Nonconformity- When Did it Start? (part 1)

If you identify as a conservative Mennonite, what is it exactly that makes you a conservative Mennonite? Maybe you don’t like the term Mennonite and prefer to call yourself Anabaptist, so what is it that makes you Anabaptist? Denominations are usually set apart from each other because of some belief that they hold to strongly or some belief that they refuse to have part of.

Mennonites have had so many different church splits and schisms through the centuries and the number of groups and subgroups that are out there are often hard to keep track of—even when you grow up in it. But what is it that makes them keep identifying as Anabaptists or Mennonite rather than some other denomination?

When someone says they aren’t going to be Mennonite anymore, what does that mean to us?

In asking some of these questions, I have found that most Mennonites generally will either answer something about the way one looks, or about nonresistance, or both.

In reading about our more recent history, nonconformity and nonresistance seem to be the key issues that Mennonites tend to focus on. To most of us, it is a normal part of being Mennonite. Members meetings, business meetings, and conferences often revolve around our dress and outward appearance. Nonresistance is important but isn’t focused on as much as it once was when America was directly involved in specific wars.

Nonresistance seems to have always been a part of the Anabaptist movement, but rules and regulations about dress and clothing were not always what our people focused on.

When did we become so focused on our outward appearance?

If most of our identity as a denomination is in how we look, doesn’t that sound like a rather shallow identity?

Of course, that isn’t our only deeply held belief, but since it is the one that is often focused on more than others, that is what my next series will be on.

A Brief History

Mennonites today get our term “nonconformity” from Romans 12:2, “And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.” (NKJV)

Another verse that is often used in correlation with this is 2Cor. 6:17, “Therefore, come out from among them and be separate, says the Lord. Do not touch what is unclean, and I will receive you.” (NKJV)

If you were raised in a conservative Mennonite home, these verses are most likely very familiar. Most of us, if questioned, would tell you that these verses are the reason we are to dress and live differently than the world.

The earliest Anabaptists also spoke about clothing, but their focus in their teaching was not the same as ours today. “Nonconformity”—in regard to dress—was not something spoken of much. Rather, admonition about clothing was focused more on simplicity, and guarding against pride.

When the Anabaptist movement began, the upper classes liked to display their wealth in the kind of clothing and ornamentation they wore. Menno Simons and some of the other earlier Anabaptist writers wrote against this practice, calling for modest, simple apparel that was not “prideful and pompous”.1

Through the centuries, Anabaptists were not the only Christians speaking out against this. Leaders such as Adoniram Judson, Charles Finney, Harriet Beecher Stowe, and others also spoke against costly display in dress and wrote in support of simplicity of dress rather than extravagance and display.2

For four centuries, Mennonites did not teach about nonconformity or separatism from the world in dress. The Amish were the only ones within the Anabaptist movement who had very specific clothing rules. Jacob Ammon made his rules about dress much like the world at that time did and he conformed to the world’s view of how the poor class should be clothed. His rules were not about being “nonconformed”, but rather focused on conforming to the lowest worldly class of people. You can read more about this here.

Clothing styles did not change as rapidly during those four centuries and Mennonites did not look much different than those around them–other than keeping their clothing simpler and not having as many frills, etc. However, they were often somewhat slower in acclimating to the styles of those around them.

In the 1800’s, mass production of clothing during the industrial revolution brought a more simple, cheap, and utilitarian style of clothing. As clothing became cheaper, and much of the extravagant and outlandish styles were dropped, society began to dress more alike with less distinction between the classes. With cheaper dress, however, the styles began to change more rapidly.

This brought concern to Mennonite leaders for several reasons. Since clothing was made more cheaply with less frills, Mennonites didn’t really look different than others around them. Transportation and communication had become easier and Mennonites came into more contact with urban society. Mennonite leaders became concerned that their people would lose their distinctiveness. They had already lost much of their distinctiveness in language and geographic isolation. With the rest of the world no longer dressing with as many frills and ornamentation on their clothing, they worried that would no longer be set apart from others.3

It was at this point in the late 1800’s that Mennonites began to speak of nonconformity, uniformity, and being separated from the world in dress. Romans 12:2 and 2 Corinthians 6:17 became key verses for Mennonite living. Between the years 1865 to 1950, more resolutions were passed regarding nonconformity than any other subject. At least 230 resolutions were passed during that time.

Nonconformity or just wanting to hold on to cultural distinctiveness?

As I read the history of Mennonite nonconformity, I found myself questioning if it really was nonconformity to the world that they were desiring, or if they were just attempting to “be different” in order to preserve their culture.

Each group of Mennonites that came to America brought with them their own language and culture. They tended to live together in their own communities and speak their own language. But as transportation became easier and they had more contact with the outside world, they lost that distinction.

It is not an unusual phenomenon to want your children to keep the culture that you grew up in. It happens in most cultures of people who come to America. Japanese, Chinese, Mexican, etc., want their children to remember who they were and where they come from. Sometimes there are particular traits and traditions that they are able to keep, or a language they still speak at home, but most of the time the children assimilate to the culture around them as they integrate into society.

While it’s not wrong to want to safeguard your culture, should a people group’s main objective be to keep their culture and do this by calling things pertaining to other cultures a sin? Is it right to call things sin that God does not?

Is Nonconformity important?

Does that mean that I think nonconformity does not matter? Should we just give up our culture and join the world around us?

Not at all! What I would like to do is take a deeper look at biblical nonconformity, worldliness, and being in separation from the world. I want to study what it is and what it is not. My next couple posts will be on that subject.

 

 

1. Gingerich, Melvin, Mennonite Attire through Four Centuries, pg. 14
2. Ibid, pg.145
3. Ibid, pg.28 and 148

 

Not for Today?

