MennoNet.com

Personally I believe its more modest to not tuck it in, but I'm very open to change given that we all must submit in some fashion on many things.
I know of a group that formed from the net and ended up on the west coast doing communal living, they as a practice wore tunics for modesty sake.

The classic argument is that a man's eyes go up and imagine things when women are wearing pants or short dresses/skirts.
The problem is for some women they have the same problem.

At the end of the day, most people would agree that pants/dresses were not worn in the early church times but rather robes of some sort.

I will gladly change practice for a group.

Josh wrote:I would like to discuss the Anabaptist practice of tucking in or not tucking in shirts.
1. Justifications for teaching it is proper for believers
2. Justifications for teaching it is not
3. The practice of tucking in at church, but barely anywhere else

A lot of people believe it is God-honoring and respectful of other people to dress up for church. In yesteryear, everybody tucked in their shirts except maybe for work, so it is simply a conservative practice.

Josh wrote: 7. How to explain to an unbeliever why you tuck in your shirt whenever in public or with visitors over at your home, even in a very casual setting.

If your shirt is not tucked in, you are more likely to show skin around the waist. The more "decent" Old Orders and Conservatives believe that we should not show more skin around the waist then necessary, hence the practice of tucking one's shirt in.

It is hard for me to play volleyball and keep my shirt tucked in so I don't even try.

Josh wrote:8. Let's also discuss if our witness becomes more positive by doing so.

I would think the public would see this as being totally in line among plain people who attempt to retain older values, clothing patterns from former eras, neat dress, and well covered bodies.
But I am open to hearing what the public actually thinks.

This is really funny, because it was required in the public HS I attended. That is, if the shirt was made to be tucked in (shaped bottom hem), it must be tucked in, or you could be expelled. Seriously. The only type of shirt that could be left out was the type with a straight hem. All but top button closed. No pant legs tucked into boot tops. If the pants had belt loops, a belt was required. So to me, it just looks sloppy to leave shirt tails out. (I even tucked in my shirts when I was a Jesus Freak, and looked like a hippie. Even when I wore a cut off choir robe as a shirt, once on a trip from Minnesota back to Oklahoma. That's the time a guy at a rest stop asked me if I was 'traveling with speed'.....)

Soloist wrote: At the end of the day, most people would agree that pants/dresses were not worn in the early church times but rather robes of some sort.

So, if we really are a Jesus follower, why adapt a different form of non-conforming, modest dress and go back to wearing robes ? Can't get much more non-conforming and modest than that. I wonder why Jesus did not command a non-conforming robe in His time on earth. Seems apparel was not an identifier of non-conformance even though wearing robes would be modest. This thread is very puzzling if I look at what Jesus actually modelled regarding dress.

Sudsy wrote:

Soloist wrote: At the end of the day, most people would agree that pants/dresses were not worn in the early church times but rather robes of some sort.

So, if we really are a Jesus follower, why adapt a different form of non-conforming, modest dress and go back to wearing robes ? Can't get much more non-conforming and modest than that. I wonder why Jesus did not command a non-conforming robe in His time on earth. Seems apparel was not an identifier of non-conformance even though wearing robes would be modest. This thread is very puzzling if I look at what Jesus actually modelled regarding dress.

The tangled web we weave......

I'm down for it so long as it won't put me at odds with my brothers in Christ. j/k. I think it deals more with uniformity. Perhaps there are no real answers other than the most hated one "it is just how we do it". I mean think of the reality, we technically could really be modest and dressed by walking around in a box with eye holes cut out. Like good rectangular box (no bottom so we could walk). We'd be super modest then...

But of course we chose fabric. Why? Leathers - okay.... Carboard, no. Metal (like armor) no. I guess as humans we make practical and in the church uniformity around the practical. Thus fabric as material -> yet less fabric without flowing robes... Possibly more modest as men climb into all types of predicaments and heights.

I don't expect Jesus ever tucked in a shirt.

Sudsy wrote:

Soloist wrote: At the end of the day, most people would agree that pants/dresses were not worn in the early church times but rather robes of some sort.

So, if we really are a Jesus follower, why adapt a different form of non-conforming, modest dress and go back to wearing robes ? Can't get much more non-conforming and modest than that. I wonder why Jesus did not command a non-conforming robe in His time on earth. Seems apparel was not an identifier of non-conformance even though wearing robes would be modest. This thread is very puzzling if I look at what Jesus actually modelled regarding dress.

Did the custom of non-conformity in clothing develop over time? I've heard that the reason the Anabaptists avoided mustaches with their beards was because the military wore mustaches.
Wait... let me take this to a different thread on this to avoid BTing.

I have much more respect for "this is just how we do it" (based on shared principles) than when groups do mental gymnastics to create a Biblical chapter & verse rational for something that is clearly extra-biblical.

I see three basic principles in the NT for dress/appearance.

1. It should be modest.
2. It should be simple.
3. It should not be "costly array".

The Christian will be identifiable in society. But the form which his identity takes varies with what society he happens to be part of. Sometimes the woman bears the brunt of the identity, and sometimes the man does. During early Anabaptist times, Christians were peasants, mostly, and all of them dressed like peasants. But when the government ordered all men to carry swords in public, the men became very identifiable because they refused.

The basic all-encompassing principle is that there will always be tension between the two kingdoms. That tension varies but it is always there. We have become so accustomed to this tension being our appearance and clothing, that we have lost sight of some of the other ways. If a man is dressed according to biblical principle, but doesn't happen to stand out in the place where he is, he shouldn't be accused of not being Christian. I don't think the Bible anywhere says that Christians must be identifiable from a quarter mile away. In today's world, a woman who has a biblical appearance will stand out. The man at her side might not, at first glance. But if you work with him, it shouldn't take you long to realize that he is part of God's kingdom.

The Bible says, come out from among them [the kingdom of the world] and be ye separate [part of God's kingdom]. That is the crucial thing. The conservative churches have drawn up guidelines to help their people fit into this in today's world. This has resulted in a promotion of uniformity. But uniformity is simply a process that makes it easier for the church. I agree that in too many cases we get the cart before the horse, and start with uniformity, then ensuring that this promotes nonconformity in dress, and then assume that we are meeting the biblical principles. I feel that we should start with the biblical principle. If that is followed the other things will fall into place as necessary. If people understand the two kingdom teaching, and the need for separation between the two kingdoms, and the fact that this will create tension between the kingdom, they will understand the need for being different from the world.

It isn't a formula, such as wear this then you are a Christian. But being a Christian does do something to your appearance, and a host of other things in your life.

JimFoxvog wrote:I don't expect Jesus ever tucked in a shirt.

I doubt if he ate French Fries or a Latte either. Like Dan said, some things we just do a certain way.
Other things we do to encourage certain values or certain principles. Orderliness and consistency is important in the more conservative end of the Anabaptist spectrum, and some things like tucking in shirts is considered more orderly and consistent.