Easterns/Hope Fellowship/Pilgrim Psychology

[Ernie]

That makes sense on the noncompliance on the state side but how does the cohere with the compliance that isn't "enforced" with fines, say the regulation coat.

Because church regulations such as the plain coat have the weight of proven tradition supported by the collective wisdom of the church over time, or of the wisdom of church leaders who look out for the spiritual wellbeing of the people. And of course those rules are actually enforced by church discipline...

I suspect part of the answer to JBG's question is identity and belonging. The clothing restrictions are the buy in price for belonging in a group they respect. Mask wearing is likely a marker for belonging in an unwanted or disrespected group.

Both of these responses are good.

I grew up with the slippery slope mentality which gave us the impression that when a person starts deviating from "tried and tested" methods of preserving non-conformity to the world, they have no convenient stopping place.
Those who weren't convinced that straight cut coats were the best application of non-conformity continued to do so for various reasons:
1. Some were motivated by the scriptural instruction, "Submit yourself to those who rule over you for they watch for your souls.
2. Some knew they had agreed to the practice and felt like they should continue as a matter of integrity.
3. Some complied just in case God really wanted them to wear one. (even if they themselves were unconvinced)
4. Some found it easier to stay in the church. It made for a lot more pleasant family gatherings.
5. Some viewed it as a neither-here-nor-there kind of thing. (Basically for the same reason why many people in America mow their lawns and many people in other countries don't. Some things are just socially expedient.
6. Many eventually left the church after doing number 1-5 for a period of years.

If mask wearing is not encouraged by the leaders, there is little incentive or audacity to do so.

(These 6 things could apply to any of the other things that conservatives do as well.)

[steve-in-kville]

I suspect part of the answer to JBG's question is identity and belonging. The clothing restrictions are the buy in price for belonging in a group they respect.

I hesitated to reply, but hey, I have a three day weekend coming up so why not...

The plain suit is a symbol, an identity of sorts. Tell me how this is Biblically is better than a lapel suit or suit & tie. I'll wait here...

Same with black hats, suspenders, etc. Maybe "back in the day" those were the only options. I get that.

The women's headcovering? Sometimes I wonder if that isn't more of an identity thing than scriptural. I understand what the Bible says, but are the women that wear them "just going with the flow?"

[barnhart]

I suspect part of the answer to JBG's question is identity and belonging. The clothing restrictions are the buy in price for belonging in a group they respect.

I hesitated to reply, but hey, I have a three day weekend coming up so why not...

The plain suit is a symbol, an identity of sorts. Tell me how this is Biblically is better than a lapel suit or suit & tie. I'll wait here...

Same with black hats, suspenders, etc. Maybe "back in the day" those were the only options. I get that.

The women's headcovering? Sometimes I wonder if that isn't more of an identity thing than scriptural. I understand what the Bible says, but are the women that wear them "just going with the flow?"

I'm not sure what you are asking. In general I think clothing restrictions are about identity, which has value.

[steve-in-kville]

I'm not sure what you are asking. In general I think clothing restrictions are about identity, which has value.

Honestly, I'm not sure either. It was random thought that I often ponder. We've had so many threads & polls on this stuff in the past. I really wonder how much matters in the grand scheme of eternity??

I don't have answer.

[Wade]

I suspect part of the answer to JBG's question is identity and belonging. The clothing restrictions are the buy in price for belonging in a group they respect.

I hesitated to reply, but hey, I have a three day weekend coming up so why not...

The plain suit is a symbol, an identity of sorts. Tell me how this is Biblically is better than a lapel suit or suit & tie. I'll wait here...

Same with black hats, suspenders, etc. Maybe "back in the day" those were the only options. I get that.

The women's headcovering? Sometimes I wonder if that isn't more of an identity thing than scriptural. I understand what the Bible says, but are the women that wear them "just going with the flow?"

I think the lapel suit and tie are similar to jewelry in that they encourage unnecessary putting on of apparel - therefore I don't see them as modest or simple as the Bible calls us to.

And, if you lived where we do you'd see headcoverings are anything but "just going with the flow.". My wife has suffered a lot of misunderstanding and ridicule from it.

