency for human beings to choose rightly in light of these considerations.

In this episode Jerry Eicher of Anabaptist Theological Perspectives argues that well‑intentioned mercy can sometimes do more harm than good because spiritual choices shape biological and cultural outcomes. Drawing on Jesus’ “seek the kingdom first” principle and recent neuroscience and epigenetic ideas, he explains how habits and neural connections are formed, passed between generations, and require deliberate spiritual disciplines to change.Jerry applies the principle to mission work (including a discussion of Haiti’s history and current challenges), international adoption and foster care, and the reception of new converts in Anabaptist communities. He emphasizes the importance of teaching Bible reading, prayer, fasting, submission to God’s will, and sustained discipleship rather than assuming material aid or kindness alone will produce lasting change.Listeners will learn practical cautions for missionaries, adoptive parents, and church leaders, and why deep, multi‑generational spiritual formation—not just immediate relief—is necessary to produce durable transformation.