Weaver and Zimmerman next appeal to Paul’s instructions about women’s attire in 1 Timothy:
Therefore I want the men in every place to pray, lifting up holy hands,[15] without wrath and dissension. Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments, but rather by means of good works, as is proper for women making a claim to godliness (1 Tim. 2:8–10).
Here is their commentary:
So Paul also gave guidelines to the church, forbidding the same things Peter did. Since their rules come over [sic] much of the same dress, it seems likely that the apostles had met to make dress guidelines (p. 99).
First, contrary to Weaver and Zimmerman’s claim that Paul was addressing “the church” in this passage, he first addressed men regarding prayer and then women regarding their adornment.
Second, twice in two sentences, the authors again use their misleading word “guidelines”—their euphemism for “rules that are enforced under the threat of excommunication, shunning and hellfire.” Paul, however, had nothing of the sort in mind. His words, “I want women to …” are simply an admonition, with no implied underlying threat of punishment for those who don’t heed it.
Third, the authors’ assumption that “the apostles had met to make dress guidelines” is supported by neither logic, common sense, or the historical biblical record. There is no reason to propose that the apostles would have wasted any of their valuable time meeting to discuss this trivial matter.
Peter and Paul addressed many similar topics and issues in their letters. Their similar admonitions regarding women’s adornment bear no resemblance to Plain ordnungs that stipulate precise details for women’s uniforms, details that are constantly monitored by church leaders who are ready to punish those who deviate from the approved styles, colors, and fasteners. Weaver and Zimmerman’s argument that these Scripture passages support Plain ordnung dress codes is a twisting of God’s Word.
More Claims
Weaver and Zimmerman go on to make additional absurd claims regarding Paul’s words about women’s adornment:
This Scripture clearly states that what Christians put on must be different from the apparel of those who do not profess godliness! It teaches that it is not right for anyone who follows Christ to wear the world’s apparel (p. 99).
No, this passage, addressed only to women, states that Christian women’s outward adornment should reflect their claim to godliness. That means avoiding immodest and expensive clothing and accessories, as well as not expending undue time and effort on their outward appearance. They should focus on adorning themselves with good works.
All these practices are based on moral principles. Christians should be careful that they don’t cause others to stumble; thus Christian women should dress modestly. Christians should care for the poor; thus they should not waste money purchasing gold and pearls to weave with one’s elaborate hair braids, or expensive clothes. Christians should focus not on themselves but on loving their neighbors, so they should not expend undue time on their outward appearance. But not spending any time on one’s outward appearance is not an act of loving one’s neighbor! I’m glad my wife has a reasonable concern for her outward appearance, as that is a reflection of her love for me and for everyone she encounters throughout her day. How one dresses reflects one’s respect for others.
If Christian women follow Paul’s admonition, their outward appearance will certainly be different from that of self-centered, unregenerate women. But Paul never asked Christian women to wear Plain uniforms so that they would stand out from all non-Plain people—whom they judge as “worldly” because they don’t wear Plain uniforms!
The authors continue:
Both Peter and Paul laid down guidelines for Christian dress. Yet, when the Plain People make these very same rules part of their church standards, modern Christianity cries “legalism!” or “commandments of men!” The Plain People call it obeying the Bible (p. 99).
Again, Peter and Paul did not lay down or enforce any rules (or what Weaver and Zimmerman call “guidelines”) for Christian dress. They simply admonished Christian women to adorn themselves in a godly manner. Moreover, Plain people do not “make these very same rules [which were described as ‘guidelines’ in the previous sentence] part of their church standards” (emphasis added). Rather, they devise scores of rules that Peter and Paul never mentioned and then coerce all women to obey those rules through social and religious pressure.
Although Plain People may call their dress codes “obeying the Bible,” their dress codes cannot be found anywhere in the Bible. They are following their traditions and claiming those traditions are based on the Bible when they aren’t. Neither Jesus, His apostles, the first Christians, nor the early Anabaptists dressed to purposely make themselves stand out from everyone who was not part of their group. Yet Weaver and Zimmerman tell their readers:
The world should be able to simply observe a Christian and know by his dress that he isn’t one of them. We are to keep a simple, different, and unchanging pattern of dress.
Some say it is enough to merely wear modest attire without being distinctly different from the world. But if we’re not separated then we are still conformed (p. 100).