Many conservatives Anabaptist leaders today avoid any teaching about the Holy Spirit. Our parents and grandparents saw a charismatic movement that wasn’t always aligned with Scripture.  They saw and heard of some crazy things being done in the name of “Holy Spirit leading”.  Many in our circles then rejected any teaching pertaining to the Holy Spirit as being false without even checking for biblical evidence.

Many of our people also discredit any miracles or gifts of the Spirit because they don’t believe that the Holy Spirit works like that today. The book of Acts is treated gingerly by some and if it is read or studied by groups or individuals much, they are often viewed with suspicion. 1Corinthians 12 and 14 do not get treated with nearly the amount of attention that 1Corinthians 11 does.

I don’t believe that miracles and gifts of the Spirit were only for a certain time in history any more than I think the head covering was only for the church of Corinth. I have been taught so often, while growing up in a conservative Anabaptist setting, that the entire New Testament is for all of us today– that I believe it.

A Backward Look

Interestingly enough, as I was doing what I often do– looking back at the earliest Anabaptist church to see how they did things–I ran across some information that I was never taught in my local Anabaptist history lessons.

We tend to hear names like George Blaurok, Conrad Grebel, Felix Mantz, Dirk Philips, or Menno Simons. But while I was reading about the earliest Anabaptist views on the work of the Holy Spirit, I ran across the name, Pilgram Marpeck.

Marpeck was a writer and leader of the Anabaptists in South Germany during the sixteenth century, but his is not a name heard much in our circles. Some of this is because we are taught mostly Swiss and Dutch Anabaptist history, and some of this is because not much was known about Marpeck until more recently.1

There were three main branches of Anabaptists:

• Switzerland (Blaurok, Grebel, Mantz)
• North Germany and Netherlands (Dirk Philips, Simons, Melchior Hoffman)
• South Germany and Austria (Hans Denck, Hans Hut, Marpeck)

However, because of persecution, many within these groups emigrated and mixed together. Though they were different from each other, they were all recognizably part of the same group.  All of the leaders from these groups interacted through letters, visits, and conversations.  They exchanged ideas through this interaction and often debated or admonished each other.2  It was no secret that early Anabaptists found much to disagree about.

Opponents of Anabaptism accused Anabaptists of being both Literalists and Spiritualists. It seems that within these groups there was a tendency of some towards overt Spiritualism and some towards overt Literalism (legalism).  The early Anabaptist leaders’ writings, to their critics and to each other, addressed these topics at times.  The Swiss groups tended towards literalism and the South German/Austrian groups tended towards spiritualism. The North Germany/Netherland group seemed to have more of a mixed group with some of both extremes. In their interaction with each other and with their critics, they challenged and admonished one another about these tendencies.

In much of the writings of Pilgram Marpeck, we also find this addressed, but his was often the voice of reason.  Much of his writing was an attempt to be a mediator between the two groups and he encouraged them to learn from each other.3

Stuart Murray describes Marpeck as resisting “divergent tendencies towards excessive literalism and legalism on one hand and a spiritualizing approach that risked jettisoning biblical teaching on the other”.4

Much could be said about the differences between these two complex extremes, but for the sake of sticking to my original topic, I will refrain from doing much of that in this post. I will give a brief summarizing description of the two opposing views and for those of my readers who wish to read more on this; check out some of Stuart Murray’s writing (you will find some of his books listed in the footnotes).

Accusations of Literalism-

Some of the Spiritualists that were not part of the Anabaptist movement, such as Caspar Schwenckfeld and Sebastian Franck, accused them of being so interested in keeping the letter of the Word that they quenched the Spirit and missed the Spiritual significance that lay deeper within the Word. The Reformers also at times chastised them for focusing so much on the literal sense of Scripture rather than its spiritual or allegorical senses. Many of the South German Anabaptist leaders also admonished the Swiss Brethren about this with concern that their literalism caused legalism, formalism, and works righteousness. 5

Accusations of Spiritualism-

The Reformers also simultaneously accused Anabaptists of spiritualism because they didn’t approve of Anabaptists’ lack of regard toward scholarship and for some of their use of allegory. There were also fringe groups that the Anabaptists sought to remove all association from, such as those associated with the Peasant War, the Munster Uprising, and those with apocalyptic leanings that the Reformers pointed to. The Swiss Brethren also admonished some of the South German groups and those within the Melchiorite movement of straying from actual texts and “relying on spiritual meaning that was subjective and detached”.  Hans Hut was also criticized for relying too much on dreams and visions. 6

Many of us in conservative Anabaptist circles will find many of our beliefs mirroring more closely those of the Swiss Anabaptists’ tendencies towards literalism, legalism, and a “works righteousness”. We would do well to consider that maybe there are things we could learn from the other side as well.  Because of this, I was more interested in the writings of Marpeck in which he addressed those with leanings towards literalism/legalism.

Pilgram Marpeck

In Marpeck’s writings, he chastised Spiritualists for prioritizing “inner spirituality” too much and chastised the Literalists for focusing on externals too much. He saw the two groups as both being extreme positions that needed to be bridged and addressed the errors on both ends of the spectrum. He has been referred to as an ecumenical Anabaptist. 7

In A Clear Refutation, Marpeck wrote against those who wanted to exclude miracles and the work of the Holy Spirit in the life of the church stating, “Nor does Scripture assert this exclusion…God has a free hand even in these last days”.8 He denied that miracles were only for the early church in Acts and spoke of miraculous happenings still occurring. He made some further statements that were astonishing when he spoke of some who were even raised from the dead:

“Many of them have remained constant, enduring tortures inflicted by sword, rope, fire and water and suffering terrible, tyrannical, unheard-of deaths and martyrdoms, all of which they could easily have avoided by recantation. Moreover one also marvels when he sees how the faithful God (Who, after all, overflows with goodness) raises from the dead several such brothers and sisters of Christ after they were hanged, drowned, or killed in other ways. Even today, they are found alive and we can hear their own testimony… Cannot everyone who sees, even the blind, say with a good conscience that such things are a powerful, unusual, and miraculous act of God? Those who would deny it must be hardened men.”9

Charismatic Inclinations

I personally had not ever heard of any charismatic phenomena among Anabaptists, so this evoked some curiosity in me. I have since found quite a number of others who also wrote of things like this among our ancestors.

