The Anabaptist Perspective on... Shoes!

[mike]

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.

That certainly would be fascinating, just as it would be fascinating to have Holdemans begin to advocate more modest dresses or Mid-Atlantic begin to advocate not watching pro sports or Hornings begin to limit the luxury vehicles you can drive. It's not happening (I could be wrong about this), and it's interesting to consider why.

[Neto]

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.

Obviously we aren't just talking about shoes anymore. (Anyone else notice that?!?)
So, coverings. This question of size and opaqueness is one of the reasons why I advocate for not making a requirement for its use outside of worship and prayer assemblies. The largest coverings I have ever seen used were in a congregation that did not say anything about covering when out in public. Many of the women covered their whole head, some even the face (specifically during prayer). That, to me, is an example of becoming "more Biblical" in practice.

There is a large conference of immigrants from Russia and Ukraine that associated with the Mennonite Brethren. They were a part of the Russian & Ukrainian Baptists in their home countries, and from what I've seen, they have maintained the practice of covering. (I could wish that their practices in this regard would spread to the MBs across the board, but that hasn't happened in the 30 some years since they immigrated to the States, and "joined" the association of MB conferences. Historically, there was a close association between MBs and these Baptists during the 1800's and into the 1900's, and many of the Mennonites who remained after the fall of the Russian Empire and were then scattered by force all over the USSR took up identification as Baptists.)

[Ernie]

This discussion is limited to those currently attending an Anabaptist church. Others may participate by asking questions only.

[Josh]

Actually, Anabaptist churches with organdy coverings don’t really seem to get too upset if someone wants to make their covering out of solid material. They just aren’t busy mandating such.

The Charity people act like their hanging veils are morally superior but then seem to blissfully ignore that 20 years down the road, they either have tiny doilies or no coverings at all. (The same is happening in Beachy circles right now.) I can’t blame anyone for not wanting to go down that path.

[RZehr]

Regarding see through coverings - there is more than uses of the word cover, and one of those meanings can be completely compatible with transparent material. I can have a sheet of glass or a lace material that completely covers a table top, yet you can see through it. Fog can cover the land, yet you can see through it short distances. Or a dish of food can be covered with clear plastic stretch wrap. Cover can just mean that - cover. Which can be distinct and separate from covered from view.
I don’t know of anyone who would wear a transparent piece of shrink wrap on their head as a covering. But I do think that not everyone believes that the word “cover” necessarily has to be one and the same as solid, and not at all transparent.

And for folks who do not believe that there is any modesty component to wearing a covering, and that it is merely a sign, then what is the importance or benefit of a solid material?

[Sliceitup]

Actually, Anabaptist churches with organdy coverings don’t really seem to get too upset if someone wants to make their covering out of solid material. They just aren’t busy mandating such.

When a church says the reason we aren’t supposed to use different coverings (that they admit are perfectly biblical) because it’s important to have a covering that signals unity and identifies us as belonging with a specific group, then it’s a bit hypocritical to allow people to get more opaque coverings, yet not allow a hanging veil for people who are suffering from debilitating health conditions due to the required covering style.

[steve-in-kville]

When a church says the reason we aren’t supposed to use different coverings (that they admit are perfectly biblical) because it’s important to have a covering that signals unity and identifies us as belonging with a specific group, then it’s a bit hypocritical to allow people to get more opaque coverings, yet not allow a hanging veil for people who are suffering from debilitating health conditions due to the required covering style.

Care to expound on that? never heard of anyone being allergic to a headcovering... but then, the day is young

[Soloist]

When a church says the reason we aren’t supposed to use different coverings (that they admit are perfectly biblical) because it’s important to have a covering that signals unity and identifies us as belonging with a specific group, then it’s a bit hypocritical to allow people to get more opaque coverings, yet not allow a hanging veil for people who are suffering from debilitating health conditions due to the required covering style.

Care to expound on that? never heard of anyone being allergic to a headcovering... but then, the day is young

Well... a young lady I knew was asked if putting the covering on hurt. Apparently the child thought she used staples. Later with this same young lady, she made us some sandwiches which I decidedly didn't care for her hairpins when she incorporated it into mine. I since then have banned her from making my food and my wife has never used hair pins.

[Sliceitup]

When a church says the reason we aren’t supposed to use different coverings (that they admit are perfectly biblical) because it’s important to have a covering that signals unity and identifies us as belonging with a specific group, then it’s a bit hypocritical to allow people to get more opaque coverings, yet not allow a hanging veil for people who are suffering from debilitating health conditions due to the required covering style.

Care to expound on that? never heard of anyone being allergic to a headcovering... but then, the day is young

Let’s say that if you can’t cut your hair, and you happen to have excessive amounts of it, then it can be difficult to pile it all on top of your head. Even more difficult to shape it into the type of conglomeration that will fit underneath a cap style covering. Suffice to say that the required style gave someone frequent headaches. If you’ve ever had frequent headaches you’ll know how debilitating they are.

[mike]

Actually, Anabaptist churches with organdy coverings don’t really seem to get too upset if someone wants to make their covering out of solid material. They just aren’t busy mandating such.

You're making my point. For all their love of mandates, they generally give little time to the idea of making their rules more biblical, or more strict, or however you want to phrase it.

The Charity people act like their hanging veils are morally superior but then seem to blissfully ignore that 20 years down the road, they either have tiny doilies or no coverings at all. (The same is happening in Beachy circles right now.) I can’t blame anyone for not wanting to go down that path.

"Charity people" are hardly even on anybody's radar these days. There are numerous groups and churches that were loosely associated with Charity (or hardly associated at all) that are still around and actually prospering and doing well, have used hanging veils for years, and are not going down the path you're describing even in their next generation (or two).

Regardless, it is a poor excuse in my opinion to avoid change in a conservative direction just because of some other people who changed in a liberal direction. To reiterate what I said before:

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.