Worldliness

[JohnH]

The implication, of course, is that to be outwardly more conservative or traditionally "plain" is to have less worldliness and thus more Christlikeness; as if the cut of a man's suit, the amount of buttons on his shirt, or the difference between a knee-length skirt and an ankle-length skirt has anything to do with worldliness.

One of my complaints with moderate conservative groups (particularly Amish Mennonites such as Beachys and other similar groups) is their culture concerning conservative Anabaptism tends to be very, very clothing based. I don’t agree with this either.

I thought you have been making the case the last few days that not being as plain as the previous generations is a sign of transition toward worldliness. I would have taken it that a big part of the plainness you were referring to was about clothing.

Particularly specific styles of plain clothing is what I would care about the least.

Amongst groups with an inordinate focus on clothing, you can asssess where they are in transitionalism by what’s going on with their clothes. (If the group instead were very, very focused on vehicles, you could simply assess their driveways and church parking lots.)

I do think a Christian spirit produces someone who looks like a Christian and covers the shame of our nakedness.

[JohnH]

I support this. I think it is best applied to oneself and other likeminded subgroups that may wish to, say, avoid Smartphones, or ice cream, or hunting. Or to do certain other things, read 20 books a year, go to the gym, go to church each time the doors are open, etc.

I don't see Biblical data that such restrictions should be linked to whether or not one is "fellowshipped" with...or the cause of denial of communion of the saints.

I prefer not to commune with people who, for example, carry guns, vote, run for office, etc

Is carrying guns at all problematic for you, or just carrying guns during the communion service?

As far as communion goes, I expect one’s conduct to be consistent both inside and outside of church.

I should have clarified I mean people carrying handguns, particularly concealed or in a car, etc., not someone transporting a rifle to engage in lawful hunting.

[Ernie]

Amongst groups with an inordinate focus on clothing, you can asssess where they are in transitionalism by what’s going on with their clothes. (If the group instead were very, very focused on vehicles, you could simply assess their driveways and church parking lots.)

My observation is that some groups that are very, very focused on clothing, are also very, very focused on vehicles, reading material, entertainment, education, music, and so forth.

Others who are very, very focused on clothing are also very, very focused on modes of transportation, technology, language preservation, etc.

So who are you referring to with the "inordinate focus on clothing".

[JohnH]

Amongst groups with an inordinate focus on clothing, you can asssess where they are in transitionalism by what’s going on with their clothes. (If the group instead were very, very focused on vehicles, you could simply assess their driveways and church parking lots.)

My observation is that some groups that are very, very focused on clothing, are also very, very focused on vehicles, reading material, entertainment, education, music, and so forth.

Others who are very, very focused on clothing are also very, very focused on modes of transportation, technology, language preservation, etc.

So who are you referring to with the "inordinate focus on clothing".

I have found moderate conservatives, particularly of the Beachy and Amish-Mennonite strains, to be very focused on clothing but seemingly quite unconcerned with a lot of other things. One aspect of this is they seem to be more focused on women’s clothes than men’s clothes as well.

Whereas from my interactions with Old Order groups, they barely ever talk about clothing styles or changes in them and wouldn’t use it as a basis to choose which district to move to.

I met with a family who started attending my old moderate conservative church. The cane from a more conservative (non radio but allowed prints) Beachy. I asked them why they came to ours instead of a split from ours, which was more suited to them. They agreed they liked it better, except “then we would have to change our clothes”. So the deciding factor was whether or not a church had prints on women’s dresses.

[GaryK]

One of my complaints with moderate conservative groups (particularly Amish Mennonites such as Beachys and other similar groups) is their culture concerning conservative Anabaptism tends to be very, very clothing based. I don’t agree with this either.

I thought you have been making the case the last few days that not being as plain as the previous generations is a sign of transition toward worldliness. I would have taken it that a big part of the plainness you were referring to was about clothing.

Particularly specific styles of plain clothing is what I would care about the least.

And yet when moderate conservatives move away from the specific styles of clothing the generations before them specified, it is a sign of transitional Anabaptism that becomes a lost cause. So which is it? Do you care about specific styles of clothing or not?

Amongst groups with an inordinate focus on clothing, you can asssess where they are in transitionalism by what’s going on with their clothes. (If the group instead were very, very focused on vehicles, you could simply assess their driveways and church parking lots.)

So it does seem you view clothing as a way of determining a movement toward worldliness.

[Nomad]

Amongst groups with an inordinate focus on clothing, you can asssess where they are in transitionalism by what’s going on with their clothes. (If the group instead were very, very focused on vehicles, you could simply assess their driveways and church parking lots.)

My observation is that some groups that are very, very focused on clothing, are also very, very focused on vehicles, reading material, entertainment, education, music, and so forth.

Others who are very, very focused on clothing are also very, very focused on modes of transportation, technology, language preservation, etc.