Stuart Murray makes the claim that even in the Swiss congregations there was evidence of an experience of the Holy Spirit in the earliest groups that was in similarity to that of the South German groups. He writes of the Swiss Brethren stressing that it was only the work of the Holy Spirit that empowered them to live differently. Grebel, Mantz, and Blaurock were all reported to have had dreams and visions. 10

In Thuringia, there was an account of about forty Anabaptists that were in prison and spent their time singing, dancing, and experiencing visions. When they went before the judge, they came with joy and peace.  When they were sent to their execution, they went “as if in a trance”.11

Jacob Hutter wrote in a letter, in 1535, that God had given him a blessing. “He has made His Word alive in me and in many to whom I proclaimed His will, sealing it through the working of His Holy Spirit with mighty miracles and signs.”12

George Williams wrote about a group of Anabaptists that were “excited by mass hysteria, experienced healings, glossolalia [speaking in tongues], contortions, and other manifestations of a camp-meeting revival”. 13

Alan Krieder’s extensive research of the Martyr’s Mirror pointed to a 1531 story about a man named Martin who was led across a bridge to be executed. As he was led across, he prophesied saying, “This once yet the pious are led over this bridge, but no more hereafter.”  A short time later, such a violent storm came that the bridge was consequently destroyed by a flood and carried away.14

Menno Simons and Dirk Philips were wary of visions and prophesies because of claims of such visions in Munster and in the Spiritualist groups. However they accepted them as long as they were validated by and subordinated to Scripture.15  Marpeck also added his admonishment to this, warning his readers not to “force the Holy Spirit” nor to “allow personal desires or opinions to masquerade as the Spirit’s leading”.16

Holy Spirit’s Help in Interpreting Scripture

The early church believed that the Holy Spirit within them would help them to interpret Scripture. They believed this was much more trustworthy than the help of scholars, traditions, or official representatives of state churches.  They trusted that the Holy Spirit would guide them actively in understanding it more than reliance on their own reasoning abilities and hard work.  One of their complaints about the Reformers is that they felt the Reformers equated the Spirit’s work with that of human reasoning.  They criticized the Reformers for quenching the Spirit and said they could not be relied on to interpret Scripture in a trustworthy fashion.  Marpeck complained that “the dull teachers have lost the sharpness of the Word, and the sword of the Spirit has been stolen from them and given over to human power.  Thus the discipline of the Spirit, the sharpness of Word, has been discontinued and blasphemed”.17

Imprisoned Anabaptists claimed that the Holy Spirit gave them such an understanding of Scripture that they were able to “confound” those questioning them, even though their inquisitors were educated men. This seems to be true as their opponents were often astonished and had a grudging admiration for their understanding and ability to explain biblical texts. 18

Anabaptists did not just believe the Holy Spirit would give them understanding, they also believed that the Holy Spirit within them would change their lives so they would then live out what they understood. Even their enemies noted that they lived holy lives.  Franc Agricola, a Roman Catholic opponent seemed confused when he wrote of them:

“As concerns their outward public life they are irreproachable. No lying, deception, swearing, strife, harsh language, no intemperate eating and drinking, no outward personal display, is found among them, but humility, patience, uprightness, neatness, honesty, temperance, straightforwardness in such measure that one would suppose that they had the Holy Spirit of God!”[emphasis mine]19

And interestingly enough, sometimes non-Anabaptists were arrested on suspicion of being Anabaptists because they lived upright lives. They could escape prosecution if they could convince their accusers that they weren’t really Anabaptists.  They did this by cursing freely and convincing their accusers that they weren’t as holy as they appeared.20

Anabaptists Today in Regards to Holy Spirit Leading

My concern with our people today is that we don’t have those in our circles that teach much about the Holy Spirit. Often, when someone teaches anything that puts us out of our comfort zones, we push them out.  We have grown so comfortable in our literalist/legalism views and with no push back from any other views, it seems we are contently staying in our ditch.

Our views regarding the Holy Spirit’s leading are not the same as those of our ancestors. Even the most literalist Swiss groups seemed to have at least some understanding.  We have done well through the generations of teaching truths from Scripture, but without teaching about the Holy Spirit’s role in making that Word come to life in us, it is easy to approach the Word like a rule book of do’s and don’ts.

We want to pass on our culture and belief system to the next generation, so we make rules to insure that, but no amount of rules could ever “pass on” the Holy Spirit in the lives of our descendants. All we can do is faithfully teach what Scripture says about Him and point to His work in our lives.  Could it be that we don’t want to risk trusting Him to do His work in our children/descendants, so we attempt to force them into the mold we choose instead?

I don’t think that we need to idolize or view the earliest Anabaptists through rose colored glasses, but there is much we can learn from our history. We need more “Pilgram Marpeck” leaders who will speak up and give us a balanced viewpoint without just pointing to another ditch.

