In chapter 5 of Why Be Plain?, “The Plain Dress Regress,” the authors lament that Plain standards of dress are being compromised in some Plain circles.
Obviously, outward attire is an important issue to Weaver and Zimmerman, not only because they devote an entire chapter to it, but because of all the other times they mention it in other chapters. Thankfully, they usually stress, as they do in chapter 5, that what is on the inside is equally or more important as what is on the outside. They even acknowledge that one can look good on the outside (by Plain dress standards) but be rotten on the inside. I only wish they understood that once the inside is clean, that guarantees that the outside will automatically be cleaned up as well. That is what a genuine new birth does. As Jesus said:
Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you clean the outside of the cup and of the dish, but inside they are full of robbery and self-indulgence. You blind Pharisee, first clean the inside of the cup and of the dish, so that the outside of it may become clean also (Matt. 23:35-26, emphasis added).[13]
Jesus wasn’t talking about clothing, however, when He spoke of the cleaning up of outsides. He was talking about living a life of holiness, which has very little to do with outward attire. Holy people are those who display the fruit of the Holy Spirit, which Paul lists as love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control (see Gal. 5:22–23). To manifest all of that wonderful fruit, you must be born again, because only then does the Holy Spirit indwell you.
Ordnungs can’t regulate inner holiness, and neither can they regulate true outward holiness. I’ve never seen a rule in any ordnung that requires—under the threat of excommunication and shunning—love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. Ordnung rules only regulate behaviors that ordnung creators think are desirable. The result is an outward skin that may well mask a rotten core.
That is the inherent weakness and danger of ordnungs. They motivate people to focus on the outside at the neglect of the inside. As a result, they deceive themselves and others regarding their true inward state.
All Plain churches put an emphasis on dress standards that is completely foreign to the Bible. Plain ordnungs regulate the smallest details of dress, down to the width of women’s cap strings and men’s hat brims, plus scores of other minutiae that Weaver and Zimmerman never mention. They know there is no biblical justification for such detailed dress codes, so they ignore this issue, which demonstrates the progression that seems to be inherent in every ordnung to become increasingly more specific, demanding, and unreasonable.
Peter on Women’s Dress
I’ve addressed Weaver and Zimmerman’s doctrines on dress earlier, so I will not repeat what we’ve covered previously. There are only two passages in the New Testament letters that specifically address the subject of dress, and in both cases they address women’s clothing only. Yet Weaver and Zimmerman extract unwarranted application to men’s dress from both passages without offering any biblical or logical justification:
Although the next Scripture refers to the dress of women, the principles given surely apply to men as well:
1 Peter 3:3. “Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing gold, or of putting on of apparel; 4. But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price. 5. For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection to their own husbands” (p. 97).
Interestingly, the authors failed to quote the first two verses of 1 Peter 3, which say, “In the same way, you wives, be submissive to your own husbands so that even if any of them are disobedient to the word, they may be won without a word by the behavior of their wives, as they observe your chaste and respectful behavior” (1 Pet. 3:1–2, emphasis added).
Clearly, Peter was writing exclusively to wives, as is further proved by the fact that in verse 5 (which the authors did quote), he admonishes wives to be “in subjection to their own husbands.”
Obviously, the general message for wives is that they should not be overly focused on their outward self, especially at the expense of neglecting the more important inward self. Peter was not telling wives to completely neglect their outer appearance. That would likely not make their husbands—to whom Peter admonished them to submit in this passage—very happy. Peter was only trying to balance an existing imbalance.
Based on what we know about how some ancient Greek women focused on their outward appearance, Peter’s words make even more sense. Greek women sometimes wore elaborate, intricate, braided hairstyles, woven with gold strings and pearls, that would have required hours of their time to fix. Peter didn’t address men on this issue because men were not spending hours on their hairstyle or adornments. Nevertheless, Weaver and Zimmerman find support for Plain dress doctrine for both women and men where there is none:
Verse 3: Peter says Christians should not adorn themselves outwardly, then goes on to give a few examples—apparently making guidelines on things that were a problem at that time (p. 98).
