Discussion Questions

Edsel says fashion “appeal[s] to your fleshly senses” and is “wanting to sell things to you”; what does that claim imply about how God expects Christians to relate to desire, marketing, and consumption in everyday decisions about clothes and possessions? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Edsel says fashion pulls on our desires and tries to sell to us. What does that mean for how God wants Christians to handle wanting things, ads, and buying clothes and stuff?

Using the 1804 Philadelphia Quaker discipline, Edsel highlights “avoid immoderation and the use of lawful things, which, though innocent in themselves, may thereby become hurtful”; what “lawful” things in your life have become spiritually harmful through excess, and how would you recognize that without relying on a written rulebook? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What “good” or “allowed” things in your life have turned harmful because you do too much of them? How could you notice that without a list of rules?

The Quaker discipline ties plainness to “take up our daily cross” and “adorn the gospel…in all things”; what would it look like for your outward choices to “adorn the gospel” rather than express personal taste, social class, or individuality? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What would it look like if your clothes and other outward choices made the gospel look beautiful, instead of showing off your taste, status, or uniqueness?

Edsel notes an 18th-century ad describing a runaway servant wearing a “Mennite coat”; what does that kind of public recognizability suggest about early Christian/Anabaptist assumptions regarding visibility, community accountability, and being “known” by outsiders? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If people could spot someone as “Mennonite” by their coat, what does that say about being easy to recognize, being accountable to the group, and being known by outsiders?

Edsel argues many churches narrowed plainness to dress while homes, cars, and décor contradict it (“they dress plain, but they don’t live plain”); what parts of your lifestyle would be most exposed if your definition of plainness expanded beyond clothing to “appearances across the board”? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If “plainness” included your house, car, and decorations—not just clothes—what parts of your life would stand out the most?

In discussing industrialization, Edsel describes how increased cloth availability and fashion cycles forced plain people to “deal with this issue”; what present-day technologies (online shopping, social media, fast fashion, influencers) are the modern equivalent pressure points, and how should a Christian discernment process respond? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What things today (like online shopping, social media, fast fashion, or influencers) pressure people the way new fabric and fashion cycles did back then? How should a Christian decide what to do under that pressure?

Edsel’s examples of cape dresses shaped by flapper-era styles and “mutton chop shoulders” show plain dress being influenced by fashion while still keeping markers; what does that reveal about the difference between nonconformity and merely “religious-looking conformity,” and where do you see your community drifting toward one or the other? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If plain dress still gets shaped by fashion trends, what’s the difference between truly not following the world and just looking “religious”? Where is your community sliding toward one of those?

Edsel says the “genius of Anabaptism” is not separating inward disposition from outward life, so outward pride can signal inward pride; what would change in how you evaluate your own heart if you treated spending, brands, haircuts, and home presentation as spiritual diagnostics rather than neutral preferences? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If you treated spending, brands, haircuts, and how you present your home as clues about your heart, what would you judge differently about yourself?

He challenges men who resist the plain coat while expecting women to wear cape dress, calling it a “fundamental inequity”; what dynamics—spiritual, cultural, or selfish—might cause men to avoid visible nonconformity, and how should a church address that without simply shifting the burden back onto women? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Why might men avoid being visibly different while expecting women to dress plainly? How should the church deal with that fairly without putting even more pressure on women?

Edsel warns of accelerating “erosion” and says churches are “at a crisis” because younger generations lack “experiential understanding” and repeat old arguments; what specific practices of teaching, memory, and accountability could help a congregation test “reasonable” arguments before they quietly lead to assimilation? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If younger people don’t really understand these teachings and just repeat old debates, what can a church do to teach, remember, and hold each other accountable so “reasonable” arguments don’t slowly lead to blending in?