The Anabaptist Perspective on... Shoes!

[Sudsy]

Thanks. However, it would appear that black running shoes are available for the gals and I wonder why the change to 'worldly attire' in this area ? In the MB church I attended dress was very non-restictive. Young men were even wearing ball caps in the singing leadership with logos on them. I was wondering just when one of these logos was going to be a beer ad and if so, if this would be where they 'draw the line'.

It isn't that black running shoes are not available, right ?

https://www.amazon.ca/Womens-Black-Runn ... ning+Shoes

It's because conservative Anabaptists don't regulate everything to the nth degree. In the areas where they don't have hard and fast rules, you're going to see a little more individual expression. It's not rocket science.

So, doesn't that say something about how worldly minded a person is when there are not rules in some area and they use it as a 'license to sin' (lack modesty) ? It would seem to me that 'individual expression' is a way of drawing attention to oneself and this is not considered a proper CA practise, right ?

[mike]

Thanks. However, it would appear that black running shoes are available for the gals and I wonder why the change to 'worldly attire' in this area ? In the MB church I attended dress was very non-restictive. Young men were even wearing ball caps in the singing leadership with logos on them. I was wondering just when one of these logos was going to be a beer ad and if so, if this would be where they 'draw the line'.

It isn't that black running shoes are not available, right ?

https://www.amazon.ca/Womens-Black-Runn ... ning+Shoes

It's because conservative Anabaptists don't regulate everything to the nth degree. In the areas where they don't have hard and fast rules, you're going to see a little more individual expression. It's not rocket science.

So, doesn't that say something about how worldly minded a person is when there are not rules in some area and they use it as a 'license to sin' (lack modesty) ? It would seem to me that 'individual expression' is a way of drawing attention to oneself and this is not considered a proper CA practise, right ?

You may be surprised to learn that not only are some conservative Anabaptists allowed to wear colorful shoes; they are also allowed to choose various appealing colors and patterns of socks, sweaters, jackets, shirts, and other clothing, various types of wood to trim their homes and various colors of siding, and many wonderful varieties of flowers for decorating their flowerbeds and gardens, even creating and displaying artwork and utilizing home decorations, the arrangements of which demonstrate individual expression and artistic talent. Not to mention the varied invidual level of care at which they choose to maintain their cars and businesses and their individual persons. There's a lot of variety and choice you can still employ even when the color has to be black, believe it or not. So no, not all individual expression is considered worldly, lacking modesty, and sinful in the CA world.

[Sudsy]

It's because conservative Anabaptists don't regulate everything to the nth degree. In the areas where they don't have hard and fast rules, you're going to see a little more individual expression. It's not rocket science.

So, doesn't that say something about how worldly minded a person is when there are not rules in some area and they use it as a 'license to sin' (lack modesty) ? It would seem to me that 'individual expression' is a way of drawing attention to oneself and this is not considered a proper CA practise, right ?

You may be surprised to learn that not only are some conservative Anabaptists allowed to wear colorful shoes; they are also allowed to choose various appealing colors and patterns of socks, sweaters, jackets, shirts, and other clothing, various types of wood to trim their homes and various colors of siding, and many wonderful varieties of flowers for decorating their flowerbeds and gardens, even creating and displaying artwork and utilizing home decorations, the arrangements of which demonstrate individual expression and artistic talent. Not to mention the varied invidual level of care at which they choose to maintain their cars and businesses and their individual persons. There's a lot of variety and choice you can still employ even when the color has to be black, believe it or not. So no, not all individual expression is considered worldly, lacking modesty, and sinful in the CA world.

So, 'when the colour has to be black' and yet in other areas you mentioned colors are acceptable, what is the reasoning and/or scripture being applied that support requiring a black car, for instance ?

I'm not surprised by the use of colour in the areas you mentioned but as not being a CA myself, can you see that where colour and patterns, etc are ruled out (and I have read that among CA churches there are varied rules), that it is not only puzzling to some of us as well as to non-Christians as being consistent ?

I find the 'plain' applications confusing. When does 'plain' involve colour and certain patterns and when doesn't it and where is the scriptural support ?

[Ernie]

If you view us as part of Christian Orders, then you will assume that we have various rules about things that are expected of those who join the Order. there is some room for individual expression in Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant religious orders. The same is true for Plain Anabaptists. Yes, it might be confusing but once you are part of the order, you eventually learn what is specified and what is not. But I agree with you that the line can appear quite jagged at times.

[Neto]

So, 'when the colour has to be black' and yet in other areas you mentioned colors are acceptable, what is the reasoning and/or scripture being applied that support requiring a black car, for instance ?

I'm not surprised by the use of colour in the areas you mentioned but as not being a CA myself, can you see that where colour and patterns, etc are ruled out (and I have read that among CA churches there are varied rules), that it is not only puzzling to some of us as well as to non-Christians as being consistent ?

I find the 'plain' applications confusing. When does 'plain' involve colour and certain patterns and when doesn't it and where is the scriptural support?

