The Early Anabaptists

[Bootstrap]

Many plain Anabaptists wear clothing that makes it easy to know they are plain Anabaptists just by looking at them, and if you look at the women, perhaps you can also identify which branch. In a given group, it often looks like the women are using the same patterns. The clothing signals a specific identity.

I have heard this argument from you since we first became acquainted around 18 years ago on MD. It comes up over and over.

I don't know that anybody on MN disagrees with you about this. I'm not sure who it is you are trying to persuade or what point you are trying to make. Can you explain?

I’m not trying to persuade anyone in particular, and I’m not keeping track of how often I’ve made a point over the years. I raised it because it still seems relevant to the discussion at hand, and because I believe it’s true.

I assume people here will agree with some things I say and disagree with others, just as I do with them. From your response, it sounds like you don’t disagree with this point. My main interest is whether the claim itself is accurate.

[MattY]

As I interpret this, I think it says that garments must be:

- plain
- simple
- functional

Not designed to display status, wealth, fashion, or to show off. I don't think it implies any kind of uniformity, and I don't think it implies clothing that would stand out in any way. It also seems to apply this not only to what people wear, but also to what they make. Tailors or seamstresses are not supposed to make such clothes for other people, either. If the King asked them to make such a garment, they should refuse?

I am not sure I am reading this correctly, so please chime in if I got it wrong.

We don't wear uniforms either. We merely ban certain details and designs.
If you think that our clothing is uniform today, I suspect that Bootstrap in 1568 would have considered the these folks to be promoters of "uniformity" as well.

I don't know if the following is true of your church, but just for example, if all women need to wear cape dresses and the covering style, size, and color are regulated, and all men need to wear button-down shirts (perhaps even long-sleeve shirts) and avoid jeans and/or khaki pants as well as shorts, and perhaps have a beard without a mustache or (depending on the denomination) avoid facial hair altogether, then such a church's standards are calling for a certain degree of uniformity and not just modesty or lack of pride and status symbols.

[MattY]

How they differed from other Anabaptists

While other Anabaptists had taught humility and avoiding expensive, flashy worldly styles, they had not advocated uniform extrabiblical regulations and had not advocated for clothing styles that made Christians stand out merely on sight.

So it looks like my post here may have been overly simplistic and not completely true of all Anabaptists everywhere, and perhaps the Mennonite leader Roosen's writings only reflected his understanding at that particular place and time; but I think it's still mostly true; clothing regulations developed over time and became more rigid among the stricter groups as time went on. Anabaptists were usually not identifiable in a crowd or in general public simply by their attire; otherwise it would have been a simple matter to round up all the Anabaptists. Consider GAMEO's information on Dress.

https://gameo.org/index.php?title=Dress

Many, though not all, of the early Anabaptists were drawn from the common people and evidently continued to wear the conventional clothing of the common people... Neither the ministers nor the laity wore any distinguishable attire, as numerous incidents in the Martyrs' Mirror indicate...The Anabaptists took seriously the principle of simplicity of life and the avoidance of the ostentation, display, and luxury of the rich...

In the course of time the Anabaptists became recognizable at sight by their refusal to carry any kind of arms, and by their plainness of dress: no jewellery, lace, etc., were worn. This plainness tended to develop into a sort of standard garb. For as new modes of dress appeared the Anabaptists clung to the older forms, sometimes adapting them over the years, and refusing to keep up with the ever-changing styles which T. J. van Braght likened to the changes of the phases of the moon (Martyrs Mirror E 10). Consequently the Anabaptists early began to make some specific regulations on clothing...[The article then cites the Strasbourg Discipline of 1568]...By 1600 there were instances in South Germany of Anabaptists being recognized by their clothing (Bossert . . . Wurttemberg I, 691, 741, 806, 881). But the Swiss and South German Mennonites never seem to have developed any specific religious garb; they remained simple Christians avoiding the luxury and ostentation of the rich. When Jakob Amman attempted to introduce avoidance and stricter clothing regulations into the church, he caused the division of 1693, after which his followers (the Amish) practiced extensive regulation of attire...

The Dutch Mennonites, even more than the Swiss, did not adopt a special religious garb. When Dutch believers were apprehended it was not by means of identifiable peculiar clothing. As early as 1550 a Dutch Mennonite martyr told the bystanders at his execution that if he could name 20 fellow believers in the surrounding crowd, he would not do so: this would indicate that they wore no specific garb. In 1572 a brother pressed his way through a crowd to encourage a man who was to be martyred, and then merged again with the crowd before the authorities could seize him: this again points to the fact that the Mennonites of Holland at that time wore no distinctive garb...

