The Anabaptist Perspective on... Shoes!

[Neto]

I wonder where attempts at consistency within a group becomes a violation of Romans 14 which seems to allow for inconsistencies to exist within a group based on personal convictions. Any thoughts on this ?

If a person cannot carry out their convictions that are based on NT principles, that is a problem.
The NT has lots to say about submitting when it comes to preferences.

I believe Romans 14 makes it clear that we can have unity in a body of believers (a local church) without requiring uniformity to some extra-biblical practises. We are to submit first and foremost to the guidance of the Holy Spirit and allow Him to bring about spiritual growth in each believer in His way and timing. ,

To operate in this way can be quite a challenge as the flesh can interfere and cause one to think every believer should have the same personal convictions as I have. But to force certain norms of required practise (not sins described explicitly in scripture), imo, is a hindrance to freedom to learn personal convictions through a growing relationship with God through the Spirit.

Will this cause the local church to reflect some worldly characteristics ? Yes, as our walk with God is an on-going, individual learning experience as we learn together. A growing church will reflect a variety of holiness characteristics as we all spiritually mature or not and remain as spiritual babies.

We are a glorious church without spot or wrinkle and the perfect bride of Christ. That is our positional state with God. Our present state is one of maturing towards becoming more and more like Jesus. Still lots of spots and lots of wrinkles. Not through some required practises that some believe must be followed but rather through the workings of the Spirit in each person's heart and life,

I was raised in a church with strict rules in various areas, not to retain membership but to reflect what that church thought sanctification required in practise. Today some believers would view this church as quite 'worldly' as there are no enforcement to conform as their once was. To me, this variety of stages of spiritual growth being obvious is a good thing and more reflective of the spiritual reality in people's lives.

But there should be examples of mature believers in leadership roles and when there is not, the church can become more 'worldly' in belief and practise. Mature leaders will encourage and work with less spiritually developed in their walk with the Lord.

Perhaps a separate study on Romans 14 would be interesting.

I think that if the Doctrinal Statement - Statement of Faith - is securely grounded on Scripture, then yes, we should all have the same personal convictions. This is why I find it so important to separate the Statement of Faith from the Conduct Guidelines statement. But I suppose you were actually referring to the latter, in terms of having come to the same conclusions as to how the principles of Scripture are to be applied in the daily lives of the members of the congregation. This is where I would parrot Ernie, saying that we should agree as a congregation about these things, and where we do not exactly agree, we can follow the established guidelines for the sake of the "body", and because it is "worth it" to us, to gain the fellowship with that group. We ought to all be willing to make concessions, and although I am now "self-guided" because our congregation has given up all of the things that I agreed to follow even w/o a personal conviction, it was well worth the 'sacrifice' in order to be a part of this congregation. ('Sacrifices' like wearing a straight cut, not using the NIV translation in any public reading of Scripture in the church, etc.)

[temporal1]

i do not object to any group’s decision to implement dress standards/requirements. Even shoes!
Every decision has pros+cons.

i don’t believe cMs use the word, “uniform” about their dress standards? - in my view, they serve similar purposes.
To be distinctive, whether the objective is humility or pride. Identity. (Humans have special ability to take pride in humility!)
In all things, check intent.

The Salvation Army’s Tailor | Fifty Years of Bespoke Uniforms / 7:23min


Uniforms and fund-raising:
Material practices in the Salvation Army
https://www.materialreligion.org/journal/army.html

Q: When was the uniform introduced to The Salvation Army?

A: William Booth wanted his followers to dress simply.
He was influenced by the Holiness and Quaker movements which taught that Christians should live simply, eschewing all forms of worldliness. At first Army soldiers wore dark blue or black but there was a lot of variation in uniform styles. Men, for example, wore pith helmets, derby hats, berets and sailor caps. Women donned all kinds of bonnets. The first standardized uniform was worn by George Scott Railton when he embarked for America in 1880. It was plain, dark blue cut-away uniform that eventually became standard issue.
But it took a long time not only to standardize the garb but also to persuade soldiers to follow Army specifications.

When my granddaughter attended Catholic elementary school, uniforms were worn. There are many benefits.
Locally, a nearby public school was having problems with students, they decided to opt for school uniforms. Some parents were outraged. They did it anyway. It must have helped. School dress there is longer news-worthy.

[Sudsy]

i do not object to any group’s decision to implement dress standards/requirements. Even shoes!
Every decision has pros+cons.

i don’t believe cMs use the word, “uniform” about their dress standards? - in my view, they serve similar purposes.
To be distinctive, whether the objective is humility or pride. Identity. (Humans have special ability to take pride in humility!)
In all things, check intent.

The Salvation Army’s Tailor | Fifty Years of Bespoke Uniforms / 7:23min


Uniforms and fund-raising:
Material practices in the Salvation Army
https://www.materialreligion.org/journal/army.html

Q: When was the uniform introduced to The Salvation Army?