---

1. http://gameo.org/index.php?title=Marpeck,_Pilgram_(d._1556)
2. Murray, Stuart, The Naked Anabaptist: The Bare Essentials of a Radical Faith– Fifth Anniversary Edition, (Herald Press, Harrisonburg, Virginia, 2010, 2015) pg. 180
3. Ibid. pg. 174
4. Murray, Stuart, Biblical Interpretation in the Anabaptist Tradition, (Herald Press, Scotdale, Pennsylvania/Waterloo, Ontario, 2000), pg. 64
5. Ibid. pg. 126-127
6. Ibid.
7. http://www.anabaptistnetwork.com/node/150
8. Klassen, William, Klassen Walter, The Writings of Pilgram Marpeck (Scottdale, PA: Herald Press, 1978), pg. 49-51
9. Ibid
10. Murray, Biblical Interpretation, pg. 131-133
11. Hans-Jurgen Goertz, The Anabaptists (London: Routledge, 1996), pg. 21
12. Murray, Biblical Interpretation, pg. 133
13. Williams, George H., The Radical Reformation, (Kirksville, MO: Sixteenth Century Journal Publishers, 1992) pg. 443
14. Thieleman van Braght, Martyr’s Mirror, (Scottdale, PA:Herald Press, 1950) pg. 440
15. Murray, Biblical Interpretation, pg. 134, 147
16. Ibid. pg. 145
17. Ibid. pg. 137-138
18. Ibid. pg. 141
19. In Against the Terrible Errors of the Anabaptists (1582)https://www.goshen.edu/mhl/Refocusing/d-av.htm
20. Murray, Naked Anabaptist, pg. 66

 

Why I Have Not Left the Anabaptist Faith

On occasion, readers will ask me why I don’t just “leave the Mennonites”. Some of them ask from the viewpoint of, “Why would you stay in a denomination that is doing all these things that are so wrong?” This group of people has already walked away because of some of these very reasons.

Another group says, “If you don’t like the way we do things, why don’t you just find another denomination?” Many in this group are the older generation that believes “the way we do things has worked well for us so far, why change anything?” This group of people do not like when others point out things that are viewed as discrepancies within our culture. They prefer to have those that disagree with any Anabaptist practices to just leave. Who wants to have someone in the midst of our controlled environment that keeps speaking out of turn and pointing to things we don’t like to have pointed out?

Then there are others who, like myself, see a hope for change and stay with an idealistic expectation that if enough of us speak out and pray for change, change will come.

Often when people leave the Anabaptist faith, they leave because of one of the following two reasons. Some leave because they feel there are too many things wrong within our culture and they see no hope for change. Others leave because they spoke up too much and are pushed out.

Years ago, I found myself leaning into the first category. I seriously considered walking away from the Anabaptist heritage altogether because of the very things I write about on this blog. But in attempt to find some answers to why we do some of the things we do, I began to read a lot of our history. Reading and researching Anabaptist history because I want to know was very different than being in school or in some Anabaptist conference and being forced to listen.

As I read, I found myself agreeing with so many of our core beliefs. For example, I am more of an Arminian than Calvinist.

I also believe in believer’s baptism. In other words, belief in Jesus as the Son of God and repentance should come before baptism.

I believe in loving my enemies, returning good for evil, and also refusing to take up the sword to fight and kill. We call that “non-resistance”.

Conservative Anabaptists believe that everything in the New Testament is for us today. We believe it is the Word of God and we do not believe that parts of it don’t apply to today. That is why we still practice the head covering, we don’t ordain women, and we will not endorse homosexuality. I agree with this.

There are also many things within our culture that I love. We believe in hard work and we keep our family life and marriage as a high priority. We notice needs of others and believe in meeting those needs– whether that means giving our time and physical labor, or whether that means giving to meet a monetary need. We believe in living a simple life so that we have extra to give. We don’t attempt to follow the world in all its sin and wrong desires, but we would rather live a lifestyle that follows Scriptural principles.

We have traditions of loving to sing and teaching our children to sing. We believe in studying the Bible and knowing what it says. We teach it to our children and have Bible memorization as a high priority. We believe in discipleship and helping those who desire to learn.

Do we always do these things perfectly? Obviously we don’t. We are a fallen people. Despite our best efforts, we stray from the original intent of our cultural habits and have a tendency to become a rigid works-oriented people. We have even allowed some of our good traditions to become more important to us than Biblical commands.

Does that mean I should walk away because I see things in our culture that are being done wrongly? Should I leave and try to find another denomination that is a little closer to perfect than ours? That is a question that each person must ask themselves.

For me, I found the answer to that question to be no. Yes, I could probably find groups that have at least some of those core doctrines to be the same. But probably not all of these same core beliefs would be there.

Some of our cultural traditions could probably also be seen in other denominations, but they would likely also have other traditions that I would not agree with. Just as we can never find a perfect church, we will never find a perfect denomination. We must know what our core beliefs are and be a part of the denomination that reflects those. We must also be a part of a church within that denomination that has traditions and a culture that is most like our own.

Does that mean we must accept every tradition and belief? If there are things that are not aligned with the Bible, we cannot turn a blind eye to it. We cannot allow our love for our people and culture to blind us to discrepancies within our groups. No matter how much God loves us, He will not overlook sin in our lives. In fact, God chastens those He loves.

So if we love our people and culture, why would we not also then desire change in those areas that are causing others to stumble instead of pretending we are without fault?

Every Anabaptist writer that dares write anything negative about our traditions finds themselves under fire from our people. We face ridicule, anger, scorn, and people suggest that maybe we should leave. Sometimes we are even blatantly told that leaving should happen soon. We are accused of causing dissension, we are told we are losing our faith or falling into heresy.

Many have left. Many more will leave. How stubborn will we be? Why can we not stop being so defensive and consider that since we are not a perfect people, our churches will not do everything perfectly and our denomination may not have everything perfectly aligned either?