I am somewhat reluctant to say this, because it will sound harsh and divisive, and will not aid my acceptance here, but - There is no support in Scripture for this. It is a matter of now applying the application instead of applying the Scripture.

I would also say that the word 'conservative' has been co-opted or 'diverted' here. That is, the claimed 'founders' would not accept what has been made of this. A true 'conservative' would be following the original approach, not some convoluted form which has lost its connection to the original thought and conviction.

A Christian can lead a 'plain' life, and not be accepted as 'Plain'. The applications are not just puzzling, they are fuzzy and inconsistent. Why can a person have an extremely expensive car - as long as it is black? Why can a 'Plain' dress be acceptable while it is made of the most expensive fabric, when one made of a much less expensive fabric be shunned because of the multi-color pattern? The principle behind the application has been lost, and now the application has become the principle.

HOWEVER, if we regard these distinctives as matters of culture, then that is all fine (in my opinion). I can respect cultural preferences, and do EXPECT there to be differences in the way of life from one culture to another - the ways in which we each (as different cultures) express and apply the teaching of Scripture. Maybe this is what Ernie means when he uses the word 'orders'. (It is something that I think I do not understand.) But there is also a danger here, the danger of loosing all vestiges of any application of the Scripture.

[mike]

So, 'when the colour has to be black' and yet in other areas you mentioned colors are acceptable, what is the reasoning and/or scripture being applied that support requiring a black car, for instance ?

I'm not surprised by the use of colour in the areas you mentioned but as not being a CA myself, can you see that where colour and patterns, etc are ruled out (and I have read that among CA churches there are varied rules), that it is not only puzzling to some of us as well as to non-Christians as being consistent ?

I find the 'plain' applications confusing. When does 'plain' involve colour and certain patterns and when doesn't it and where is the scriptural support ?

There is no need felt within conservative Anabaptist groups to have rules be consistent among groups, or even within a group itself. The idea is to have some level of discipline within a group that keeps the brakes on trends toward worldly fashions. This is why Anabaptist groups that even have conflicting rules with one another can get along just fine in many ways. For example some groups forbid beards, and others require them, and some require solid color clothing and others allow printed patterns, and yet they will all cooperate with one another in many sorts of efforts, and even exchange pulpits. There is no universal standard among them as to precisely what "plain" means.

The important part for these groups, again, is that there is a disciplined church life, where the styles of the world are being resisted. The application of this principle can be quite uneven, but that's how I understand the reasoning for it. The differences in application really aren't that confusing when you understand the underlying principle.

Also, the role of tradition is extremely important. Existing rules handed down for generations are very difficult to reexamine, and new rules are likewise slow to form. Inconsistencies develop because of this.

The scriptural support that these groups would cite are statements such as:

Do not love the world nor the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the boastful pride of life, is not from the Father, but is from the world.

And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect.

instructing us to deny ungodliness and worldly desires and to live sensibly, righteously and godly in the present age

Do not let your adorning be external—the braiding of hair and the putting on of gold jewelry, or the clothing you wear— but let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God's sight is very precious.

Likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, but with what is proper for women who profess godliness—with good works.

The position of plain Anabaptists on disciplined church life may be contrasted with those churches who have little to no discipline at all, where there are no explicit rules on clothing and many other lifestyle issues that matter to Anabaptists. In these churches, the types of inconsistencies one must deal with are such things as standing in church sharing in worship with women whose dresses are so short they leave almost nothing to the imagination, or with people who profess to follow Jesus but do not even attempt to live out his word. One must sometimes choose the inconsistencies one wants to live with.

[mike]

I am somewhat reluctant to say this, because it will sound harsh and divisive, and will not aid my acceptance here, but - There is no support in Scripture for this. It is a matter of now applying the application instead of applying the Scripture.

I would also say that the word 'conservative' has been co-opted or 'diverted' here. That is, the claimed 'founders' would not accept what has been made of this. A true 'conservative' would be following the original approach, not some convoluted form which has lost its connection to the original thought and conviction.

A Christian can lead a 'plain' life, and not be accepted as 'Plain'. The applications are not just puzzling, they are fuzzy and inconsistent. Why can a person have an extremely expensive car - as long as it is black? Why can a 'Plain' dress be acceptable while it is made of the most expensive fabric, when one made of a much less expensive fabric be shunned because of the multi-color pattern? The principle behind the application has been lost, and now the application has become the principle.

HOWEVER, if we regard these distinctives as matters of culture, then that is all fine (in my opinion). I can respect cultural preferences, and do EXPECT there to be differences in the way of life from one culture to another - the ways in which we each (as different cultures) express and apply the teaching of Scripture. Maybe this is what Ernie means when he uses the word 'orders'. (It is something that I think I do not understand.) But there is also a danger here, the danger of loosing all vestiges of any application of the Scripture.

