Failure of the Great Amish and Conservative Mennonite Dress Experiment

[MattY]

Although the author seems angry and judgmental, I think a number of his arguments make sense. For example, pointing out how the rule for women wearing dresses is an interpretation of Old Testament law, which doesn't apply to Christians, seems correct.

Agreed. I've seen some of this guy's stuff before. I would probably agree with some of what he says, but not his way of going about it. Furthermore, if I remember correctly, he strongly advocates KJV-Onlyism. I might just say to him, "Physician, heal thyself."

As far as comparing Catholic and Orthodox holy Orders (monasticism) to conservative Anabaptism, I would simply say that the rise of such Orders came from an unbiblical asceticism which was partly a Roman/Greek cultural tendency and partly a response (conditioned by said cultural tendencies) to other unbiblical trends in the church such as the inclusion of large parts of society in the church without a demand for true repentance and New Testament church discipline. We can sympathize with them but we cannot agree with them. ALL Christians are called to follow Christ but we are not called to separate ourselves into various groups with ascetic rules such as forbidding marriage or forbidding eating certain kinds of meat at various times, or only wearing certain types of clothing dictated by the order, or actually being separated in physical living locations and conditions from society in general, nor is any group of Christians called to be more holy than other Christians in general. All of those things are against the New Testament. Therefore, since they are unbiblical, they should not be used as justifications for anything Anabaptists are doing.

[R7ehr]

Although the author seems angry and judgmental, I think a number of his arguments make sense. For example, pointing out how the rule for women wearing dresses is an interpretation of Old Testament law, which doesn't apply to Christians, seems correct.

However, the author is real quick and free to turn to the OT law when it comes to making affirming his own thoughts and points. He does this repeatedly in the book and one his website.

[Valerie]

Although the author seems angry and judgmental, I think a number of his arguments make sense. For example, pointing out how the rule for women wearing dresses is an interpretation of Old Testament law, which doesn't apply to Christians, seems correct.

Agreed. I've seen some of this guy's stuff before. I would probably agree with some of what he says, but not his way of going about it. Furthermore, if I remember correctly, he strongly advocates KJV-Onlyism. I might just say to him, "Physician, heal thyself."

As far as comparing Catholic and Orthodox holy Orders (monasticism) to conservative Anabaptism, I would simply say that the rise of such Orders came from an unbiblical asceticism which was partly a Roman/Greek cultural tendency and partly a response (conditioned by said cultural tendencies) to other unbiblical trends in the church such as the inclusion of large parts of society in the church without a demand for true repentance and New Testament church discipline. We can sympathize with them but we cannot agree with them. ALL Christians are called to follow Christ but we are not called to separate ourselves into various groups with ascetic rules such as forbidding marriage or forbidding eating certain kinds of meat at various times, or only wearing certain types of clothing dictated by the order, or actually being separated in physical living locations and conditions from society in general, nor is any group of Christians called to be more holy than other Christians in general. All of those things are against the New Testament. Therefore, since they are unbiblical, they should not be used as justifications for anything Anabaptists are doing.

I would like to remind us that ascetic/monastic orders are “voluntary” and if one felt called to separate themselves in this manner it was not forced or required but a conviction to be single if as Apostle Paul encouraged if “possible”. My understanding is these people felt called to separate themselves to devote themselves to pray. Prayers for the Church that lived in pagan cultures often times.

[Soloist]

In some circles the statement is made, "If the heart is right, then nothing else matters".

I would suggest that it is more correct to say, "If the heart is not right, then nothing else matters."

or,

"If the heart is right, then other things will matter as well."

Wife: yeah, I was sitting in on one of my children’s instruction class Sunday, and they were talking about how abused the verse in Samuel is about how God doesn’t look at the outward man, but at the heart. Obviously, there’s people who are Pharisaical and not actually saved, but that verse was about a tall strong handsome man versus a poor, not so powerful looking youth who was the youngest in his family, and didn’t really have much to do with what people often stretch the verse for. That specific verse sort of goes along more with a verse like proverbs 31:30 about beauty being fleeting and charm being deceptive, but a woman who fears the Lord shall be praised.