If God had the apostles writing to the early churches to correct them and address things that they were falling away from within the first century, how much more are the churches today susceptible? We can easily see beliefs and practices that have gone amiss in other churches and denominations, but are we unwilling to even consider that we may have areas that need to change as well?

Instead of taking a stubborn stand against any writer or preacher that dares question or point to discrepancies, why can’t we humble ourselves and take a deep inward look? If our beliefs and practices have strayed from Scripture, we need to know it. And we need to change if we do see areas that we have strayed in.

We want to be known as a people that walk in humility and are willing to take correction and reproof. But how willing are we really when it is something that has been ingrained in us for the past century or more? Are we really willing to humble ourselves and pray, asking God to reveal it to us if there is something we need to change in the way we do things? Are we willing to turn from it if He reveals it to be true? Some of the most deplorable sins in our midst are a consequence of these areas that we refuse to even consider that we may be wrong in.

How long will we stiffen our necks and refuse reproof? How long will we judge unjustly those who differ slightly from us in traditions? How long will we accept teachers that teach in opposition to God’s Word by twisting Scripture to make it fit our traditions?

It is time we take a stand for Truth.

 

 

“Examine yourselves as to whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves. Or do you not know yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you?– unless indeed you are disqualified. But I trust that you will know that we are not disqualified. Now I pray to God that you do no evil, not that we should appear approved, but that you should do what is honorable, though we may seem disqualified. For we can do nothing against the truth, but for the truth.”

2Cor. 13:5-8 NKJV

The Way We’ve Always Done It?

In the New Testament, the method for ordaining of leaders is not always clear cut, nor is any specific way of doing it commanded. Anabaptists through the past centuries have used the process of election, the laying of hands by leaders, and the use of the lot for choosing leaders.1  In most Anabaptist churches in America today, especially the more conservative ones, the lot is the prescribed method, with many believing it is the only way.

Most Anabaptists have been using the lot as the chosen method for ordaining men to leadership positions for centuries. Some groups have been using it longer than others-the Mennonites apparently practicing it much longer the Amish. The Amish in America used election, as those in Europe did, and only began using the lot since the 19^th century. Its use in Europe was not common, so some theorize that they began to eventually use the lot because the Mennonites in America did. 2

There is no documented evidence that the earliest Anabaptists used the lot to ordain their leaders. There is also no reference made of it in any of the earliest Mennonite Confessions of Faith. However, there is mention made in some early documents of the Swiss Mennonites that infer that the lot may have been used throughout the 17^th through 19^th centuries.

Some Anabaptist groups, such as the Dutch, North and East German, and Russian Mennonite groups in Europe, never used the lot at all. Neither did any of their descendant groups elsewhere in the world. 3

Staying in Control

While it is certainly true that we have been using the lot for a long time, I have come to question whether very many of us truly believe that God reveals His will through the lot? It seems to me that many churches either do not really believe in it or else they don’t trust God entirely to be able choose the right man.

We say we believe God works through the lot, but we do whatever we can to keep control over the lot. For example, we like to “stack the odds” by putting a requirement on the amount of votes a man must have to be in the lot. We then argue that God will make sure the right man is put in by putting the name on enough people’s hearts. But couldn’t the same be said about election? Why not just use a popular vote?

If we really believe in the lot, all elements of human interference should be eliminated.

What if the men we have chosen are not who God desires to have in there? Maybe we should be willing to have an extra book that means “none of these at this time”? We don’t like that idea because it might make us start all over with the process. We are usually pretty sure that the names we have in there are the right ones.

Besides, we want to stay in control.

But people don’t always get it right. Even when Samuel went to the house of Jesse to anoint the next king, the one whom he was sure was the right man was not who God had chosen. God’s response to Samuel’s choice was,”…the Lord sees not as man sees: man looks on the outward appearance, but the Lord looks on the heart.” (1Sam. 16:7b)

Why Only for Ordaining?

Why are we so determined that the use of the lot is the best– if not the only way– to ordain ministers? We are not willing to use it in any other areas of life. In the Old Testament it was used to decide where the tribes’s land boundaries should be. How many of us would we also be alright with using the lot to decide how much land we could own and where at?

In Joshua 7, the lot was used to determine that Achan was guilty of stealing. Jonah was also found to be the cause of the storm by lot. Would we also be willing to use the lot to determine guilt or innocence in a man?

Would you be willing to have your marriage partner chosen for you by the lot? There were some adherents of the lot that used it for that purpose. Some used it for this purpose still in the 19^th century.4

Using a lot for these purposes today seems a bit over the top. Most of us would not be willing to use it for these.

I once heard a joke told about a man who was in anguish because of things in his life being so hard. So he turned to the Bible for direction. He let the Bible fall open and put his finger down, hoping God would show him some direction. He found his finger on Mat. 27:5 with the story of Judas hanging himself.

He decided to try it again. This time his finger landed on Luke 10:37 and he read, “Go, and do likewise. In trepidation he tried it for the third time and he opened to John 13:27. This time he read, “That thou doest, do quickly.”

We may laugh at this, but most of us would think it’s dangerous to use this “random procedure” as a discernment tool. Yet it carries with it the same idea as the lot. Hebrews 5:14 speaks of those who have “their powers of discernment trained by constant practice”. Using random procedures do not train our “powers of discernment”.

Is the reason we use the lot because we are too lazy, or not willing, to train our powers of discernment? Is the reason that we can’t trust God to direct us by the Holy Ghost because we don’t even know His voice?

The Only Way?