Not to worry, Neto, these comments will get you well accepted most everywhere. I basically agree with you. You're pointing out things that are obviously true. As an example of what you say about being plain but not Plain -- our family vehicle is a 2004 Chevy van with rusted rocker panels. It would be hard to find a vehicle more "plain." And yet, this vehicle is not acceptable for many plain churches, churches where the lot is full of expensive cars and SUVs that are the right color, because the van is white.

The problem with seeing these things as distinctives of culture is they really aren't presented that way to the churches where they are requirements. They are presented as applications of biblical principle, authoritative based on the church's biblical right to legislate such things, and to question them is to question biblical church leadership.

Thankfully many of these churches (with some exceptions, such as many Amish groups) don't view it as necessarily detrimental to one's salvation to simply join another Anabaptist church where you like the rules better, and so that's what people frequently do when they get dissatisfied in a plain church.

[Sudsy]

So, 'when the colour has to be black' and yet in other areas you mentioned colors are acceptable, what is the reasoning and/or scripture being applied that support requiring a black car, for instance ?

I'm not surprised by the use of colour in the areas you mentioned but as not being a CA myself, can you see that where colour and patterns, etc are ruled out (and I have read that among CA churches there are varied rules), that it is not only puzzling to some of us as well as to non-Christians as being consistent ?

I find the 'plain' applications confusing. When does 'plain' involve colour and certain patterns and when doesn't it and where is the scriptural support ?

There is no need felt within conservative Anabaptist groups to have rules be consistent among groups, or even within a group itself. The idea is to have some level of discipline within a group that keeps the brakes on trends toward worldly fashions. This is why Anabaptist groups that even have conflicting rules with one another can get along just fine in many ways. For example some groups forbid beards, and others require them, and some require solid color clothing and others allow printed patterns, and yet they will all cooperate with one another in many sorts of efforts, and even exchange pulpits. There is no universal standard among them as to precisely what "plain" means.

The important part for these groups, again, is that there is a disciplined church life, where the styles of the world are being resisted. The application of this principle can be quite uneven, but that's how I understand the reasoning for it. The differences in application really aren't that confusing when you understand the underlying principle.

Also, the role of tradition is extremely important. Existing rules handed down for generations are very difficult to reexamine, and new rules are likewise slow to form. Inconsistencies develop because of this.

The scriptural support that these groups would cite are statements such as:

Do not love the world nor the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the boastful pride of life, is not from the Father, but is from the world.

And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect.

instructing us to deny ungodliness and worldly desires and to live sensibly, righteously and godly in the present age

Do not let your adorning be external—the braiding of hair and the putting on of gold jewelry, or the clothing you wear— but let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God's sight is very precious.

Likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, but with what is proper for women who profess godliness—with good works.

The position of plain Anabaptists on disciplined church life may be contrasted with those churches who have little to no discipline at all, where there are no explicit rules on clothing and many other lifestyle issues that matter to Anabaptists. In these churches, the types of inconsistencies one must deal with are such things as standing in church sharing in worship with women whose dresses are so short they leave almost nothing to the imagination, or with people who profess to follow Jesus but do not even attempt to live out his word. One must sometimes choose the inconsistencies one wants to live with.

So, is it true that one group of CA folk do not have spiritually holier attitudes toward another CA group ? And what I have read about the Holdeman group, it does not read that they view other CA groups in such an excepting way. I am more familiar with Pentecostal groups that do have different dress and practises and know how some regard each other as not as sanctified.

I can understand a church wanting to be the purest reflection of Christ following but imo, this is the kind of thing the apostle Paul warned about when the Corinthian church was saying that some followed this apostles teachings over another apostles teachings. Obviously we have all gone our own ways and I can't see where this was what was meant to happen. Thankfully, regardless of how we have created such obstacles, God is building His Church and not even the gates of hell will prevail against it. We may have some doubts about who are the true followers of Christ but God knows who they are and there could be some big surprises come judgment day.

Regarding shoes, we likely won't wear any in heaven as Moses was told to take his off when on holy ground.

[Ernie]

HOWEVER, if we regard these distinctives as matters of culture, then that is all fine (in my opinion). I can respect cultural preferences, and do EXPECT there to be differences in the way of life from one culture to another - the ways in which we each (as different cultures) express and apply the teaching of Scripture. Maybe this is what Ernie means when he uses the word 'orders'. (It is something that I think I do not understand.) But there is also a danger here, the danger of loosing all vestiges of any application of the Scripture.

Most conservative Anabaptists do not see their expectations as being the only scriptural application. (They do view their practices as scriptural applications! And they see their applications as being beneficial spiritually.)
They just view change as dangerous and believe it is impossible, for example, to drop cape dresses and still have some sort of modest dress a couple generations later. They also have a fondness for their particular application and hate to give it up. I think Religious Orders from other denominations see things quite similarly.

[Ernie]

The problem with seeing these things as distinctives of culture is they really aren't presented that way to the churches where they are requirements. They are presented as applications of biblical principle, authoritative based on the church's biblical right to legislate such things, and to question them is to question biblical church leadership.

Yes, exactly.