Early Anabaptists and clothing

[Bootstrap]

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 think that's true.

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.

I think that is also true - I write as someone who is not part of one of those cultures.

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?

I'm not making any accusations about specific people here. I am making a statement about being careful with sources, which is something I value.

I would like to be able to discuss the topic without giving and receiving offense, without having to worry about how people see me or see you, without thinking about my status or yours or anyone else's. I don't want to make this "about you" or "about me" or about anyone else (see the humility thread). When we have to worry about how people see us, what assumptions they might be making, etc., it takes us off topic and onto ourselves.

Neither the early Christians nor the early Anabaptists knew any of us. I think we should read what they wrote in their context, not ours. That's my main point.

[Pelerin]

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.

True, anyone having their portraits done was likely wealthy. Rembrandt does have some beggars and they’re dressed very differently. I should also point out that this was painted at the same time that Thieleman van Braght was compiling the Martyrs Mirror because he felt that the Dutch Mennonites’ prosperity was causing them to become too worldly.

[Bootstrap]

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.

When I look at these early sources, this is what I continue to see. Do you think I got any of this wrong? If so, what am I misinterpreting, and what do you think the correct interpretation is? Or do you basically agree with my analysis of what they taught back then?

[Heirbyadoption]

For anyone wanting some reading on this subject (the evolution from "plain" to "Plain" among Anabaptists), I would refer you to a thread on here from last February (2024). There are a couple references to the "Mennisten kittel" (Mennonite coat) from the late 1500s or early 1600s (more identified by it's lack of adornment than cut); I could probably find sources if needed (possibly Verduin or Gingerich). And it's been mentioned on here before, but Gingerich's book "Mennonite Attire Through Four Centuries" does offer some pretty solid documentation on the evolution toward identifying Plain dress among Anabaptists, as does Esther Rupel's "Brethren Dress". I suppose I could also refer to Gerritt Roosen's 1697 letter in response to Jacob Amman (reprinted in Peter Hoover's "Secret of the Strength") to demonstrate that there were indeed differing views among the Anabaptists at the time when Amman was cracking down for "Plainer" dress restrictions and specifics....

I am truly sorry that you have been disturbed by people who exalt themselves and make rules about things not clearly laid down in the Gospel. If the apostles had told us exactly how and with what the believer is to clothe himself, then we would have a case to work on. But we dare not contradict the Gospel by forcing men's consciences about certain styles of hats, clothes, shoes, stockings or haircuts. Things are done differently in every country. We dare not excommunicate people just because they do not line up to our customs. We dare not put them out of the church as sinful leaven, when neither Jesus nor the apostles bound us in matters of outward form. Neither Jesus nor the apostles made rules or laws about such things. Rather, Paul said in Col. 2 that we do not inherit the kingdom of heaven through food and drink. Neither do we inherit it through the form and cut of our clothes.

Jesus did not bind us in outward things. Why does our friend Jakob Amman undertake to make rules, then exclude those from the church who do not keep them? If he considers himself a servant of the Gospel but wants to live by the letter of outward law, then he should not have two coats. He should not carry money in his pocket nor shoes on his feet. If he does not live according to the letter of Jesus' law, how can he force the brothers to live by the letter of his own laws? Oh that he would follow Paul who feared God, who treated people gently and who took pains not to offend the conscience of the weak…Paul did not write one word about outward forms of clothing. But he taught us to be conformed to those of low estate and imitate only that which is honorable.

We are to do that within the manner of the land in which we live. We are to shun styles and proud worldliness (1 John 2). We should not be quick to change our manner of dress. Fashion deserves rebuke. New articles of dress should not be accepted until they become common practice in the land, and then only if they are becoming to Christian humility. I do not walk in the lust of the eyes and worldliness. All my life I have stuck to one style of dress. But suppose I should have dressed myself according to another custom, the way they do it in another land? Should I then be excommunicated? That would be illogical and against the Scriptures.

The Scriptures must be our guide. We dare not run ahead of them. We must follow them, not lightheartedly, but in carefulness and fear. It is dangerous to step into the place of God's judgment and bind on earth what is not bound in heaven.

[Neto]

... I could also refer to Gerritt Roosen's 1697 letter in response to Jacob Amman (reprinted in Peter Hoover's "Secret of the Strength") to demonstrate that there were indeed differing views among the Anabaptists at the time when Amman was cracking down for "Plainer" dress restrictions and specifics....

I am truly sorry that you have been disturbed by people who exalt themselves and make rules about things not clearly laid down in the Gospel. If the apostles had told us exactly how and with what the believer is to clothe himself, then we would have a case to work on. But we dare not contradict the Gospel by forcing men's consciences about certain styles of hats, clothes, shoes, stockings or haircuts. Things are done differently in every country. We dare not excommunicate people just because they do not line up to our customs. We dare not put them out of the church as sinful leaven, when neither Jesus nor the apostles bound us in matters of outward form. Neither Jesus nor the apostles made rules or laws about such things. Rather, Paul said in Col. 2 that we do not inherit the kingdom of heaven through food and drink. Neither do we inherit it through the form and cut of our clothes.

Jesus did not bind us in outward things. Why does our friend Jakob Amman undertake to make rules, then exclude those from the church who do not keep them? If he considers himself a servant of the Gospel but wants to live by the letter of outward law, then he should not have two coats. He should not carry money in his pocket nor shoes on his feet. If he does not live according to the letter of Jesus' law, how can he force the brothers to live by the letter of his own laws? Oh that he would follow Paul who feared God, who treated people gently and who took pains not to offend the conscience of the weak…Paul did not write one word about outward forms of clothing. But he taught us to be conformed to those of low estate and imitate only that which is honorable.

We are to do that within the manner of the land in which we live. We are to shun styles and proud worldliness (1 John 2). We should not be quick to change our manner of dress. Fashion deserves rebuke. New articles of dress should not be accepted until they become common practice in the land, and then only if they are becoming to Christian humility. I do not walk in the lust of the eyes and worldliness. All my life I have stuck to one style of dress. But suppose I should have dressed myself according to another custom, the way they do it in another land? Should I then be excommunicated? That would be illogical and against the Scriptures.

The Scriptures must be our guide. We dare not run ahead of them. We must follow them, not lightheartedly, but in carefulness and fear. It is dangerous to step into the place of God's judgment and bind on earth what is not bound in heaven.

Thank you for this quotation. I will venture to comment in this regard, that although SOME Plain people 'blame' Jacob Amman's position on excommunication on Menno Simons (specifically familial avoidance), that Menno never taught or wrote about using excommunication for anything but conduct named in Scripture as sin. A teaching which is borrowed and misused is no longer the same position, but rather a new teaching.

[Ernie]

I am making a statement about being careful with sources, which is something I value.

And I have been trying to point out that statements being made about both the early church and early Anabaptists are simply guesses - not something that we can know for sure. When guesses are proposed as facts or as likely scenarios, I don't consider this being careful about sources.

[Ernie]

Or do you basically agree with my analysis of what they taught back then?

I basically agree with you on what we know. I disagree with the deductions and conclusions being drawn. Maybe I can write more on this sometime.

[Judas Maccabeus]

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

Now days that is not true.

A woman could walk Ito one of our services in a "1910" day dress worn by the middle class and not be noticed much. It would certainly meet the standards we have in place. It is during the 20's things went off of the rails. Prior to that, "spot the Mennonite" in historical pictures was difficult, particularly black and white.

While cape dresses are "encouraged" we have never required them.