Time for a headcovering thread!

[Josh]

One of the odd things in our group is that things haven’t really changed much in 70 years, although in the 60s coverings were getting a bit small and that reversed course in the 70s. In the 2010s, pre-sewn coverings became popular, but they look the same.

Young women right now seem to love archaic fashions so they are sporting dresses in styles similar to the 1960s and early 1970s. My mother in law got out her wedding dress and the style was almost exactly like contemporary styles.

So our group used to be considered “liberal” or “worldly” in matters of clothes and coverings… now we are more “conservative” than our Beachy neighbours and our coverings are even larger than what our Amish friends wear to town or mowing the yard.

[AndersonD]

Some random observations:

I remember the Dunkard Brethren fussin' over strings on coverings. The younger generation didn't think it was needed as no one used them for their original purpose and it was just one big loop anyway. Older generation was afraid if we took the strings away, coverings would get smaller. Twenty years later, the strings were no longer required. Fancy that.

If I understood correctly, Dunkard Brethren also gave liberty at their annual conference last year for sisters to choose their own style of headcovering. Not sure if that was on a congregation by congregation basis (where some would grant said liberty and others not, or if it was wide open) - Steve, do you know?

How many members does the Dunkard Brethren church have?

[AndersonD]

One of the odd things in our group is that things haven’t really changed much in 70 years, although in the 60s coverings were getting a bit small and that reversed course in the 70s

May I ask if this was due to "panelling"?

The Holdeman ladies style of dress is distinct. At least, if I see them at an airport, I know which conference they're in.

And where did the Sunday Hutterite style covering originate? Russia? I first saw the Holdeman black kerchief 10 years ago at a Charity funeral and thought they were Hutterites.

[steve-in-kville]

Some random observations:

I remember the Dunkard Brethren fussin' over strings on coverings. The younger generation didn't think it was needed as no one used them for their original purpose and it was just one big loop anyway. Older generation was afraid if we took the strings away, coverings would get smaller. Twenty years later, the strings were no longer required. Fancy that.

If I understood correctly, Dunkard Brethren also gave liberty at their annual conference last year for sisters to choose their own style of headcovering. Not sure if that was on a congregation by congregation basis (where some would grant said liberty and others not, or if it was wide open) - Steve, do you know?

How many members does the Dunkard Brethren church have?

No idea. Tried looking it up on their website and couldn't find anything.

[ohio jones]

How many members does the Dunkard Brethren church have?

No idea. Tried looking it up on their website and couldn't find anything.

Try Wikipedia:

In 1980 there were 1,035 members in 26 congregations.

In 2001, the Dunkard Brethren Church had approximately 1035 members in 26 congregations.

Remarkable consistency.

[Ken]

How many members does the Dunkard Brethren church have?

No idea. Tried looking it up on their website and couldn't find anything.

Try Wikipedia:

In 1980 there were 1,035 members in 26 congregations.

In 2001, the Dunkard Brethren Church had approximately 1035 members in 26 congregations.

Remarkable consistency.

I think it is the same data point cited by two different sources in two different years.

The 1980 number comes from: Donald F. Durnbaugh (ed.) The Brethren Encyclopedia, Volume I, Philadelphia, 1983, page 409.

The 2001 number comes from Lewis, James R. (March 2001). The Encyclopedia of Cults, Sects, and New Religions. Prometheus Books. p. 139 which I very much suspect is simply just citing the number 1980 from the Brethren Encyclopedia.

[steve-in-kville]

My wife would have a recent directory and that may have some numbers in it. I'll ask. I'm curious myself.

[Josh]

One of the odd things in our group is that things haven’t really changed much in 70 years, although in the 60s coverings were getting a bit small and that reversed course in the 70s

May I ask if this was due to "panelling"?

Some believe it was. Holdemans became more “plain” in the last 30 years in terms of being more distinct from their neighbours, albeit not by choice. Their neighbours just do things like have public schools too worldly to go to, women wearing pants, and so on. In 1960 their clothing actually wasn’t distinct at all - just the beards for men were, and coverings on Sunday for women were.

The Holdeman ladies style of dress is distinct. At least, if I see them at an airport, I know which conference they're in.

The styles change rather rapidly so you might be challenged to (other than coverings of course). I personally appreciate the latest style, which is loose linen dresses, circle skirts or half circle skirts, with buttons and collars styled after the 1960s, usually just past knee length.

And where did the Sunday Hutterite style covering originate? Russia? I first saw the Holdeman black kerchief 10 years ago at a Charity funeral and thought they were Hutterites.

Large numbers of Russian Mennonites joined the Holdemans around the late 1800s. Covering styles used to be diverse. Eventually they decided to unify more, although this was never a decree handed down and technically a member could choose any covering style they want. (This was clarified at one conference when it was made explicit a member could choose a veil style instead of a kapp; tradition is that seekers who aren’t members who feel convicted to wear a covering wear a veil and not a kapp, but this is just a custom, not doctrine or teaching.)

The Holdemans nearly unified with the Tampico Amish. When this was going on, discussion happened about a more regulated covering style and it was actually agreed to adopt the Tampico style coverings. This merger did not happen (the sticking point was rebaptism) and the uniform covering style wasn’t adopted.

Both Russian Mennonites and Hutterites adopted their covering styles from Slavic culture during the time they spent in what is now Ukraine (occupied by Russia right now tho).

Holdemans never adopted a “plain” or “conservative” identity and some feel with regret that we must appear “non conformed”. Others (particularly from an Amish background) think it’s good to have a distinctive appearance.

[RZehr]

Why did the Holdeman and Tampico want to merge? What did each side hope to gain?

[Josh]

Why did the Holdeman and Tampico want to merge? What did each side hope to gain?

At the time, nearly all Amish were becoming very worldly, or else went in an evangelical direction (often becoming worldly too). This was before the conservative Mennonite movement existed which started in the 1950s.

The Tampico underwent a revival around the 1920s (I think) and found themselves very similar in doctrine and practice to the Holdemans, including the element of spiritual revival. They are unique in that, like the Holdemans, they did not participate in the overall revivalist and fundamentalist movements that predominated circa 1900.