Not only is that idea that Christians should be immediately recognizable by their distinctive dress absent from the New Testament, but it is also absent from the 1632 Dordrecht Confession. And if wearing the same modest attire as the world indicates that we are still “conformed to the world,” then does eating the same food as the world also prove our conformity? If people in the world go fishing and hunting, and if I also fish and hunt, does that make me “conformed to the world”?
Twisting the Sermon on the Mount
Weaver and Zimmerman treat the Sermon on the Mount in similarly creative fashion:
As Jesus taught, people ought to stop and take a second look at a Christian’s ways. They ought to be able to see that we have something different. We must let our lights shine so that others see and glorify God (Matt 5:16). To dress like the world [that is, not wear Plain uniforms] so that our lights don’t shine is hiding our candle under a bushel. A person who blends in with the world gives the world no reason to notice Christ in His [sic] life and glorify God (pp. 100-101).
Jesus told His followers in His Sermon on the Mount to let their light shine before others and glorify God. Jesus illustrated his message with many specific examples related to personal holiness in that famous sermon, but not once did He mention anything about proper or improper dress. Therefore, it must be possible for Christians to let their light shine without wearing distinctive attire. Instead, Jesus instructed believers, “Let your light shine before men in such a way that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven” (Matt. 5:14). Christians let their light shine by doing good works, not by wearing distinctive uniforms that sends the world a message that “We are the superior, holy people.”
Twisting Even the Old Testament
Weaver and Zimmerman then turn to an Old Testament passage that doesn’t support Plain dress traditions either. In the Mosaic Law, God instructed the Israelites to add “tassels on the corners of their garments … and … on the tassel of each corner a cord of blue” (Num. 15:38). Those corner tassels and cords were to remind them to obey God’s commandments.
Weaver and Zimmerman claim that this passage in Numbers shows that “God wanted His people to wear distinctive garb” (p. 101). Somehow, small corner tassels on ancient Israelite clothing support the Plain concept of wearing an entire wardrobe that identifies one as a Christian and makes one stand out from everyone else!
Weaver and Zimmerman elaborate on their theory with three points, the first of which is that Plain clothing reminds Plain people “of who they are suppose [sic] to be serving.” They say, “It is impossible to go to a carnal event and blend in with the world when wearing the garb of Plain people. We don’t fit in and our clothing makes it clear that we shouldn’t be there” (p. 101).
So when Plain people wear Plain garb, it helps motivate them to stay away from places they might otherwise go. But aren’t they born again? Don’t they have the Holy Spirit in them? Don’t they love Jesus and thus desire to keep His commandments? Why would they have any desire to go to a sinful place?
We can see once again that ordnung rules are a cheap substitute for the new birth, the indwelling Spirit, and a heart of love for God. Wearing Plain uniforms serves the same purpose as prison uniforms—to discourage prisoners from trying to escape. Prison inmates usually aren’t motivated to behave by inward moral convictions. They need deterrents, like walls and bright orange prison uniforms. That is what ordnungs are all about as well.
Weaver and Zimmerman double down on their point:
It could be mentioned that if a woman appears in public without a bonnet, there is very little that proclaims her faith and nonconformity. A dress alone is not enough. The same can be said about men appearing in public without [Plain] hats—which is usually an attempt to blend in with the world (pp. 101-102).
A woman without a bonnet and a man without a hat have “very little that proclaims their faith and nonconformity”? What about their obedience to Jesus’ commandments? What about the fruit of the Spirit? What about if they share the gospel?
And did the early Christian women all wear bonnets in public? Did the early Christian men all wear Plain hats in public? Is there any evidence that the early Christians wore any distinctive attire to make themselves stand out from unbelievers? The answer to all three questions is no.
Weaver and Zimmerman’s second supporting point is that distinctive Plain attire helps prevent pride and lust.
As for preventing pride, I have already questioned whether Plain dress does this. I don’t believe that the large majority of people who wear non-Plain clothing have any issue with pride regarding what they wear. To most of us, clothes are just clothes.
As for lust, perhaps Plain dress might help prevent it. But I am doubtful, in view of the amount of sexual sin in Plain communities (see chapter 22). And I do not agree that preventing lust is a legitimate reason to devise an enforced dress code. Rather, we should preach the gospel and teach believers to obey the New Testament’s commandments and admonitions, including Peter and Paul’s words about women’s attire. Born-again women have the Holy Spirit, the Word of God, and hearts that love Jesus, so they will dress modestly in public.
