Inside and Outside the Cup

[Ernie]

I was only speaking to the question of, within the category of "modest dress", if the Scripture text is supporting the idea of a SPECIFIC clothing design as being necessary. I say it is not. I do not mean that it is wrong to do so, but only that it should be classified as a cultural practice, not a "Christian" (or religious) one. Each people group is free to determine their own cultural expression of modest dress, although I would also limit this statement with an understanding that the Holy Spirit, through the Scripture, must be allowed to speak into and guide their understanding in this.

I don't know of any Christian group that believes that the teachings of Paul and Peter regarding modesty are supporting the idea of a SPECIFIC design. Christian groups that prescribe a SPECIFIC design believe that the New Testament gives churches the freedom to prescribe a SPECIFIC design. They believe that SPECIFIC designs can be a Christian practice as well as a religious practice. I agree with them.

For example, I think that dunking people in the water three times forward is a SPECIFIC method, it is a cultural practice, it is a Christian practice, and it is a religious practice. It can be all four things at the same time.

Early churches as well as many churches down through the last 200 years have prescribed all sorts of specific practices. I don't have a problem with this as long as they give others who are making honest attempts at following NT instructions the right hand of fellowship and the full blessings of Christian fellowship.

I think you are trying to say something different. If so, can you say more?

[Ken]

I was only speaking to the question of, within the category of "modest dress", if the Scripture text is supporting the idea of a SPECIFIC clothing design as being necessary. I say it is not. I do not mean that it is wrong to do so, but only that it should be classified as a cultural practice, not a "Christian" (or religious) one. Each people group is free to determine their own cultural expression of modest dress, although I would also limit this statement with an understanding that the Holy Spirit, through the Scripture, must be allowed to speak into and guide their understanding in this.

I don't know of any Christian group that believes that the teachings of Paul and Peter regarding modesty are supporting the idea of a SPECIFIC design. Christian groups that prescribe a SPECIFIC design believe that the New Testament gives churches the freedom to prescribe a SPECIFIC design. They believe that SPECIFIC designs can be a Christian practice as well as a religious practice. I agree with them.

Do you think that is how things are actually taught though? Specifically that the New Testament provides the freedom to be interpreted in a whole bunch of different ways and that this is just the particular way that WE are interpreting it?

That hasn't been my experience on the topic of dress or any other.

[Ernie]

I was only speaking to the question of, within the category of "modest dress", if the Scripture text is supporting the idea of a SPECIFIC clothing design as being necessary. I say it is not. I do not mean that it is wrong to do so, but only that it should be classified as a cultural practice, not a "Christian" (or religious) one. Each people group is free to determine their own cultural expression of modest dress, although I would also limit this statement with an understanding that the Holy Spirit, through the Scripture, must be allowed to speak into and guide their understanding in this.

I don't know of any Christian group that believes that the teachings of Paul and Peter regarding modesty are supporting the idea of a SPECIFIC design. Christian groups that prescribe a SPECIFIC design believe that the New Testament gives churches the freedom to prescribe a SPECIFIC design. They believe that SPECIFIC designs can be a Christian practice as well as a religious practice. I agree with them.

Do you think that is how things are actually taught though? Specifically that the New Testament provides the freedom to be interpreted in a whole bunch of different ways and that this is just the particular way that WE are interpreting it?

That hasn't been my experience on the topic of dress or any other.

I've always heard it taught that way in a wide range of conservative Anabaptist churches.

[R7ehr]

I don't know of any Christian group that believes that the teachings of Paul and Peter regarding modesty are supporting the idea of a SPECIFIC design. Christian groups that prescribe a SPECIFIC design believe that the New Testament gives churches the freedom to prescribe a SPECIFIC design. They believe that SPECIFIC designs can be a Christian practice as well as a religious practice. I agree with them.

Do you think that is how things are actually taught though? Specifically that the New Testament provides the freedom to be interpreted in a whole bunch of different ways and that this is just the particular way that WE are interpreting it?

That hasn't been my experience on the topic of dress or any other.

I've always heard it taught that way in a wide range of conservative Anabaptist churches.

Same here. That is exactly the way it is taught and understood.

[mike]

Do you think that is how things are actually taught though? Specifically that the New Testament provides the freedom to be interpreted in a whole bunch of different ways and that this is just the particular way that WE are interpreting it?

That hasn't been my experience on the topic of dress or any other.

I've always heard it taught that way in a wide range of conservative Anabaptist churches.

Same here. That is exactly the way it is taught and understood.

Same here. For example, the church I am part of has a rule that you must wear black shoes to church services. I can guarantee you there isn't a single soul in the congregation that believes this is the only right way to interpret New Testament teaching on proper dress.

[barnhart]

I've always heard it taught that way in a wide range of conservative Anabaptist churches.

Same here. That is exactly the way it is taught and understood.

Same here. For example, the church I am part of has a rule that you must wear black shoes to church services. I can guarantee you there isn't a single soul in the congregation that believes this is the only right way to interpret New Testament teaching on proper dress.

That is how I was taught. My mother's standard answer was, "this how we choose to honor Jesus." I had friends who's families were far more fundamentalist, but I think they were more the exception than the rule.

