Early Anabaptists and clothing

[Pelerin]

As I read GAMEO, the first affirmative dress requirements were when the Amish required hooks and eyes instead of buttons in the 17th century and beards for men. There was a Dutch document earlier in the 17th century that prohibited certain things but surely some things were prohibited before that even if they weren’t written into a list. Of course things only start getting written down and codified like this when people start wanting to not keep them.

I am not a Plain Mennonite - I did dress plain for 3 years in the 1970s, but not since.

I don’t think I knew that about you. Have you posted about this somewhere before?

[Ernie]

As a counter to this, the early anabaptists were not identified by dress but rather behavior like praying for their food.

At first they were not identified by clothing very much. But as time went along, those who did not try to keep up with trends became known for their old fashioned attire, as mentioned above by Wenger.

Yes - that's how I understand it. Their dress was not distinctive, but it was not expensive. In my church, nobody's clothing stands out, nobody's clothing is expensive, but it isn't uniform either. That's how I understand their practice back then. They didn't spend a lot of time and effort preaching about clothing, neither do we.

We don't know if they spent a lot of time and effort preaching about clothing. There are not a lot of writings about it.

They, like we, address things we think need addressed in our eras.

According to pictures, I think it is fairly evident that Anabaptists and many others covered their bodies for the most part. So not much need to preach about that back then among the common people.

Covering bodies is not done consistently today by most professing Christians. Some of us still thank that is important, so we preach about it.

[Soloist]

I honestly think that the garments at the time were modest and included coverings.

Now days that is not true.

[Pelerin]

Bumping the paintings thread reminded me that Rembrandt painted and sketched Mennonite minister Cornelis Claesz Anslo, including the 1641 painting above of him and his wife. He would have been a minister in the Waterlander group which, according to GAMEO, was the most liberal group at the time.

It’s not clear what (if anything) identifies them as Mennonite. They are both wearing black, but a lot of people wear black in Rembrandt paintings. The collars are smaller and less elaborate than other collars you see. We can’t see his stockings but I wonder if they’d have the frilly lace on them most other men in Rembrandt seem to have.

For comparison here’s another man and his wife:



The collars are more elaborate. The lady has white lace around her sleeves. She isn’t wearing a headcovering. (The Mennonite lady wears one similar to one other Dutch ladies wear in Rembrandt, nothing distinctive.) The man has a styled beard compared to the more natural Mennonite beard. On the other hand this is a formal portrait whereas the Mennonite painting is capturing “a day in the life” so you’d expect it to be more informal.

For another comparison, here’s another non-Mennonite minister. His dress isn’t very differently than the Mennonite minister here suggesting that the Mennonites wouldn’t have looked out of place on the streets of Amsterdam—but maybe they also didn’t dress beyond this level either.

[Soloist]

I once went digging through a Mennonite historical society archives… I was looking for anything supporting see through caps or how they used to be the “under bonnet” I couldn’t find anything supporting that. The only conclusion I was able to draw was that we primarily only have wealthy people from paintings in which we can certainly draw conclusions but they are missing the majority.

[Neto]

I had thought that there was no requirement for hooks and eyes (instead of buttons) in the Dutch 'baptism-minded' setting, but I read some place somewhat recently that after the death of Menno Simons (1561) a doctrinal practice dispute broke out in the Low Countries which ended with one group specifying hooks and eyes only to be used. My own ancestors had already fled the Dutch-speaking areas at that time, so I don't know how much influence those events had in the congregational life in Prussia, and later, in Russia.

Perhaps it was an issue in the Gross Gemeinde (in the colonies), but I don't think those kinds of specifications were ever an issue in the Mennonite Brethren. So my impressions of what possible clothing standards were in place are probably mostly shaped by the MB setting. There WAS a somewhat standardized veil 'design', but my impression is that it was not ever nearly as defined as in the Amish, and in groups derived from them. That may also have come about as a result of the Kleine Gemeinde split, some 40 or so years prior to that of the MB. I have not seen any evidence of a specified style in MB history.

[Ernie]

I once went digging through a Mennonite historical society archives… I was looking for anything supporting see through caps or how they used to be the “under bonnet” I couldn’t find anything supporting that. The only conclusion I was able to draw was that we primarily only have wealthy people from paintings in which we can certainly draw conclusions but they are missing the majority.

Bonnets were a new fad that became commonplace in the 1800's. Before that, ladies wore scarves/flat hats for whether protection. Some Amish such as the Nebraska Amish never adopted bonnets and continue with the old European peasant headgear of scarves and flat hats to this day.

[Bootstrap]

I am not a Plain Mennonite - I did dress plain for 3 years in the 1970s, but not since.

I don’t think I knew that about you. Have you posted about this somewhere before?

I did back in the MennoDiscuss days. This was when I first became Mennonite, and JC Wenger was a big influence on me. Over time, I decided that distinctive plain dress makes more sense in a group that does that together. More recently, I have come to understand how Gelassenheit is understood in Plain circles, and the role of dress in yielding yourselves to each other.

Either way, I realized that dressing simply in a way that fit in with the church I was part of made more sense for me.

[Bootstrap]

Yes - that's how I understand it. Their dress was not distinctive, but it was not expensive. In my church, nobody's clothing stands out, nobody's clothing is expensive, but it isn't uniform either. That's how I understand their practice back then. They didn't spend a lot of time and effort preaching about clothing, neither do we.

We don't know if they spent a lot of time and effort preaching about clothing. There are not a lot of writings about it.

They, like we, address things we think need addressed in our eras.