Still many insist the lot must be used as the only way we can truly know who God wants put in as a minister. Some people complain about ministers who have not been ordained by lot. They feel that ministers can’t be considered truly ordained in God’s eyes if their name is unanimously given by the church and the lot is not used. They claim those that are ordained by lot have been “chosen by God”, but others have only been “chosen by men”

How can anyone feel so strongly that this is the only prescribed way when Scripture does not command it? Have we added to Scripture and taught it thus?

The New Testament lists three different ways leaders were chosen.

– The lot (Acts1:20-26)

– men chosen by the congregation (Acts 6:1-6 ) This would sound more like the process of election

– leaders appointing other leaders  (Acts 14:21-23, Titus 1:5-7)

If men are following God’s will, seeking to hear the Holy Ghost, and are truly open to whatever His direction is, God will show His will. However, when self-seeking men take things into their own hands, God may give them what they want, but it may not be what His perfect will is.

An example of this would be when Israel demanded a king. God gave them what they wanted, but it was not what His perfect desire for them was. When their king turned away from God, it did not negate his authority. They were left with the consequences of the insisting on their own way.

All three of these methods have the potential of self-seeking men abusing the method and forcing their own way. The lot is not any more “foolproof” than the other two.

We tend to avoid the other two methods because we don’t trust that the Holy Spirit could lead the church directly or through the leaders to directly appoint another leader. There have been times when congregations have appointed men to leadership without the lot simply because only one name was given. But I personally don’t know of any conservative Anabaptist churches that allow the ministry team or elders to just appoint another leader. Yet, that is a New Testament method that is mentioned twice.

Are we afraid that our leaders are not full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom?

Maybe we are afraid that it would get misused because we have seen abuse in our “strong hierarchical power structure” too often in other ways. But even the lot is not entirely safe from this. All three methods are open to abuse if power-hungry men are left unchecked. But if a church has leaders that are led by the Holy Ghost and meet the criteria of leaders, then why could they not discern God’s will to know which leaders to appoint?

When the Lot is Used

If we don’t believe that God can guide us directly through the Holy Ghost, then that does leave us with only the lot. But even with the lot, we often question and doubt the names that are given and pick apart even those that the lot has fallen on. Do we actually believe in that method? Is our problem just wanting to stay in control as much as possible?

God does not condemn the use of the lot and I won’t either, but if we are going to claim God is directing us through it, then let Him direct.

 

 

---

1. Margory Warkentin, Ordination: A Biblical-Historical View, pg.64, 65

2.  Paton Yoder,   Tradition and Transition: Amish Mennonites and Old Order Amish, 1800-1900, pg. 64

3. Bender, Harold S. “Lot.” Global Anabaptist Mennonite Encyclopedia Online. 1955. Web. 16 Sep 2016

4. http://bdhp.moravian.edu/community_records/register/marriages/marriageslot.html

 

 

 

I am planning to write one more post on the lot. I will be sharing the experiences of some that have been in the lot. Names will not be used. If you wish to share your experience (positive or negative), please email me at simonfry88@outlook.com

History of the Anabaptist Head Covering

Why do Anabaptists make rules about what the head covering should look like? Have they always done this or when did they start?  Why did we start refusing certain types of head coverings as not being acceptable for our churches?

These are questions that have been rolling around in my mind the last few years. And I have found that when you ask questions, some Anabaptist church members and ministers get very defensive and angry.  One minister said, “The only time anyone asks questions like this is because they are trying to find an excuse for the women to stop wearing it.

Statements like that do work well to keep the masses from questioning too much.

So I started studying history books instead to find answers. I am not a historian, but it’s been an interesting journey.  I found that some of my theories, such as assuming the rules came because women in mid-twentieth century society weren’t wearing any type of head coverings anymore and the Anabaptists wanted to keep the practice, weren’t as accurate as I thought.

In the first half of the twentieth century, most American women still wore some type of head covering at least to church. But yet, Anabaptists began making rules for their coverings in the late 1800’s.  So why did they start making the rules about the size, shape, and specific cloth?

Apparently, during the 1800’s, women wore prayer caps and bonnets both. But at some point throughout that century, women began to drop the prayer caps.  But Mennonite women who were members of the church continued to wear them to church.1

It seems that when Daniel Kauffman’s book, Manual of Bible Doctrines, was published in 1898, he publicized and drew attention to a list of seven biblical instructions (compiled by J.S. Coffman) that were referred to as the Seven Ordinances.  Although Kauffman wasn’t the one who came up with this list, because of his book, he is often credited for them.   (For more information on the Seven Ordinances, check out Dwight Gingrich’s outstanding in-depth study on in it here . 2 )

The Seven Ordinances named “Sisters’ Prayer-head-covering” as one of the ordinances and suddenly drew all kinds of attention to a Biblical command that hadn’t been emphasized this publically before in Anabaptist congregations.

The ordinances came at a time when Anabaptist women, as well as other woman in North America, wore coverings mainly to church. Apparently “it was customary in some districts for women to leave their coverings hanging on pegs at church and not even bring them home after the service”. 3

Interestingly enough, even the wife of J.S. Coffman, who first penned the seven ordinance list that we use, “wore her cap only in church as was the practice of others in the community at that time”.4

However, The Mennonite Brethren group, in 1878, did issue a resolution “that instructed women to wear head coverings in church and family worship”.5   So apparently the beliefs of this group at this time seemed to be also more about wearing it during times of worship with other believers, whether that was in public or with family members.