[steve-in-kville]

And, if you lived where we do you'd see headcoverings are anything but "just going with the flow.". My wife has suffered a lot of misunderstanding and ridicule from it.

Very valid point. I guess we're spoiled around here... just about every variety of Anabaptist there is. At one time I could pinpoint a woman's church affiliation, sometimes down to the congregation be the headcovering.

[joshuabgood]

That makes sense on the noncompliance on the state side but how does the cohere with the compliance that isn't "enforced" with fines, say the regulation coat.

Because church regulations such as the plain coat have the weight of proven tradition supported by the collective wisdom of the church over time, or of the wisdom of church leaders who look out for the spiritual wellbeing of the people. And of course those rules are actually enforced by church discipline...

I suspect part of the answer to JBG's question is identity and belonging. The clothing restrictions are the buy in price for belonging in a group they respect. Mask wearing is likely a marker for belonging in an unwanted or disrespected group.

Both of these responses are good.

I grew up with the slippery slope mentality which gave us the impression that when a person starts deviating from "tried and tested" methods of preserving non-conformity to the world, they have no convenient stopping place.
Those who weren't convinced that straight cut coats were the best application of non-conformity continued to do so for various reasons:
1. Some were motivated by the scriptural instruction, "Submit yourself to those who rule over you for they watch for your souls.
2. Some knew they had agreed to the practice and felt like they should continue as a matter of integrity.
3. Some complied just in case God really wanted them to wear one. (even if they themselves were unconvinced)
4. Some found it easier to stay in the church. It made for a lot more pleasant family gatherings.
5. Some viewed it as a neither-here-nor-there kind of thing. (Basically for the same reason why many people in America mow their lawns and many people in other countries don't. Some things are just socially expedient.
6. Many eventually left the church after doing number 1-5 for a period of years.

If mask wearing is not encouraged by the leaders, there is little incentive or audacity to do so.

(These 6 things could apply to any of the other things that conservatives do as well.)

My question really was about why the dedication to rule following and authority or submission with regard to church rules that are not enforced with coercion or fines, but the feeling that if the state has a rule, unless it is enforced with coercion or fines it doesn't really apply or get practiced.

The answer I am hearing basically is that these groups value their own rules because, well, they are their rules. If rules are placed on them by an external authority, unless they are coercively enforced, their isn't much gumption to submit.

In its own way, it may seem to some that this is an excellent representation of enlightenment thinking and the American spirit.

[QuietObserver]

When I read this post, I thought hmm...a more progressive mennonite bashing on ultra conservative and intermediate mennonites post. But then I also thought, Nationwide generally obeys the orders given to it by the government with regards covid-19 restrictions, even if we don't like them much. We grudgingly follow them, but it is hard on us.

So I do think it's just cultural and not as a result of how conservative they are.

joshuabgood is of Eastern, and later Pilgrim, origin, and spends most of his time here in MennoNet criticising anyone who is more conservative than his current alignment, which is the far liberal wing of BMA.

Your frequent and uncharitable attacks on joshuabgood says more about you that it does about him.

[Ken]

And, if you lived where we do you'd see headcoverings are anything but "just going with the flow.". My wife has suffered a lot of misunderstanding and ridicule from it.

Very valid point. I guess we're spoiled around here... just about every variety of Anabaptist there is. At one time I could pinpoint a woman's church affiliation, sometimes down to the congregation be the headcovering.

And, of course, it is all symbolic because none of them actually cover the hair or the head, unlike Islamic head coverings, or even African headwraps. It's really more just following northern European peasant fashions or puritan fashions from about the 17th Century.

[Wade]

And, if you lived where we do you'd see headcoverings are anything but "just going with the flow.". My wife has suffered a lot of misunderstanding and ridicule from it.

Very valid point. I guess we're spoiled around here... just about every variety of Anabaptist there is. At one time I could pinpoint a woman's church affiliation, sometimes down to the congregation be the headcovering.

And, of course, it is all symbolic because none of them actually cover the hair or the head, unlike Islamic head coverings, or even African headwraps. It's really more just following northern European peasant fashions or puritan fashions from about the 17th Century.

And there's an example of ridicule...