The Early Anabaptists

[JohnH]

I think anyone intellectually honest can admit plain dress was invented by Quakers, Moravians, the early monastics, and others, and adopted by Anabaptists much later.

[Ernie]

If clothing was central to their identity, why is that not central to their writings, self-description, or descriptions of others who saw them?

Notice how you reframed the discussion here. Remember, the statement you made that I asked for the source for is your claim that the early Swiss Brethren dressed like their neighbors. In support of that claim, you say "if clothing was central to their identity" one wouldn't expect them to not write about it.

Which is why quite a number of years ago, I gave up trying to participate in discussions that go this way.

I am not aware of any evidence that either the Swiss Brethren or the Mennonites or any of the early Anabaptists wore distinctive dress or uniforms at all. When I think of "early Anabaptists", I am mostly thinking of the first century, perhaps 1525 to 1650 (the "first century" and some change). There is, however, emphasis on simple clothing.

When people dress distinctively or uniformly, people around them comment on that. if it's part of their identity, so do they. People know Plain Anabaptists and Amish dress differently, that is in all kinds of written historical accounts and film and journals. I find it hard to believe that nobody would have written about it. If I asked Ken's neighbors or yours about you, they would mention the way you dress.

You bring up the Quakers and Moravians in the 1700s. They wrote and preached about clothing. Their neighbors noticed their clothing and wrote about it. It was part of their identity.

You don't see that with the early Anabaptists. At least, I have not seen that in the period from 1525 to 1650 (the "first century" and some change). I would be happy to see evidence that I have missed.

Even John Wesley lamented later in life that he did not follow the Quakers and Moravians.

1700s, about 200 years after the start of Anabaptism. And they did have distinctive clothing. But I wouldn't call them the "early Anabaptists".

And in context, Wesley continues to sharply distinguish his own beliefs from the Moravians. But he did wish he had learned more from Moravians and Quakers when it comes to simplicity and some of the ways they lived out their holiness. I don't think he saw clothing as a litmus test of who is really a Christian.

The one who does not follow this prescribed manner of dressing, exactly, shall be excluded from the Gemeine [community], and should not be surprised if in his stubbornness he does not get included in future activities. (Hoover, 191)

https://www.ephrataministries.org/remna ... achine.a5w

Again, 1700s, about 200 years after the start of Anabaptism.

I was addressing the comment about Mennonites in the Netherlands permitting fashionable, non-simple, non-plain attire. Plenty of people including Anabaptists have addressed this sort of incongruity the last 500 years.

Whether churches should have a distinctive dress code is a different topic.

[Ernie]

I think anyone intellectually honest can admit plain dress was invented by Quakers, Moravians, the early monastics, and others, and adopted by Anabaptists much later.

Are you referring to "Plain dress" or "plain dress"?

[JohnH]

I think anyone intellectually honest can admit plain dress was invented by Quakers, Moravians, the early monastics, and others, and adopted by Anabaptists much later.

Are you referring to "Plain dress" or "plain dress"?

Not sure - I mean, they started dressing quite distinctively but in ways relevant to society back then. For example one Quaker gentleman refused to wear any dyed clothing.

[ken_sylvania]

I think anyone intellectually honest can admit plain dress was invented by Quakers, Moravians, the early monastics, and others, and adopted by Anabaptists much later.

I try to be intellectually honest, but I'm not at all certain you are correct in your assessment.

[Southerner]

I think anyone intellectually honest can admit plain dress was invented by Quakers, Moravians, the early monastics, and others, and adopted by Anabaptists much later.

Are you referring to "Plain dress" or "plain dress"?

Not sure - I mean, they started dressing quite distinctively but in ways relevant to society back then. For example one Quaker gentleman refused to wear any dyed clothing.

If you are referring to John Woolman, I don't think his opposition to dyes had anything to do with plain dress.

[MattY]

https://dwightgingrich.com/holy-scriptu ... -standard/

Here is some information about some 17th-century Anabaptists.

Here is Melvin Gingerich’s introduction to Roosen’s letter and to Roosen, whom he calls a “man of deep piety and moderate views”:

For the time before Jacob Ammann, leader of the conservative schism which appeared in Switzerland in 1693, no [Anabaptist] documents have been found prescribing a definite form of dress, although a degree of uniformity of style was achieved in some groups by forbidding certain styles and colors of costume. In 1697 a deeply respected and very influential leader and an elder of the North German Mennonites, Gerhard Roosen, wrote a letter to the Alsatian brethren protesting against the strict rules on clothing that had been made by Jacob Ammann.5

And here is Roosen’s letter, written when he was 85 years old:

I am sincerely grieved that you have been so disturbed by those who think highly of themselves, and make laws of things which are not upheld in the Gospel. Had it been specified in the apostolic letters how or wherewith a believer should be clothed, or whether he should go in this or that country and this were disobeyed, then these had something of which to speak; but it is more contrary to the Gospel to affix one’s conscience to a pattern of the hats, clothes, stockings, shoes, or the hair of the head (Colossians 2:14-18), or make a distinction in which country one lives; and then, for one to undertake the enforcement of such regulations by punishing with the ban, all who will not accept them, and to expel from the church, as a leaven; those who do not wish to avoid those thus punished, though neither the Lord Jesus in His Gospel or His holy apostles have bound us to external things, nor have deemed it expedient to provide such regulations and laws. I agree with what the Apostle Paul says in Colossians 2 (verse 16), that the kingdom of heaven, or the kingdom of God, is not obtained “in meat or in drink,” nor in this or that, in the form or pattern of clothing; to which external things our dear Saviour does not oblige use.