Anabaptist history from previous centuries – regarding how much the head covering was worn and where all it was worn to–is unknown. It wasn’t a subject that was written about by the early Anabaptists because their beliefs regarding it apparently did not differ from other believers around them.  While the head covering was practiced by the rest of the world, they did not bother giving much attention to Biblical arguments for the practice and application of the head covering. 6

 

Culture of the Period and Pattern of Ritualism

Throughout the nineteenth century, Anabaptists were doing a lot of good things but apparently had forgotten why. The culture around them had good morals and did a lot of good things.  But when the culture around them began to erode, they had to base their values on something else.  For many fundamentalists, the solution seemed to be to make specific rules to “lock in” the culture of that time.  But in doing this, they then faced the danger of holding traditions and rules as the reason for their religiosity.7

J.S. Coffman taught his list of ordinances because there was a desperate need for Biblical teaching. His intention was to give the Biblical reason for our practices.  For many, hearing 1Corinthians 11 expounded as the purpose for wearing the head covering was a wonderful revelation.  For many people it was the first that they had heard it taught.8  However, in attempting to bring correct teaching to these seven areas, a perhaps unintentional, consequence was that it also caused an elevation of the importance of these specific commands over all other Biblical commands.

Coffman was aware of the dangers of ritualism and even cautioned about it in a journal entry, dated July 29, 1890, regarding a book (a minister’s manual) that his boss was publishing saying, “One danger of the book is that it may encourage ritualism.”9

Near the end of his life, Coffman gave more warning against making rules about outward nonconformity: “The Virginia church and conference has done much legislating to keep our people down out of the world in dress and other things, but in spite of all the keeping down they have done, their young men are now more conformed to the world than ours at Elkhart where we do not legislate much, but do some teaching on this point, and instead put our young people to work and have them contend for these principles…. They have tried too much to do by force of law what grace alone can do. What is it worth to keep people down in any sense if they submit only by constraint? We are in the dispensation of grace, and I shall never again help to legislate on outward forms as I did once in the Virginia conference when I did not know better. But I shall work harder in another way for the same principle.”10

As the doctrinal significance of the seven ordinances brought renewed interest in these specific commands, the wearing of the head covering was also highlighted, and women began wearing it more often.  Many promoters of the ordinance began to push for woman to wear it at all times “if a woman was really to ‘pray without ceasing’”.  (Interestingly enough, the men were not instructed to never wear a hat using the same Scripture.) Gradually, Anabaptist women began to wear it at meal times, family devotions, and then finally all the time.11

Melvin Gingerich describes how after Daniel Kauffman’s Manual of Bible Doctrines was published in 1898, the practice of head covering was then also referred to as an ordinance by district conferences.  It has remained as that ever since. What we take for granted as a long established custom–although a biblical one–at this point took on a “hallowed meaning” and Mennonites began to view the symbolism as being almost in a same class as the Lord’s Supper. 12

The head covering then began to progressively be viewed as almost a mystical enigma among Anabaptists. It was thought to offer a woman physical protection from molestation, it was imagined to encourage virtuous behavior, it was thought to be a reminder to women of who they are “morally and ethically”.13  One group, the Manitoba based, Evangelical Mennonite Conference, called for women to wear them as a sign of humility. 14

Some Mennonite women began to view their head coverings as a banner of their religiosity and a symbol of status.15 Many groups began to employ the wearing of head coverings to signify other things as well. For some groups, different covering styles or colors were used to signify the availability of a woman for marriage (as old order Amish and some more conservative groups still do). For others, it signified the wearer had been baptized and was a member of the church.16

Mennonite church leader and Professor Harold S. Bender gave a more orthodox justification for it in 1922, when he wrote that the wearing of the covering was not of a moral or religious nature, but rather a social one.   He felt it was to preserve social order and to enforce woman’s submission to man.17

As dress codes and specific directives regarding head coverings for Anabaptist women began making their appearance throughout the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century, Anabaptist women began to look more and more differently from the rest of society. 18 (Before this our female ancestors did not look much different from those around them.)

1917 Anabaptist woman

Eaton’s fall winter catalogue 1916-1917 https://www.flickr.com/photos/beeskneesdaily/9578672054/in/dateposted/

 

Responses to New Mandates

Fashion changes in the late 19^th century included the demise of the Victorian-style bonnet and instead many women chose to wear a hat that was often decorated by feathers and flowers, etc.

This was alarming to Anabaptists who viewed the hat as being rather mannish and regarded them as being associated with and symbolic of women’s emancipation. The bonnet was then prescribed by church leaders as being the only acceptable head gear.  Church leaders feared that if the bonnet was discarded by women, the covering would also be dropped. (Bonnet enforcement by American Mennonite churches occurred earlier and more rigidly than in Canada –which was soon influenced by visiting American Mennonite evangelists) 19

Interestingly enough, Anabaptists of this time seemed to have forgotten that before the bonnets were in style, their ancestors wore flat hats. Some of whom were very reluctant to accept bonnets.20

The enforcement of bonnet wearing caused much tension, angry debates, and conflict. In the early 1920’s, one of the most bitter conflicts occurred at First Mennonite Church in Kitchener, Ontario, regarding the bonnet.  The struggle became so angry that it resulted in a church split and the formation of Stirling Avenue Mennonite Church.

A large number of women in this area had quit wearing the prescribed bonnets in favor of a hat while working at their factory jobs in town. (Many single Mennonite women started working factory jobs that were vacated by the men because of the First World War.) As a result of this, the ministers and deacons in that area had a district meeting and passed a resolution that made wearing a bonnet a test of membership for women.  When the district bishop refused to serve communion to anyone who did not agree with the resolution, a committee was assigned to investigate the situation. One minister who sided with the women argued that “making a certain cut of head gear the test of discipleship was …not borne out by the teaching of Jesus”.