A: William Booth wanted his followers to dress simply.
He was influenced by the Holiness and Quaker movements which taught that Christians should live simply, eschewing all forms of worldliness. At first Army soldiers wore dark blue or black but there was a lot of variation in uniform styles. Men, for example, wore pith helmets, derby hats, berets and sailor caps. Women donned all kinds of bonnets. The first standardized uniform was worn by George Scott Railton when he embarked for America in 1880. It was plain, dark blue cut-away uniform that eventually became standard issue.
But it took a long time not only to standardize the garb but also to persuade soldiers to follow Army specifications.

When my granddaughter attended Catholic elementary school, uniforms were worn. There are many benefits.
Locally, a nearby public school was having problems with students, they decided to opt for school uniforms. Some parents were outraged. They did it anyway. It must have helped. School dress there is longer news-worthy.

Thankyou, I enjoyed the video and appreciate your thoughts. One thing I personally appreciate about the Salvation Army is that their uniforms are not a requirement to be part of their ministry and some believers, such as those in what I call my home church, do not care to participate in the wearing of a uniform or they wear a part of the uniform (I.e. short sleeve men's shirt with the 'S' logo) for identification purposes.

To me, I believe a local church can have fellowship amongst believers with varied personal convictions and practises and even have holiness suggested guidelines but when these become rules to obey to be part of the fellowship, they violate what Romans 14 is saying. Required practises, such as closed communion, to me is too removed from recognizing other believers as Jesus would.

Anyway, got to go for now.

[mike]

Most conservative Mennonites would, I think, readily agree that their distinctive practices fall within a spectrum ranging from (1) those practices that will directly 'follow' from a simple reading of the Scripture (ie. nonresistance, non-swearing of oaths, not wearing gold/jewelry, uncovered heads for men while praying, veiling of some sort for the women while praying, avoidance of Sunday work) to (2) those practices that are simply one of a variety of acceptable applications of Bible teachings, that are "the way we have agreed to do things" in an effort to maintain consistency and unity within the group but without judgement against a group that might do things differently (specific covering styles, dress patterns, suit coat patterns, haircut styles, beards/no beards, degree of brotherhood assistance vs. insurance, level of accepted technology, posture and hand position while praying, etc.). Certain individuals will place some of these examples much closer to #1 on the scale than to #2; and certainly many if not most would have opinions regarding certain applications that are not directly spelled out in Scripture, that "our application is one of the best ways to practice this Scriptural teaching." After all, if there was a better way we would adopt that practice instead!

If only that were the case. I don't think most plain Anabaptists are easily convinced to modify or adopt new practices even if they intuitively know there is a better way. I asked our leadership this sort of question once, giving an example that they could hardly argue would be a more biblical practice than their current one. One of them was noncommittal about it, but another was honest enough to say that our denomination as a whole would likely choose continuing the tradition rather than modifying the application so as to be more biblical. I was glad he was at least honest about it.

I think it is really rare to see a conservative Mennonite denomination or conference willing to officially adopt change even if a strong biblical case can be made for it. There are a few instances where I think this is happening, but not many. It is much more common to see change happen by people stretching the definitions of the church's rules of discipline to the point where changes are made just to be somewhat honest with what is actually accepted practice.

[mike]

I think that if the Doctrinal Statement - Statement of Faith - is securely grounded on Scripture, then yes, we should all have the same personal convictions. This is why I find it so important to separate the Statement of Faith from the Conduct Guidelines statement.

I have long felt strongly about this, and feel they should be entirely separate documents. Our statement of faith/beliefs/core doctrines should be non-negotiable, and full agreement in heart and mind should be required on these points in order to be a part of the congregation. These positions should be considered non-negotiable and not up for frequent review or change.

Rules of conduct ought to be a completely different category, and simple agreement to follow them should be all that is required. These positions should be regularly reviewed and should be subject to change.

[Josh]

I think it is really rare to see a conservative Mennonite denomination or conference willing to officially adopt change even if a strong biblical case can be made for it. There are a few instances where I think this is happening, but not many. It is much more common to see change happen by people stretching the definitions of the church's rules of discipline to the point where changes are made just to be somewhat honest with what is actually accepted practice.

Most conservative groups look at less-conservative groups and say “no thanks”.

The ones that accept all kind of changes tend to become less conservative and often quite quickly. Often this happens with people making a “biblical” case for it; my friend Sudsy on this forum for example routinely makes biblical cases for why there should be no dress standards, head coverings etc except up to each individual as a matter of personal choice. I can’t say I want to be part of a denomination like that, although I did used to be part of the liberal wing of the CMC and the “conservative” wing of MC USA which both operate that way.

[mike]

I think it is really rare to see a conservative Mennonite denomination or conference willing to officially adopt change even if a strong biblical case can be made for it. There are a few instances where I think this is happening, but not many. It is much more common to see change happen by people stretching the definitions of the church's rules of discipline to the point where changes are made just to be somewhat honest with what is actually accepted practice.

Most conservative groups look at less-conservative groups and say “no thanks”.

The ones that accept all kind of changes tend to become less conservative and often quite quickly. Often this happens with people making a “biblical” case for it; my friend Sudsy on this forum for example routinely makes biblical cases for why there should be no dress standards, head coverings etc except up to each individual as a matter of personal choice. I can’t say I want to be part of a denomination like that, although I did used to be part of the liberal wing of the CMC and the “conservative” wing of MC USA which both operate that way.