That sentence contains at least three misleading assumptions.
First, Peter did not say that Christians should avoid anything. He was writing only to wives.
Second, Peter did not say that wives should not adorn themselves outwardly. If we consider the meaning of the entire passage rather than isolating a few words, it becomes clear that Peter was admonishing wives to prioritize their inward character over their outward appearance, and specifically an inward character that reflects submission to their husbands. This is why the NASB renders 1 Peter 3:3, “Your adornment must not be merely external.”
Third, Peter was not making “guidelines,” which is a deceptive Plain code word for “ordnung rules that will be enforced at the threat of excommunication, shunning and hellfire.” Peter was simply applying biblical principles illustrated by biblical women, one of whom he mentions by name in the final verse in the passage (namely Sarah, who happened to be renowned for her beauty; see Gen. 12:14). All husbands desire a wife who is easy to get along with (the essence of marital “submission”), and they generally appreciate having a wife who values her God-given beauty and attractiveness.
Weaver and Zimmerman continue:
Plaiting the hair. Braiding the hair to show off its beauty is here forbidden. As Paul taught in 1 Corinthians 11, a woman’s hair should be covered with a head covering. The principle forbids anything that draws attention to the hair. That would include today’s elaborate and puffed-up hairdos, as well as fancy clasps or ribbons. For men, that principle forbids styling the hair or wearing something on the head to draw attention to one’s looks (p. 98).
This explanation illustrates that Plain doctrine, once again, is often nothing more than a tradition searching for a scripture. If Peter was prohibiting any and all hair braiding, then he was also forbidding any and all “putting on of apparel.” No hair braiding and no clothing. Somehow I doubt that is what Peter meant.
As for the authors’ claim that Paul taught in 1 Corinthians 11 that “a woman’s hair should be covered with a head covering,” Paul actually taught that wives should have their heads covered when they, in the context of a Christian gathering, prayed or prophesied (see 1 Cor. 11:5). Nowhere does the Bible tell women that they should always wear a head covering (more on that in two chapters). When Mary used her hair to wipe her tears from Jesus’ feet, she obviously did not have her hair covered, and Jesus did not correct or rebuke her (see John 12:3).
But Weaver and Zimmerman extract, from their false assumption, a prohibition against any hair styling for both women and men, as well as any “fancy clasps or ribbons”—yet another illustration of how every ordnung evolves to become increasingly more specific, demanding, and unreasonable. Devoted followers of Christ all over the world have no objection to a woman who spends a few minutes braiding her hair or using a ribbon to fasten it, much less thinking she should be excommunicated from her church for doing so.
Weaver and Zimmerman next claim:
Wearing of gold. This forbids all jewelry (p. 98).
Again, if Peter was forbidding all jewelry, he was also forbidding all “putting on of apparel.” As we can see, Peter’s concern was that wives should not be overly invested in their outward appearance at the expense of their inward character.
As I noted earlier, when Abraham’s servant realized that Rebekah was God’s choice as a wife for Abraham’s son, Isaac, he immediately “took a gold ring weighing a half-shekel and two bracelets for her wrists weighing ten shekels in gold” (Gen. 24:22). He put the ring on Rebekah’s finger and the bracelets on her wrists (see Gen. 24:30). If Abraham’s servant had this jewelry ready for Rebekah, how likely is it that Abraham’s wife, Sarah, whom Peter cites as a holy woman worthy of imitation, owned no gold jewelry?
Moreover, Jesus didn’t seem to think wearing jewelry was sinful when He told the story of the prodigal son whose father, at his return, “put a ring on his hand” (Luke 15:22).
Putting on of apparel. While likely referring to fancy and costly clothes, this refers to something more as well—a preoccupation with clothes and with adorning the body. The principle suggests that any apparel that is for adornment rather than concealment is wrong for a Christian. That would include fancy, immodest, and form-fitting apparel. God meant clothing to conceal. Form-fitting clothing is meant to reveal (p. 98).