By the late 17th century Heinrich Ludolf Bentheim could still say of the Dutch Mennonites: "Above all, they insist on modesty in respect to clothing" (Horsch, Mennonites, 251), though he also states that some of the Amsterdam Mennonites were beginning to wear wigs and other worldly articles. That there was some clothing regulation among the Dutch Mennonites in the 18th century is evident from the testimony of S. F. Rues, who visited the Netherlands specifically to study the Mennonites there, and whose Aufrichtige Nachrichten (Sincere Reports) about them was published in 1743. Rues divided the Dutch Mennonites of that day into two general classes-the stricter groups, which he called "Fine," and the more lenient and tolerant groups, which he called "Coarse." The former prescribed the cut of men's coats and women's dresses, required that clothing be black, prohibited the use of shoelaces or buttons, and required the men to wear beards...

[JohnH]

In some cultures early Anabaptists were identifiable by not wearing swords in public.

[cmbl]

The Strasbourg "Agreement" or "Discipline" (Abred) of 1568 includes two points on plain dress among twenty-five points in total. It is an agreement of ordained Swiss Brethren who met in conference in Strasbourg. It was reaffirmed in 1607. It has also been called an Ordnungsbrief, or "Letter of Regulations."...

I think that one can see the seed of today's plain dress in this agreement (not the entire plant). Swiss Brethren-descended groups today that have ministers meet in conference and give direction on dress are following a practice that goes back at least to 1568. Many plain groups today have decided at some point to hold "to the present form of our regulation" - whether it is Amish groups holding to 1700s Alsatian dress patterns, Stauffer Mennonites maintaining mid-1800s Mennonite dress, or Conservative Mennonites maintaining circa 1910 dress. As society's dress has changed, they have become more easily identifiable by dress than their ancestors were. (Or is it just their women that are easily identifiable?)

[JohnH]

As usual, nobody is talking about Dutch Anabaptism or their descendants commonly known as Russian Mennonites, despite them being the earliest Anabaptists, and despite many of them being quite "plain" but being less focused on particular regulations around clothing matters.

Many plain Anabaptists wear clothing that makes it easy to know they are plain Anabaptists just by looking at them, and if you look at the women, perhaps you can also identify which branch. In a given group, it often looks like the women are using the same patterns. The clothing signals a specific identity.

What is wrong with women using the same patterns? Do you expect them to all go and find different ones and then to have a meeting where they each choose a different pattern?

[Bootstrap]

As usual, nobody is talking about Dutch Anabaptism or their descendants commonly known as Russian Mennonites, despite them being the earliest Anabaptists, and despite many of them being quite "plain" but being less focused on particular regulations around clothing matters.

Many plain Anabaptists wear clothing that makes it easy to know they are plain Anabaptists just by looking at them, and if you look at the women, perhaps you can also identify which branch. In a given group, it often looks like the women are using the same patterns. The clothing signals a specific identity.

What is wrong with women using the same patterns? Do you expect them to all go and find different ones and then to have a meeting where they each choose a different pattern?

Wrong? I didn't say it was wrong. I said it signals a specific identity - both to others and to the women themselves.

And that is not the same thing as simplicity and avoiding show. In fact, it might be cheaper and easier to buy clothes at Walmart, and wearing clothes that signal identity also means standing out to others. So I think they are doing this partly for reasons that are different from the reasons the early Anabaptists made their choices about clothing.

[Soloist]

As usual, nobody is talking about Dutch Anabaptism or their descendants commonly known as Russian Mennonites, despite them being the earliest Anabaptists, and despite many of them being quite "plain" but being less focused on particular regulations around clothing matters.

Many plain Anabaptists wear clothing that makes it easy to know they are plain Anabaptists just by looking at them, and if you look at the women, perhaps you can also identify which branch. In a given group, it often looks like the women are using the same patterns. The clothing signals a specific identity.

What is wrong with women using the same patterns? Do you expect them to all go and find different ones and then to have a meeting where they each choose a different pattern?

Wrong? I didn't say it was wrong. I said it signals a specific identity - both to others and to the women themselves.

And that is not the same thing as simplicity and avoiding show. In fact, it might be cheaper and easier to buy clothes at Walmart, and wearing clothes that signal identity also means standing out to others. So I think they are doing this partly for reasons that are different from the reasons the early Anabaptists made their choices about clothing.

Position 1: Modesty was important back then and now.

Position 2: Modesty back then was characterized by simplicity

Position 3: clothing styles back then were more universally acceptable for covering the body.

Position 4: Modesty now is to conceal the body as well as simplicity.

Position 5: Walmart sells what is popular

Position 6: popular is not really modest.