This issue continued to be a source of contention for quite a number of years in this church and in 1924, resulted in three ordained ministers being excommunicated and about one-third of the members leaving the church. 21

When clothing stores no longer carried the out-of-fashion bonnet, women had to begin making their own. Many women gave resistance to the bonnets (and to the caps) through small acts of rebellion. Some would leave the strings hanging, rather than tying them, and some removed the strings altogether.  Some girls delayed their commitment to becoming a member of the Mennonite church so that they could wear the hat longer.  Some modified the hats to make them look more like a bonnet by adding strings that tied under the chin.

The historical periods of time when women were involved in non-farm occupations seemed to bring the most resistance to the bonnet. Many women chose to only wear the bonnet to church but refused to wear them to their jobs. 22

 

Today

Today, mandates for coverings still exist in some form for most conservative Anabaptists, but for most, the “bonnet” is a prayer cap and each church/ conference has its own specific rules for their covering style. Many wear head coverings with strings attached, but hanging. Others no longer have strings attached at all. The hanging veil, in either black or white, has also been added to many circles as being an accepted form of the head covering.

Church membership is not granted for those who do not follow the specific practice of the church they are in. And baptism is usually denied to those who are not willing to become members.  Members that dare differ from their established church prescripts are confronted and eventually excommunicated if they refused to wear the right style of covering.23

 

Conclusion

It seems the wearing of the head covering for Anabaptists continues to be a ritual with extra man-made rules that are still held as highly as Scriptural commands. This does not seem much unlike the Pharisees that Jesus was reprimanding in Mark 7 and Matthew 15.

We are often more grieved about the prescribed shape/size/color of the covering not being followed exactly than we are about women who are not living obediently within the headship order that her head covering is supposed to represent. It seems we teach “commandments of man” for “doctrines” as Jesus spoke of in Mark 7:7.

We regard the head covering as a mystical cloth that carries protective powers of angels for our women (using 1Cor. 11:10—and yet the word protection is never used in this verse) and empowers them to somehow live a more righteous life than those who do not wear it. It has become, in essence, an idol that seeks to take the place of grace (the only thing that can empower anyone to live above sin) and attempts to diminish the power of an omnipotent God who will not allow anything to come into your life without His permission–whether or not an angel is guarding those covered women who are deemed to have “extra protection”.

Wearing the head covering for praying women is a good thing; but the elevation of it, the extra commandments we’ve added, and the idolatry we’ve been allowing, needs to be repented of. If the seven ordinances are the root cause of this, then we need to go to the root.

The Catholics had their seven sacraments that caused ritualism and adding to Scripture. This is another area that the earliest Anabaptists strove to break free from.  But we have unwittingly allowed a variant of the same type of thing (however well-meant its intentions may have been in the beginning).  Is it not time we turn from ritualism and sacraments (or ordinances as we call them) and just teach all commands in Scripture as being equally important?

 

I’d like to publically thank Dwight Gingrich for all his help and patience with all the questions I’ve peppered him with the last while.  Also for giving tips and editing advice with this blog post and for directing me to some additional resources.  It was greatly appreciated!

---

 

1. Melvin Gingerich, Mennonite Attire through Four Centuries (Breinigsville, PA: The Pennsylvania German Society, 1970, dist. by Herald Press, Scottdale, PA), pg. 126
2. This essay is still in “draft” version with further revisions planned, but I have found it to be an excellent historical source with all the research he has done
3. Marlene Epp, Mennonite Women in Canada: A History, pg.186
4. Andrew C. Martin, “Creating A Timeless Tradition: The Effects of Fundamentalism on the Conservative Mennonite Movement” (MTS thesis, University of Waterloo and Conrad Grebel University College, 2007), 60-62; available from <http://uwspace.uwaterloo.ca/bitstream/10012/3441/1/Thesis%20The%20Effects%20of%20Fundamentalism.pdf&gt;; accessed 31 December 2011.According to Martin, the information about Coffman’s wife came from Coffman’s son S. F. Coffman, recorded by Melvin Gingerich in “A History of Mennonite Costume” (n.p., n.d.), 40-41.   Credited in Dwight Gingrich, 125 Years of Seven Ordinances: An Historical and Biblical Review, pg. 20
5. Marlene Epp, pg. 196
6. Melvin Gingerich, pg. 127
7. Melvin Gingerich gives an example of this: “J. S. Hartzler (1857-1953), an Indiana school teacher, who was ordained as an Amish Mennonite minister in 1881 told J. C. Wenger that at that time he did not know there was ‘any Scripture’ for the cap.” pg. 127
8. Melvin Gingerich, pg. 130
9. Dwight Gingrich, pg.17
10. (letter to brother-in-law Lewis J. Heatwole, December 12, 1893; recorded by Barbara F. Coffman, 254) credited to Dwight Gingrich, p.17
11. Marlene Epp, p. 186
12. Melvin Gingerich, pgs. 130-31
13. Marlene Epp, pg. 186
14. Marlene Epp, pg. 196
15. Strangers at Home, Jane Pederson “She May Be Amish Now, but She Won’t Be Amish Long”: Anabaptist Women and Antimodernism, p.351
16. Marlene Epp pg.197
17. “The entire question is not one of moral or religious nature, but social…–it is a necessity to preserve the divinely ordained social order from disruption and to enforce the lesson of woman’s submission to man.” Harold S. Bender, “An Exegesis of I Cor. 11:1-16″ (paper, 1922), 19. Mennonite Historical Library, Goshen, IN
18. Jane Pederson, pg. 352
19. Marlene Epp, pg. 187-188
20. Melvin Gingerich, pg. 112 records the story of a woman from Forks church community in Lagrange County, Indiana, who on her deathbed, begged her daughters to promise they would never wear a bonnet. She wanted them to always wear the flat hat.
21. Marlene Epp pg.188-189
22. Ibid pg.193-195
23. I have personally observed this happen