Finally, a single sentence I can agree with! “Putting on of apparel” clearly refers to a “preoccupation with clothes and with adorning the body.” But where is the line drawn as to what constitutes “adornment”? What is fancy or not fancy, modest or immodest, form-fitting or not form-fitting? Not everyone agrees on those issues. Just to make sure, why don’t Plain ordnungs require all Plain women to wear full-body, head-to-toe, loose-fitting, black burkas, like some Muslim women?
The Bible describes both Rachel and Esther as being “beautiful of form and face” (Gen. 29:17; Esth. 2:7). These two aspects of their beauty were observable. Were they sinning? The Bible also declares that Rebecca was “very beautiful” (Gen. 24:6). It mentions the physical beauty of Abigail, Bathsheba, Tamar, Abishag, Queen Vashti and Job’s daughters (1 Sam. 25:3; 2 Sam. 11:2; 13:1; 1 Kin. 1:3; Esth. 1:11; Job 42:15). Did all those women dress like modern Plain women? Did they do nothing to maintain or enhance their beauty?
Weaver and Zimmerman claim that there is a fundamental, moral biblical principle underlying their convictions, as they declare that “Proud clothing indicates a proud heart beneath” (p. 98). Does that mean that anyone who does not follow a Plain dress code is prideful? What about Jesus, His apostles, and all the early Christians, none of whom dressed like modern Plain people or had ordnungs? What about the millions of Christians over the past 2,000 years who didn’t dress like Plain people? Were they prideful?
Could the potential for pride regarding dress be even higher for people who think that they are the only people who dress in a way that pleases God?
The Abomination of Women Wearing Men’s Clothing
Weaver and Zimmerman next mention the Old Testament’s prohibition of dressing like the opposite gender:
God said in Deuteronomy 22:5 that it is an abomination to Him when men and women wear the same type of clothing. God assigned different roles to man and woman, and also a different pattern of dress. It is surely not meant to be any different in NT times. Nonetheless, it is completely accepted by liberal churches when women wear the same style of clothing as men. The Plain People believe that is an abomination to God (pp. 98–99).
Deuteronomy 22:5 is not a prohibition against women wearing trousers, as trousers were not worn by men in Moses’ day. Rather, both men and women wore what we would refer to as robes or tunics, and the differences between men’s and women’s clothing were slight. So by modern standards, ancient Israelite men wore women’s clothing. Here is a description of ancient biblical dress from the Armstrong Institute of Biblical Archeology:
The Bible is quite detailed about the Israelites’ clothing. Typical garb for men included a long shirt-like undergarment, a long outer tunic, and an outer coat. Special long fringes were added to the bottom of the outfit as a reminder to keep God’s commandments (Numbers 15:38–39). A cloth wrapped around the head was another common item. Women wore similarly long clothing in the form of dresses and robes. A veil was also often worn.
There is archaeological evidence for these outfits. The most helpful is in the form of ancient Assyrian art, depicting subjugated Israelites. The Lachish Reliefs depict the massive Assyrian campaign against Lachish by Sennacherib (as described in 2 Kings 18, 2 Chronicles 32, Isaiah 37 and Sennacherib’s annals). Conquered Israelites are shown being paraded, with men in either long tunics or with their garments “girded up” to a kilt length, with beards and short-cropped hair (as opposed to the long hair of the Assyrian men) or wearing a head-wrap. Women are shown in longer, loose, ankle-length dresses or tunics, wearing veils that reach from the head to the ankle. Children wore smaller versions of the outfits corresponding to their respective gender.[14]
It seems quite safe to conclude that in Deuteronomy 22:5, God was condemning cross-dressing, when one dresses like the opposite gender for perverse sexual reasons. We will further explore the subject of women’s attire in the next chapter.
[13] Weaver and Zimmerman quote this very passage in chapter 5, but they seem to assume that if the inside of a person is clean, they will then dress Plain on the outside.
[14] Eames, Christopher: Clothing: A ‘Cultural Universal’ in Archaeology and the Bible: https://armstronginstitute.org/121-clothing-a-cultural-universal-in-archaeology-and-the-bible#