[JayP]

The lack of reasoning is appalling sometimes. How can someone in good conscience get all worked up about Catholic orders. As someone pointed out, no one makes you be a monk. Each of those orders set up rules to live by that you (and I as a Catholic) are free to take on or reject. No one says Christ said YOU must live this way. It is literally no different than the Amish saying “This is how we practice the requirement to veil, but this is how our Mennonite. Hur h practices it differently. No one I know in Anabaptist circles runs around condemning each other’s detailed practices.

Many groups have decided, as humans, that certain practices help develop differ things including spiritualality.
There is a big difference between my saying ALL Christians MUST fast and our group chooses to do this…or that.

There is nothing wrong with discussing a groups practices to decide what value or truth you may find OR reject in terms of helping your journey. Nor in examining POLITELY the degree of legitimate Christian thought is or is not compatible with those practices.

But simplistically saying “That’s dumb” is unworthy

[JohnH]

One situation I found humorous in Eastern (and do not use it to pile on their group because ALL Anabaptist groups have things like this) is the view on strings. No one wanted to say you can or cannot have strings. But some coming from different places really wanted them because their relatives in those settings would look down on them if they lacked strings. But other kind of “pure” EMPC folks felt strongly against them. Then there is the question of color, and if they are two strings or one looped, etc.

Nobody in my church group gives a flying hoot whether a covering has strings or not, although if you did wear strings, you might be considered to be a quite entertaining individual.

Most Holdeman women in North America and Ukraine wear the same style of a simple black cap. Some decide to wear it like a veil with a flap out. And at church it's irrelevant since we believe in wearing actual head coverings when at a church service. A lady who attends our church decided she likes cape dresses better than the typical Holdeman dress styles. Good for her and I'm glad she's happy with that. You can wear a cape dress, or you can wear a homemade dress, or you can buy a dress on Amazon, or if you are like some sisters, you can sneak under the radar and wear a skirt and a shirt.

I occasionally generate amusement when I wear my broadfalls I like to use as work pants. My wife got them for $4 for me at an Amish thrift store and unlike the $60 pants from Duluth, they don't have holes in them and seem to be able to really standup to a beating. So you can wear broadfalls, or store bought jeans, or expensive jeans, although if you wear expensive fashion brands people might start to look at you sideways. After the brands have gone "out of style", it's more okay. I have on some Nike athletic pants right now, and given the degredation of the Nike brand they are pretty much acceptable now (in so far as sporting athletic style pants is okay at all).

Some men wear suit jackets, even young men. Some preachers never don a suit jacket at all. The preachers at my church like to. A suit is not considered some garment of holiness for men, yet neither it is considered improper or too formal to wear one.

And some fashion trends are good...one thing I'm very happy about is the trend towards more natural type of fibres, like linen and wool, and the prevailing dress style has also changed to a looser fit, which I personally prefer and think affords more dignity to young women. But if a handful of younger girls prefer to wear the older styles or a snugger fit, I don't see that as wrong or a problem either.

[Ernie]

Although the author seems angry and judgmental, I think a number of his arguments make sense. For example, pointing out how the rule for women wearing dresses is an interpretation of Old Testament law, which doesn't apply to Christians, seems correct.

Many follow what he calls the "Conservative Dress Experiment" due to their desire to honor God, and I believe that should be respected. Personally, I think it should be voluntary, rather than church rules, which would avoid some of the problems the author cites.

Do you feel the same way about Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant Orders? The last I knew, people sign up to be part of Orders voluntarily. If they want to follow rules, they can choose to do so. If they don't want to follow rules or be part of an Order with a dress code, there are lots of other options available that will let them do as they please.

There's a big difference between church orders and local churches that practice congregational polity. The first is a subgroup within a church. The second is a church unto itself. In the first instance, the choice to join or not joint the voluntary order does not "put you out of Christ's church." in the second instance, it does. One can still share communion with the church that is honoring God even if they don't feel right about the biblicism of the convictions of that particular order.

The second may think of itself as a church unto itself but it isn't. The New Testament indicates otherwise. If we use the NT definition of church, then there are Orders and there are non-Orders within The Church, no matter what people call themselves. They might call themselves a church and put people out of the church for not following the Order, but that does not mean they have the right to do this or that the person put out of the church is actually put out of The Church.