Wherefore then does our friend, Jacob Ammann, undertake to make laws of such things for the people, and to expel from the church those who will not obey him? If he considers himself a minister of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and advocates a literal administration of the law, then he must not wear two coats, nor carry money in his purse, or shoes on his feet. [Matthew 10:10.] If he does not adhere to the letter of his Lord, how dare he insist on obedience form his fellow men, in regulations he has not received from his lawmaker? Oh, that he might do as the Apostle Paul has done, in the fear of the Lord; showing meekness to all men. [Titus 3:2.] The apostle’s advice is: that the “strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak” [Romans 15:1-7].

In all of Paul’s letters we do not find one word in which he has given believers regulations concerning the forms of clothing they should have, but in all things he instructed them to “condescend to men of low estate” [Romans 12:16] according to all decency and modesty. [See 1 Timothy 2:9.] I hold that it is becoming to adapt the manner of dress to the current customs of one’s environments; but it is reasonable that we abstain from luxuries, pride, and carnal worldly lusts [1 John 2:16-17], not immediately adopting the latest styles of fashionable clothing; which is certainly something to be reproved, but when it has come into common usage then it is honorable to follow in such common apparel, and to walk in humility. But, thanks be to God, I do not want showy array or worldly lusts, and have always continued wearing nearly the same pattern of clothes; but if I had dressed in modern fashion, should I then, for this reason, be excommunicated? This would be an injustice, and contrary to the Scriptures. The Lord has, indeed, made regulations in the church of God, for punishment of the contentious, and those conducting themselves contrary to the ordinances of God, as set forth in the Gospel. Herein it must be determined whether the things we wish to bind are also bound there, or are commanded to be bound.

The Holy Scriptures must be our ruling standard; to this we must yield, not running before it, but following, and that not untimely, but with care, fear, and regret; for it is a dangerous venture to step into the judgment of God and bind that which is not bound in heaven.

So much written in love and truth for your service and instruction in things worth while. I can hardly leave off writing to you. The beloved heavenly Father and God of consolation sustain and strengthen you in all oppressions, and bless you in body and soul, to His honor and to your salvation. Amen. From me, your brother, Gerhart Roosen of Hamburg.

So where did Amman get his ideas? From the practice of the world around him.

Ammann’s clothing rules were a worldly idea. What do I mean by this? What I mean is that in northern Europe, and in Switzerland in particular, the Reformation era was a time of multiple civil laws about clothing. Gingerich explains:

These laws attempted not only to freeze the social classes but also to keep the lower classes from spending too much money on luxury items. As illustrations of this kind of ordinances, one can cite the Zurich Ordinance of 1628, the Basel Ordinance of 1637, the Zurich Ordinance of 1650, and the Nuremberg Ordinance, which named what each class was expected to wear and what was forbidden them.7

He was a tailor, very familiar with such regulations, and these things seemed right to him at the time, but in trying to avoid being like the world's upper classes, he confirmed to a worldly method: detailed clothing regulations.

So then, going back to this thread's original purpose, we have a group and time: early Amish, late 1600s.

How they differed from their neighbors:

They implemented clothing regulations and standards to maintain strict plainness and uniformity and demanded a visual distinction from the world in the styles of their clothing - not merely avoiding flashy or stylish clothing, but actively demanding conformity to a separate uniform standard.

How they differed from other Anabaptists

While other Anabaptists had taught humility and avoiding expensive, flashy worldly styles, they had not advocated uniform extrabiblical regulations and had not advocated for clothing styles that made Christians stand out merely on sight.

[JohnH]

If you are referring to John Woolman, I don't think his opposition to dyes had anything to do with plain dress.

I am saying that plain dress rather evolved out of such convictions. If one refuses to do things such as support slavery in the textile trade, one will end up with a peculiar style of clothing.

[Bootstrap]

I think anyone intellectually honest can admit plain dress was invented by Quakers, Moravians, the early monastics, and others, and adopted by Anabaptists much later.

I try to be intellectually honest, but I'm not at all certain you are correct in your assessment.

I don't think it's helpful to say "anyone who disagrees with me is not intellectually honest". Really, that's not even intellectually honest, it's "proof by insult", and I think you do try to be honest with the facts as you understand them. But just saying "you're wrong" without providing evidence isn't terribly helpful either.

I'm more interested in any evidence people have about early Anabaptists and plain dress or Plain Dress.

[JohnH]

I think anyone intellectually honest can admit plain dress was invented by Quakers, Moravians, the early monastics, and others, and adopted by Anabaptists much later.

I try to be intellectually honest, but I'm not at all certain you are correct in your assessment.

I don't think it's helpful to say "anyone who disagrees with me is not intellectually honest". Really, that's not even intellectually honest, it's "proof by insult", and I think you do try to be honest with the facts as you understand them. But just saying "you're wrong" without providing evidence isn't terribly helpful either.

I'm more interested in any evidence people have about early Anabaptists and plain dress or Plain Dress.

I think if one wants to discuss plain dress and Plain Dress (whatever the difference between those is), then one should talk about the early progenitors of it, who were primarily not Anabaptists. One needs to study and understand Quakers, Moravians, Holiness Wesleyans, and others who decided to have a rather narrow and easily identifiable manner of dressing. (Perhaps I am a little biased because my ancestors are Quakers and Methodists, both of whom at some point decided to abandon their earlier manner of plain dressing.)

The question should be, rather, why, how, and when did Anabaptists adopt the custom of plain dressing that they saw other groups practicing?