So who are you referring to with the "inordinate focus on clothing".

I have found moderate conservatives, particularly of the Beachy and Amish-Mennonite strains, to be very focused on clothing but seemingly quite unconcerned with a lot of other things. One aspect of this is they seem to be more focused on women’s clothes than men’s clothes as well.

Whereas from my interactions with Old Order groups, they barely ever talk about clothing styles or changes in them and wouldn’t use it as a basis to choose which district to move to.

I met with a family who started attending my old moderate conservative church. The cane from a more conservative (non radio but allowed prints) Beachy. I asked them why they came to ours instead of a split from ours, which was more suited to them. They agreed they liked it better, except “then we would have to change our clothes”. So the deciding factor was whether or not a church had prints on women’s dresses.

"I have found" this not to be true about the Beachy and Amish-Mennonite variety.

[JohnH]

And yet when moderate conservatives move away from the specific styles of clothing the generations before them specified, it is a sign of transitional Anabaptism that becomes a lost cause. So which is it? Do you care about specific styles of clothing or not?

Moderate conservatives are the ones that decided to focus on clothes. For example, I made the mistake of inviting people to my old church. They wanted to be members and met all standards, except the wife didn’t wear a see through organdy kapp. At the time they required this and made a big deal out of it, including that she agree to wear it during the week. (Other members would wear black lacey type veils at home during the week, but they expected an applicant who is “from the world” to ageee to only wear a kapp.)

But since they’re also transitional, a few years later they decided to go with white hanging veils instead. This kind of thing makes very little sense to me. If it were important to require it of a seeker, then it should be important not to change it in the future.

Amongst groups with an inordinate focus on clothing, you can asssess where they are in transitionalism by what’s going on with their clothes. (If the group instead were very, very focused on vehicles, you could simply assess their driveways and church parking lots.)

So it does seem you view clothing as a way of determining a movement toward worldliness.

If a group decides that clothing is very important and teaches its members that clothing should be an outward sign of separation from the world, what should I think when such a group, or members who taught such things / promoted such views, then start adopting clothing that is less distinct from the world?

[GaryK]

And yet when moderate conservatives move away from the specific styles of clothing the generations before them specified, it is a sign of transitional Anabaptism that becomes a lost cause. So which is it? Do you care about specific styles of clothing or not?

Moderate conservatives are the ones that decided to focus on clothes. For example, I made the mistake of inviting people to my old church. They wanted to be members and met all standards, except the wife didn’t wear a see through organdy kapp. At the time they required this and made a big deal out of it, including that she agree to wear it during the week. (Other members would wear black lacey type veils at home during the week, but they expected an applicant who is “from the world” to ageee to only wear a kapp.)

But since they’re also transitional, a few years later they decided to go with white hanging veils instead. This kind of thing makes very little sense to me. If it were important to require it of a seeker, then it should be important not to change it in the future.

Amongst groups with an inordinate focus on clothing, you can asssess where they are in transitionalism by what’s going on with their clothes. (If the group instead were very, very focused on vehicles, you could simply assess their driveways and church parking lots.)

So it does seem you view clothing as a way of determining a movement toward worldliness.

If a group decides that clothing is very important and teaches its members that clothing should be an outward sign of separation from the world, what should I think when such a group, or members who taught such things / promoted such views, then start adopting clothing that is less distinct from the world?

Maybe they are arriving at the same place as you.

One of my complaints with moderate conservative groups (particularly Amish Mennonites such as Beachys and other similar groups) is their culture concerning conservative Anabaptism tends to be very, very clothing based. I don’t agree with this either.

[Ernie]

Moderate conservatives are the ones that decided to focus on clothes. For example, I made the mistake of inviting people to my old church. They wanted to be members and met all standards, except the wife didn’t wear a see through organdy kapp. At the time they required this and made a big deal out of it, including that she agree to wear it during the week. (Other members would wear black lacey type veils at home during the week, but they expected an applicant who is “from the world” to ageee to only wear a kapp.)

But since they’re also transitional, a few years later they decided to go with white hanging veils instead. This kind of thing makes very little sense to me. If it were important to require it of a seeker, then it should be important not to change it in the future.

Unfortunately this is all too common.
When I joined a moderate-conservative church, a senior leader from one of the congregations in our fellowship encouraged me to get a suitcoat with hooks and eyes so that I would fit in better with their fellowship of churches. I smiled but didn't oblige because I knew this practice was changing in some congregations and besides, my church did not require it. A year later he was wearing a new suit coat with buttons. I have seen other examples of this.

In all fairness, it has to do with identity and uniformity and keeping the old ways, not with the practice itself. Once a church agrees to change a practice, many people change to the new practice who previously were not in favor of the change.

[Thomas_muntzer]

Those are great words MattY thanks a lot for sharing them