"Options" don't exist as much for everyone as you might expect. Sure, in places like Lancaster, Shippensburg, or Holmes County OH might have a plethora of anabaptist "options", but in most places, there really isn't a buffet of options like that.

"Options" don't exist as much for everyone as you might expect. Sure, in places like Lancaster, Shippensburg, or Holmes County OH might have a plethora of anabaptist "options", but in most places, there really isn't a buffet of options like that.

I suspect most places have plenty of options of other churches. One could go to a Baptist church, a megachurch, a Catholic church, etc.

Correct. I was saying that if you don't want to be part of an Order, most people have the option of attending an Augustinian church very near to them without driving very far.

Side note: the Greek word for "option" is "heresy" and the idea of people "choosing" their preferred church and not being part of the catholic (universal) church was the biggest concern of most Christian leaders up until the Reformation.

Yes, I think Protestants swung the pendulum way to far.

Options of church Orders work best in a larger institutional church like the Roman Catholic Church. I think there are PLENTY of passages from the apostles that would make it clear where they would stand on things like "wear a dress or you are not a part of the body of Christ".

In a larger institutional church that has Orders within it, those in the Orders are looked up to, and have a way of inspiring all the members, to varying degrees, of a higher calling to look unto Christ and be transformed into His likeness.

There is an element within Protestantism/Anabaptism that function basically the same way. The Protestants admire the Anabaptist Orders and look up to them, even if they can't find the motivation to live that way themselves. There is an element of Anabaptists who view Augustinians who are living faithfully as part of the church, even if they don't live and dress the way they do.

There are 2 ways of doing a church Order properly. Either (1) form a multi-congregational church that is way more of a "denomination" than most anabaptists would be comfortable with, and start church Orders within that larger structure, or (2) acknowledge the ecumenical church of Christ and welcome anyone into communion, whether Catholic, Lutheran, Pentacostal, whatever, and make it known that your local assembly is a sort of "Ecumenical Church Order" with higher standards of holiness than you expect from other local assemblies.

Who determines what is proper?
Here is another option...
(3) Within a church, have Standard A that people can commit themselves to who want the benefit of ancient practices, thick community, safeguard standards, and church ethos to help them keep from being tossed to and fro by everything that comes along. Have Standard B which is the minimum standard for being part of the church.

[JohnH]

I have very little desire to be a Standard A person and then send my children to school with Standard B people, have Standard B people in the youth group, or eventually marry someone from a Standard B family.

So realistically Standard A people are simply going to want to have their own church.

[Neto]

....
Here is another option...
(3) Within a church, have Standard A that people can commit themselves to who want the benefit of ancient practices, thick community, safeguard standards, and church ethos to help them keep from being tossed to and fro by everything that comes along. Have Standard B which is the minimum standard for being part of the church.

I suspect that this is roughly how it works out in most congregations. Some are on the more 'reserved' side of things, while others live at the other edge. Only sort of similar, I suppose, because it's more of a continuum than two distinctive groups.

Not that I like it, however. I would prefer that there be fairly close agreement within the congregation. (This 'spread' has widened in our own congregation here, in the 30 years we have been members.)

[ken_sylvania]

Here is another option...
(3) Within a church, have Standard A that people can commit themselves to who want the benefit of ancient practices, thick community, safeguard standards, and church ethos to help them keep from being tossed to and fro by everything that comes along. Have Standard B which is the minimum standard for being part of the church.

So the Standard A people want the benefit of ancient practices, thick community, personal relationships instead of Facebook relationships, the benefit of sitting in a circle on Sunday afternoon discussing topics and sometimes breaking out their hard-copy Bibles to look at the wording of a passage together. Is it appropriate then for a Standard A family to mostly do things with other Standard A families? It's enough of a tendency toward unintentionally having a two-tiered congregational life without explicitly designing it to create such a thing. Who decides when a person qualifies to be moved up to Standard A status? Will the Standard B people be OK with not having a church workday to replace the roof on their shed? Or will they feel left out when the Standard A people regularly help one another but don't extend the same community to the Standard B people? Then, of course, keeping in mind how that congregations ought to be small enough to meet in homes and whatnot - that gets to be a really small group of Standard A people to try to hold together that community, ancient practice, and church ethos.