To Be Plain or Not to Be Plain

[joshuabgood]

The church I grew up in had two books. The Church Hymnal and the Christian Hymnal. And for special occasions we pulled out the Life Songs 2. And at achool we used the Church and Synday School Hymnal.

I like them all...in their own way.

[Josh]

I am curious as to where the term 'plain' originated in Anabaptism and if there is defined lines on when a group is 'plain' and when they are not plain.
'Plain' is not a word I find in scripture as defining a brand or type of Christ following. I would not know what constitutes 'plain' if I chose to be 'plain'.

Any explanation somewhere on what it requires to be a 'plain Christian' ?

The dictionary says being plain is being 'ordinary in character'. I really don't think Christians are or should be ordinary with no distinct features so the word plain must mean something else when used of certain Christians.

My church doesn’t call itself plain and neither do most other plain churches. We do use words like simple, humble, unnecessary adornment, and modest which are Bible words and words like economical and practical which are Bible concepts.

Academics call us “plain Anabaptists”.

[mike]

What sense does this book make to a follower of Jesus who knows nothing of the conservative Anabaptist tradition? Does it have any value to them at all?

I see I didn't get an answer to this question, so I'll expand on it a little. What sense does it make to someone completely unaware of the conservative Anabaptist tradition to advocate for the wearing of the Mennonite plain coat for example? Some of the practices of plain Anabaptists could appear to be completely arbitrary and lacking in any sort of biblical underpinning. Of what value are things like this to someone from outside our tradition, and what sense does it make to them?

[Soloist]

What sense does this book make to a follower of Jesus who knows nothing of the conservative Anabaptist tradition? Does it have any value to them at all?

I see I didn't get an answer to this question, so I'll expand on it a little. What sense does it make to someone completely unaware of the conservative Anabaptist tradition to advocate for the wearing of the Mennonite plain coat for example? Some of the practices of plain Anabaptists could appear to be completely arbitrary and lacking in any sort of biblical underpinning. Of what value are things like this to someone from outside our tradition, and what sense does it make to them?

I had responded to you

[mike]

What sense does this book make to a follower of Jesus who knows nothing of the conservative Anabaptist tradition? Does it have any value to them at all?

I see I didn't get an answer to this question, so I'll expand on it a little. What sense does it make to someone completely unaware of the conservative Anabaptist tradition to advocate for the wearing of the Mennonite plain coat for example? Some of the practices of plain Anabaptists could appear to be completely arbitrary and lacking in any sort of biblical underpinning. Of what value are things like this to someone from outside our tradition, and what sense does it make to them?

I had responded to you

Ah. I see that now.

[Ernie]

What sense does this book make to a follower of Jesus who knows nothing of the conservative Anabaptist tradition? Does it have any value to them at all?

I see I didn't get an answer to this question, so I'll expand on it a little. What sense does it make to someone completely unaware of the conservative Anabaptist tradition to advocate for the wearing of the Mennonite plain coat for example? Some of the practices of plain Anabaptists could appear to be completely arbitrary and lacking in any sort of biblical underpinning. Of what value are things like this to someone from outside our tradition, and what sense does it make to them?

The book quotes John Wesley. I think there was also some other well-known person who wished his denomination would have had a dress code like the plain people. (If anybody knows of people other than John Wesley who have made similar comments, I would like to know about them.)

There are people who study plain Anabaptists and are inspired and adopt their own dress code that makes sense to them. Such folks are very few. However, there are non-Anabaptists who have a plain dress code, who could write a similar book to their own people, and mention their own distinctive attire, and quote Anabaptists to help bolster their position.

I agree though that I would not hand this book to anyone other than those who want to be plain Anabaptist or those who want to know more about implementing distinctive attire/dress codes.

[Josh]

What sense does this book make to a follower of Jesus who knows nothing of the conservative Anabaptist tradition? Does it have any value to them at all?

I see I didn't get an answer to this question, so I'll expand on it a little. What sense does it make to someone completely unaware of the conservative Anabaptist tradition to advocate for the wearing of the Mennonite plain coat for example? Some of the practices of plain Anabaptists could appear to be completely arbitrary and lacking in any sort of biblical underpinning. Of what value are things like this to someone from outside our tradition, and what sense does it make to them?

Good question.

The short answer is that, to someone completely unaware of (for example) the habits and customs of Amish people, hearing about the clothes Amish people wear won't make too much sense to them. The answer, however, is that "Amish" or "conservative Mennonite" or what have you only makes sense in a context of knowing who these people are, having them as neighbours, shopping at their stores, interacting with them as customers, and so on.

Some of the practices of plain Anabaptists could appear to be completely arbitrary and lacking in any sort of biblical underpinning.