According to pictures, I think it is fairly evident that Anabaptists and many others covered their bodies for the most part. So not much need to preach about that back then among the common people.

Covering bodies is not done consistently today by most professing Christians. Some of us still thank that is important, so we preach about it.

Most early Christian women dressed like respectable people in their societies, but more simply, more modestly, more carefully. I think that was probably true of early Anabaptist women as well. They avoided dressing in ways that would call attention to themselves. I think that's a good guideline for both men and women.

In North Africa, people like Tertullian taught that women should be visibly different from their society, covering their body much more fully, and prescribing what they should wear in some detail. I think that's an outlier.

In most other places, I think women dressed in ways that were seen as modest but normal within their culture. The Epistle of Diognetus describes this:

Chapter 5. The manners of the Christians

For the Christians are distinguished from other men neither by country, nor language, nor the customs which they observe. For they neither inhabit cities of their own, nor employ a peculiar form of speech, nor lead a life which is marked out by any singularity. The course of conduct which they follow has not been devised by any speculation or deliberation of inquisitive men; nor do they, like some, proclaim themselves the advocates of any merely human doctrines. But, inhabiting Greek as well as barbarian cities, according as the lot of each of them has determined, and following the customs of the natives in respect to clothing, food, and the rest of their ordinary conduct, they display to us their wonderful and confessedly striking method of life. They dwell in their own countries, but simply as sojourners. As citizens, they share in all things with others, and yet endure all things as if foreigners. Every foreign land is to them as their native country, and every land of their birth as a land of strangers. They marry, as do all [others]; they beget children; but they do not destroy their offspring. They have a common table, but not a common bed. They are in the flesh, but they do not live after the flesh. 2 Corinthians 10:3 They pass their days on earth, but they are citizens of heaven. Philippians 3:20 They obey the prescribed laws, and at the same time surpass the laws by their lives. They love all men, and are persecuted by all. They are unknown and condemned; they are put to death, and restored to life. 2 Corinthians 6:9 They are poor, yet make many rich; 2 Corinthians 6:10 they are in lack of all things, and yet abound in all; they are dishonoured, and yet in their very dishonour are glorified. They are evil spoken of, and yet are justified; they are reviled, and bless; 2 Corinthians 4:12 they are insulted, and repay the insult with honour; they do good, yet are punished as evil-doers. When punished, they rejoice as if quickened into life; they are assailed by the Jews as foreigners, and are persecuted by the Greeks; yet those who hate them are unable to assign any reason for their hatred.

So in any given culture, I think we have to ask what is seen as modest within that culture. Modest in both senses of the word - not calling attention to yourself, not paying tons of money for expensive luxuries, not calling sexual attention to yourself. I think that's different from a detailed, prescriptive dress code. This is something I have mentioned in sermons, not just for women.

The Bible spends a lot more time and energy on telling men not to lust than it spends telling women how to dress. And I think sometimes the question of how women dress gets mixed up with men's difficulties in this area. And there's simply no way a woman can dress that will prevent some men from lusting. Weirdly, some men seem to find Plain women's clothing sexy.

And I don't think the Bible calls for uniformity in dress.

I think most of the early Anabaptist writings get this right. Dress is not a major focus. There's a strong desire to return to the Bible and to radical discipleship. They wore simple clothing, spoke plainly, and shared goods, not because they wanted to invent "Anabaptist culture," but because they believed this was living out the gospel.

They constantly warned against adding man-made religious rules that were not found in the Bible. They separated from worldly ways because they believed the true Church must be pure. But their goal was faithfulness to Scripture, not building new social traditions for their own sake.

I'm not against Plain churches. I see them as a little like Catholic religious orders. But I think it's important to be clear about what is required by Scripture and what is rooted in the earliest Anabaptist sources.

[Ernie]

So in any given culture, I think we have to ask what is seen as modest within that culture. Modest in both senses of the word - not calling attention to yourself, not paying tons of money for expensive luxuries, not calling sexual attention to yourself. I think that's different from a detailed, prescriptive dress code. This is something I have mentioned in sermons, not just for women.

The Bible spends a lot more time and energy on telling men not to lust than it spends telling women how to dress. And I think sometimes the question of how women dress gets mixed up with men's difficulties in this area. And there's simply no way a woman can dress that will prevent some men from lusting. Weirdly, some men seem to find Plain women's clothing sexy.

And I don't think the Bible calls for uniformity in dress.

I think most of the early Anabaptist writings get this right. Dress is not a major focus. There's a strong desire to return to the Bible and to radical discipleship. They wore simple clothing, spoke plainly, and shared goods, not because they wanted to invent "Anabaptist culture," but because they believed this was living out the gospel.

They constantly warned against adding man-made religious rules that were not found in the Bible. They separated from worldly ways because they believed the true Church must be pure. But their goal was faithfulness to Scripture, not building new social traditions for their own sake.

I'm not against Plain churches. I see them as a little like Catholic religious orders. But I think it's important to be clear about what is required by Scripture and what is rooted in the earliest Anabaptist sources.

I won't address each thing you write point by point. We can say that you have been consistent on promoting these themes ever since joining MD/MN.

I will say this for the record though...
Plain Anabaptists are not trying to invent Anabaptist culture or build new social traditions for their own sake. Groups like FOTW have done this intentionally but not Plain Anabaptists. Plain Anabaptists for the most part simply want to continue practices they have had for centuries, rather than adopt all the trends and fads of the broader culture. From this perspective, Plain Anabaptists are not the strange ones.

Regarding "I think it's important to be clear about what is required by Scripture and what is rooted in the earliest Anabaptist sources", who do you think is not being clear about this?