[Neto]

I was only speaking to the question of, within the category of "modest dress", if the Scripture text is supporting the idea of a SPECIFIC clothing design as being necessary. I say it is not. I do not mean that it is wrong to do so, but only that it should be classified as a cultural practice, not a "Christian" (or religious) one. Each people group is free to determine their own cultural expression of modest dress, although I would also limit this statement with an understanding that the Holy Spirit, through the Scripture, must be allowed to speak into and guide their understanding in this.

I don't know of any Christian group that believes that the teachings of Paul and Peter regarding modesty are supporting the idea of a SPECIFIC design. Christian groups that prescribe a SPECIFIC design believe that the New Testament gives churches the freedom to prescribe a SPECIFIC design. They believe that SPECIFIC designs can be a Christian practice as well as a religious practice. I agree with them.

For example, I think that dunking people in the water three times forward is a SPECIFIC method, it is a cultural practice, it is a Christian practice, and it is a religious practice. It can be all four things at the same time.

Early churches as well as many churches down through the last 200 years have prescribed all sorts of specific practices. I don't have a problem with this as long as they give others who are making honest attempts at following NT instructions the right hand of fellowship and the full blessings of Christian fellowship.

I think you are trying to say something different. If so, can you say more?

In my mind, only slightly different.

These different modes of baptism, or different types of modest dress, these ways of fulfilling the commands of Scripture are valid cultural methods of doing the Christian practice, but they are not in themselves the Christian practice. Failure to distinguish between these two facets of our Christian practice easily results in confusion on the part of observers, and many people DO get all wound up about things like mode of baptism. My own heritage (Mennonite Brethren) went off the deep end on this soon after starting up in 1860, because they were new believers, and one of the main leaders had read a pamphlet by a non-Mennonite preacher (there in Russia) that convinced him that it had to be immersion. (I think they started off with 3 times forward, but later settled on one time backwards, which is the way I was baptized. But in my mom's time, it had to be running water, and of a natural temperature. Back in the colonies they were sometimes breaking the ice in the river to have a baptism, and you can imagine that 3 times was a pretty severe experience.) They didn't accept even other Mennonites who had been baptized by some other mode, until the Kreimer MBs merged with the main MB group, in 1960 or there abouts.

A Beachy A-M guy I worked with years ago married a girl from S. Dakota, and her congregation approved dresses made of printed cloth, like 'prairie dresses'. I do not recall now if she joined the BAM congregation, but I know that they were told that prints were not approved. That is a stance resulting from confusion of the cultural practice with the Christian practice. And her dresses were very modest, both physically, and also in the sense of non-extravagant. In fact, that is what my friend was most upset about, because the girls in that congregation whose parents were very well-to-do shopped only in the exclusive stores, and used only the finest cloth to make their dresses.

[EDIT: I should add that these congregations have full rights to adopt what ever cultural method they choose, but I do not think it is clear in the minds of many of the members, and certainly not for outside observers, that the exact mode is not considered to be "the most true to Scripture" method.]

[EDIT 2: Our congregation here has started allowing baptismal candidates to choose the mode they want. That might sound like something I would "agree with", but I think that it takes the focus off of what baptism means, instead focusing on the mechanics of it. I think that IF they want to do that, they should go through all of the figurative language the Scripture uses in connection with baptism - Sprinkling by the blood, The Pouring Out of the Holy Spirit, and the Death and Resurrection picture in immersion.]

[Ernie]

Ok. I agree with you that many Plain people get obsessed with certain things.

But regarding "no prints" for example, I don't know a Beachy person who thinks that this is a prescribed and specific teaching of scripture. All of them hang out with Mennonites who wear prints and they invite Mennonites to preach in their churches. They always have.
If they thought the Mennonites were unscriptural, they would never hang out with them.

Their reasons for not wearing prints are generally along the lines of "if we allow prints, our people will not know where to stop" or "we want to keep a connection to our Amish-Mennonite roots" or something along that line.
I think their concerns are valid. Someone has said that they didn't know Wal-Mart was open at 1 AM until the night after a BAM members meeting when a clothing rule changed. People went shopping into the night. And many don't go for a modest and subtle printed clothing. Many go for the boldest and loudest prints.

[Neto]

I should have mentioned that this was over 40 years ago. It is now VERY different there. (Our neighbors are members there, and their teenage boys play ball in the front yard in shorts and no shirts, and their teen daughter wears pants outside. And when we joined Gospel Haven, our bishop once said that girls should not wear pajama pants to sleep in. He said something similar to what you mentioned about print cloth - that it would normalize the wearing of pants to the extent that it would be done elsewhere as well.)

[Bootstrap]

Gary, you've read the pamphlet, right? Does John D. really say what Bootstrap is claiming?

I haven't actually. But I have more confidence in John than to believe that is what he's implying.

A little history. The OP was in a thread that was about the booklet, and people in the thread were required to read the booklet before responding.

When Ken responded to my comment in Bunny Trails, I assumed he had read the booklet, and thought that my responses were not appropriate in that thread. But it looks like neither of you have read the booklet that inspired my comments. No wonder we are talking past each other!

Request: could people please read the booklet before responding in this side thread too?