You are incorrectly assuming that I am referring to "liberal" changes. I'm referring to changes that are almost unquestionably more biblical and "conservative"* than current practices.

*Depending on the definition of the term. Some probably consider ANY change at all to be "liberal." If you consider "conservative" to mean things like more faithful to the text of scripture, more in line with historical church practice, or even just more restrictive, that's the changes I'm talking about.

[ken_sylvania]

Most conservative Mennonites would, I think, readily agree that their distinctive practices fall within a spectrum ranging from (1) those practices that will directly 'follow' from a simple reading of the Scripture (ie. nonresistance, non-swearing of oaths, not wearing gold/jewelry, uncovered heads for men while praying, veiling of some sort for the women while praying, avoidance of Sunday work) to (2) those practices that are simply one of a variety of acceptable applications of Bible teachings, that are "the way we have agreed to do things" in an effort to maintain consistency and unity within the group but without judgement against a group that might do things differently (specific covering styles, dress patterns, suit coat patterns, haircut styles, beards/no beards, degree of brotherhood assistance vs. insurance, level of accepted technology, posture and hand position while praying, etc.). Certain individuals will place some of these examples much closer to #1 on the scale than to #2; and certainly many if not most would have opinions regarding certain applications that are not directly spelled out in Scripture, that "our application is one of the best ways to practice this Scriptural teaching." After all, if there was a better way we would adopt that practice instead!

If only that were the case. I don't think most plain Anabaptists are easily convinced to modify or adopt new practices even if they intuitively know there is a better way. I asked our leadership this sort of question once, giving an example that they could hardly argue would be a more biblical practice than their current one. One of them was noncommittal about it, but another was honest enough to say that our denomination as a whole would likely choose continuing the tradition rather than modifying the application so as to be more biblical. I was glad he was at least honest about it.

I think it is really rare to see a conservative Mennonite denomination or conference willing to officially adopt change even if a strong biblical case can be made for it. There are a few instances where I think this is happening, but not many. It is much more common to see change happen by people stretching the definitions of the church's rules of discipline to the point where changes are made just to be somewhat honest with what is actually accepted practice.

Yes, I think you are correct that there are a small handful of practices in most (if not all) groups where it is felt that the current practice is good enough, and the destabilization of a change would cause greater harm than the benefit that might be gained by changing to a "more biblical" application.
An example might be vehicle color as you shared earlier. There are those who might agree that it would be more biblical to focus on stylishness of the vehicle rather than color, but because they are unsure how to implement a transition to such a focus they chose to keep on with what they currently have with perhaps some modest changes to try to address stylish models.

[Josh]

You are incorrectly assuming that I am referring to "liberal" changes. I'm referring to changes that are almost unquestionably more biblical and "conservative"* than current practices.

That’s because I’ve only ever seen the “this is more biblical” crowd move in a more mainstream, conformed to the world direction. An example of that is the “biblical” crowd often pushes for full immersion baptism and then disconnecting baptism from church membership. They have zero insight that all they are really pushing for is to conform to mainstream evangelical American practice.

*Depending on the definition of the term. Some probably consider ANY change at all to be "liberal." If you consider "conservative" to mean things like more faithful to the text of scripture, more in line with historical church practice, or even just more restrictive, that's the changes I'm talking about.

I would be fascinated to hear, for example, a BMA church take a stand against watching Fox News or a Charity church that tolerates watching movies for entertainment stop doing that. If I witnessed this happened, I would be more open to hearing their arguments about other things.

[mike]

Yes, I think you are correct that there are a small handful of practices in most (if not all) groups where it is felt that the current practice is good enough, and the destabilization of a change would cause greater harm than the benefit that might be gained by changing to a "more biblical" application.
An example might be vehicle color as you shared earlier. There are those who might agree that it would be more biblical to focus on stylishness of the vehicle rather than color, but because they are unsure how to implement a transition to such a focus they chose to keep on with what they currently have with perhaps some modest changes to try to address stylish models.

And so they will require black cars until the end of time, long after the practice has lost any real connection to biblical principle that it may once have had. Just like the Amish can not brook the thought of changing from the use of German in their worship because of the destabilization it would surely bring.

I'll give you a couple that I have in mind. One is the head covering. Many conservative Anabaptists have evolved the head "covering" into something so transparent and small that one can hardly call it that in good conscience. Yet it is a traditional pattern for them, and they would rather wear something that is all but of a mockery of the term than to countenance any change to the practice, such as the use of a more opaque material or a larger size. For all that Mennonites claim like rules and regulations, there seems to be a real resistance to making existing standards more rigorous even in any small degree, even when they know it would make their practice more consistent with what they say they believe. They just will not do it. The trend always seems to go one way.

Another is the regulations many conservatives have against facial hair. It can hardly be argued that men wearing facial hair is not a more biblical standard than a rule that men must not have beards - a standard that lacks even a semblance of being an application of biblical principle.

Tradition is a powerful thing.