The authors’ third supporting point is that Plain clothing helps Plain people to “be a separate and holy people” (p. 102). I’ve watched many of those “holy Plain people” who wear distinct attire excommunicate and shun their own relatives when those relatives become born again and start loving God and obeying His commandments instead of pleasing people and their sacred traditions. I’ve received plenty of nasty letters from Plain people who clearly hate me because I love and obey Jesus. If the excommunication of Jesus-following family members and the writing of nasty letters to other Jesus-following people reflect the hearts of Plain people, it is obvious that their distinctive clothing is not helping them be “holy people.”
Threatening Hell for Non-Plain Dressing
Weaver and Zimmerman, however, don’t seem concerned about the many ordnung-keeping, Plain-dressing communities that expel anyone who is truly born again—an action that vividly testifies to the communities’ true spiritual state. Rather, they resort to threatening people who don’t embrace Plain uniforms that they may be cast into hell:
Those who are ashamed to be identified with God and His children now, may someday find that God is ashamed of them. Jesus made this statement [in Matthew 10:32–33]: “Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven. But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.” The best way to acknowledge and confess Christ to everyone who sees us is by our dress and lifestyle.
The one who dresses like the world [non-Plain] is, in a sense, denying Christ before men, and so is a church member who rejects the church dress standards (pp. 103-104).
It is heartbreaking that anyone could be so deceived as to think that the best way to publicly confess Christ is by wearing a clothing style from 100 years ago and by shunning some modern technology. The word “confess” refers to something one does with one’s mouth. It is a verbal declaration. One does not “confess Christ before men” by wearing certain clothing any more than Jesus confesses believers before His Father by wearing certain clothing. Christians confess Jesus before men by verbally declaring their belief in Him and their love for Him, something few Plain people ever do. In fact, in many Plain circles, sharing the gospel with unbelievers is considered a prideful act punishable under the ordnung. Those Plain circles are living in complete spiritual and biblical darkness.
The Attire of the Pharisees and the Rich Man
Weaver and Zimmerman next point out that Jesus criticized the Pharisees for “dressing to be admired by men” (p. 104). So, does dressing according to a Plain dress code eliminate any possibility of being prideful regarding one’s attire? (“God, I thank You that I am not like other men … I fast twice a week … I tithe all that I get … I wear ordnung-approved clothing.”)
And isn’t conforming to ordnung dress codes all about dressing for the approval of other Plain people and Plain leaders? Is it actually about pleasing God when, in fact, no such dress code can be found anywhere among His commandments?
The authors also point out that Jesus mentioned the costly apparel of the rich man who ignored Lazarus’ plight. But that is not a call for following a Plain dress code. It is a lesson in spending money unnecessarily on yourself rather than sharing it with the poor. You can follow Plain dress codes stringently and never give a dime to help the poor.
Learning from the Creator
Jesus told His followers that they could learn something about their heavenly Father by observing two of His creations: birds of the air and lilies of the field (see Matt. 6:25–33). From both, we not only learn that God can be trusted to provide food and clothing. We also learn something from the endless variety of beauty revealed in His handiwork. In millions of other plants, animals, fish, mountains, lakes, moon and stars, His infinite creativity is unveiled. No one who has ever observed any part of His magnificent creation called it “plain.”
We can also see His beauty in the crown of His creation—human beings created in His own image. Amazingly, no two people in the world are identical. Every person has a unique face, personality, gifts and talents. Even identical twins have different personalities!
How tragic it is to crush people’s uniqueness and attempt to squeeze them all into one mold by making them all wear the same clothing—and even worse, requiring them to wear black, the color symbolic of ignorance and death. Plain requirements leave no room for self-expression and personal taste. They require servants to bury their unique talents in the ground lest a few self-focused souls become jealous. All this is under the guise of “pleasing God” whose entire creation continually testifies of His love of multi-faceted beauty and variety, and who once said of field lilies, “Not even Solomon in all his glory clothed himself like one of these” (Matt. 6:29).
That is why there is nothing that resembles a Plain dress code in the Bible.
[15] I wonder, since Weaver and Zimmerman so stringently recommend (and apply to both men and women) Paul’s instructions to women about their dress, whether they also follow Paul’s instructions that men should pray with uplifted hands. Is that an observable feature at Plain church gatherings?