Following these positions, it makes logical sense that if society dressed modestly, then the point of plain clothing would be characterized by simplicity. As that is not true, the implication is that modesty is not generally sold at Walmart.

As long as you accept jeans as modest, there won't be similar thinking between conservatives and you. My wife would never wear jeans for example as both of us view them as immodest.

[Neto]

How they differed from other Anabaptists

While other Anabaptists had taught humility and avoiding expensive, flashy worldly styles, they had not advocated uniform extrabiblical regulations and had not advocated for clothing styles that made Christians stand out merely on sight.

So it looks like my post here may have been overly simplistic and not completely true of all Anabaptists everywhere, and perhaps the Mennonite leader Roosen's writings only reflected his understanding at that particular place and time; but I think it's still mostly true; clothing regulations developed over time and became more rigid among the stricter groups as time went on. Anabaptists were usually not identifiable in a crowd or in general public simply by their attire; otherwise it would have been a simple matter to round up all the Anabaptists. Consider GAMEO's information on Dress.

https://gameo.org/index.php?title=Dress

Many, though not all, of the early Anabaptists were drawn from the common people and evidently continued to wear the conventional clothing of the common people... Neither the ministers nor the laity wore any distinguishable attire, as numerous incidents in the Martyrs' Mirror indicate...The Anabaptists took seriously the principle of simplicity of life and the avoidance of the ostentation, display, and luxury of the rich...

In the course of time the Anabaptists became recognizable at sight by their refusal to carry any kind of arms, and by their plainness of dress: no jewellery, lace, etc., were worn. This plainness tended to develop into a sort of standard garb. For as new modes of dress appeared the Anabaptists clung to the older forms, sometimes adapting them over the years, and refusing to keep up with the ever-changing styles which T. J. van Braght likened to the changes of the phases of the moon (Martyrs Mirror E 10). Consequently the Anabaptists early began to make some specific regulations on clothing...[The article then cites the Strasbourg Discipline of 1568]...By 1600 there were instances in South Germany of Anabaptists being recognized by their clothing (Bossert . . . Wurttemberg I, 691, 741, 806, 881). But the Swiss and South German Mennonites never seem to have developed any specific religious garb; they remained simple Christians avoiding the luxury and ostentation of the rich. When Jakob Amman attempted to introduce avoidance and stricter clothing regulations into the church, he caused the division of 1693, after which his followers (the Amish) practiced extensive regulation of attire...

The Dutch Mennonites, even more than the Swiss, did not adopt a special religious garb. When Dutch believers were apprehended it was not by means of identifiable peculiar clothing. As early as 1550 a Dutch Mennonite martyr told the bystanders at his execution that if he could name 20 fellow believers in the surrounding crowd, he would not do so: this would indicate that they wore no specific garb. In 1572 a brother pressed his way through a crowd to encourage a man who was to be martyred, and then merged again with the crowd before the authorities could seize him: this again points to the fact that the Mennonites of Holland at that time wore no distinctive garb...

By the late 17th century Heinrich Ludolf Bentheim could still say of the Dutch Mennonites: "Above all, they insist on modesty in respect to clothing" (Horsch, Mennonites, 251), though he also states that some of the Amsterdam Mennonites were beginning to wear wigs and other worldly articles. That there was some clothing regulation among the Dutch Mennonites in the 18th century is evident from the testimony of S. F. Rues, who visited the Netherlands specifically to study the Mennonites there, and whose Aufrichtige Nachrichten (Sincere Reports) about them was published in 1743. Rues divided the Dutch Mennonites of that day into two general classes-the stricter groups, which he called "Fine," and the more lenient and tolerant groups, which he called "Coarse." The former prescribed the cut of men's coats and women's dresses, required that clothing be black, prohibited the use of shoelaces or buttons, and required the men to wear beards...

Two brief comments:
I sometimes use the term "Dutch Mennonites" as a descriptor of my own people, because that is where we originated. However, the observations made by Heinrich Ludolf Bentheim (see Matt's quote above) refer to those who had remained in the Dutch lands - my people had already fled to areas in what is now Poland.
Regarding the wearing of swords: Perhaps Menno Simons' reason for mentioning the wearing of "an honest sword" was intended to allow for having one as a disguise. This would support the idea that this one thing played a fairly large part in betraying the identity of a random 'Mennist' (if he did NOT wear a sword). Then the meaning behind the word 'honest' would indicate that it was not ever going to be used against another person.

[JohnH]

A bit of a correction: the Russian Mennonites as they are known now originated in what is now Flanders, Belgium and in Friesland, Netherlands. If one wants to be accurate, one could say Flemish or Frisian.

Oddly enough Friesens as a surname are Flemish.