One of the premises of evangelical-fundamentalist (and most conservative Mennonite groups try to do this, but Old Orders groups generally do not) is that they think they have to find some Bible verse to prove why whatever they do is okay. A rather extreme example of this are Charity folks who torture out of some passage that double-layer garments (for women) are somehow ordained by the Bible.

I don't think is the correct approach at all, because the Bible (particularly the New Testament) is not intended as a law and as a code for living. Yet it is obvious the duty of the church is to figure out how to make practical application of what we are taught in the NT and live it in our daily lives.

Of what value are things like this to someone from outside our tradition, and what sense does it make to them?

I think they have value for people who decide to join a particular plain group. If my church thought it best for men to wear plain coats, then I would have one (if I could even figure out where to find them or how to make them) and wear one to church, or formal occasions, or wherever it is exactly they're supposed to be worn.

It may well be that some traditions have a rather shaky foundation (the plain coat, unfortunately, would be one of these, it largely being a rather new innovation and dreamt up as hopefully being analogous to the Christian woman's covering by those who were trying to maintain the concept of plain dress as the old Mennonite church became fundamentalist around 1900.) Those ones are going to be a little tougher for those outside our tradition to understand, but the biggest harm frankly comes when outsiders accept many of these traditions, only to watch them be gradually stripped away as their new church home gradually drifts to the world.

I'm not entirely sure what to do about all of this, but my first instinct is that most of "plainness" should not (a) involve clothing, and (b) of what does involve clothing, less than 51% should be women's clothing. Many other things can indeed be plain and should be: church buildings, Christian people's homes, yards, cars, and so forth.

[Ernie]

It may well be that some traditions have a rather shaky foundation (the plain coat, unfortunately, would be one of these, it largely being a rather new innovation and dreamt up as hopefully being analogous to the Christian woman's covering by those who were trying to maintain the concept of plain dress as the old Mennonite church became fundamentalist around 1900.)

The irony to me is that the plain cut suitcoat (as worn by Mennonites the last 100 years) is a Mandarin cut/style worn by politicians and military personnel in China. Many businessmen and politicians in Southern and Eastern Asia still wear this collar as part of their business garb.

Something similar is worn by Catholic and Orthodox clergy.

John Oberholtzer was the first to break with the traditional Mennonite rounded collar and wore a stand-up collar when he came to the meeting where he withdrew from the Mennonite Church. (wearing this particular coat was to indicate that his leaving the conference was not about his coat, but because he did not wear what was normally worn by the ordained, was an indication that he was "still standing up inside".) How the Old Mennonites decided to adopt his style coat 50 years later baffles me.
https://gameo.org/index.php?title=Oberh ... 09-1895%29

Many Amish Mennonites in Ontario Canada wear a V cut coat with no lapel.
(fwiw, a lapel jacket is basically a straight cut suit with the top folded back)

[Josh]

One solution is that plain clothes should actually be plain. For example, T-shirts with no writing on them are obviously plainer than ones with a flashy design or bearing a fashion label.

A simple, practical outfit like might be worn on a farm both encourages spending time in God's creation and discourages pride in appearance. ("Fancy" dress might include trying to dress up like a cowboy with a cowboy hat and the latest Carhartt gear.) Simple coveralls could be worn, and in fact many Amishmen do that - even if they spend most their time working in an office.

[Praxis+Theodicy]

One of the premises of evangelical-fundamentalist (and most conservative Mennonite groups try to do this, but Old Orders groups generally do not) is that they think they have to find some Bible verse to prove why whatever they do is okay. A rather extreme example of this are Charity folks who torture out of some passage that double-layer garments (for women) are somehow ordained by the Bible.

Though I'm not usually one to defend evangelicalism, I want to offer a perspective here. This "only enforce what's in the Bible or what can be clearly implied from the Bible" mindset has its reasons. A big one is how much Jesus had a problem with the Pharisees "fencing the torah". Paul also took issue with the heavy influence the Pharisee party had in the newly forming churches he planted, which comes out a lot in his letter to the Roman's, and even stronger in his letter written widely to all the churches in the region of Galatia. There is also the spot where he tells his recipients to "have nothing to do with" people who try to get them to adopt extra rules about food, festivals, etc. He says they are useful for building asceticism, but fruitless for true heart growth. It's a big theme in the New Testament, and it's taken seriously in many evangelical churches.

Now, my opinion on evangelical churches isn't so much what they choose to enforce, but how they choose to enforce (or not enforce) the convictions they DO have. It's a slippery slope from:
"all attendees will observe this"
to
"all members will observe this"
to
"anyone presenting something to the church (praying, preaching, choristers, etc) will observe this,"
to
"ordained people will observe this"
to
"we'll teach this, but not enforce it"
to
"we won't teach it, but if pressed about it, we'll admit that some Christians do make a choice to follow that teaching, but it's not a salvation issue,"
to
"okay, just forget it."