‘We are now coming into that which Christ cried woe against, minding altogether outward things, neglecting the inward work of Almighty God in our hearts, if we can but frame according to outward prescriptions and orders, and deny eating and drinking with our neighbours, in so much that poor Friends is mangled in their minds, that they know not what to do, for one Friend says one way, and another another, but Christ Jesus saith, that we must take no thought what we shall eat, or what we shall drink, or what we shall put on, but bids us consider the lilies how they grow, in more royalty than Solomon. But contrary to this, we must look at no colours, nor make anything that is changeable colours as the hills are, nor sell them, nor wear them: but we must be all in one dress and one colour: this is a silly poor Gospel. It is more fit for us, to be covered with God’s Eternal Spirit, and clothed with his Eternal Light, which leads us and guides us into righteousness. Now I have set before you life and death, and desire you to choose life, and God and his truth.’

I think it helps to understand the context of Fell’s comment to look at the passage quoted just before it in the Book of Discipline. In an epistle to Friends dated 6, 4th mo. 1698, Fell wrote:

‘It’s a dangerous thing to lead young Friends much into the observation of outward things which may be easily done. For they can soon get into an outward garb, to be all alike outwardly. But this will not make them into true Christians: it’s the spirit that gives life.’

Those of you who want to know more of Fell will hopefully be delighted to know that a small team of us are currently working on an edition of her 1710 Collected Works which will be published by Barclay Press in, I think, 2026. While most of the major male writers of the 17th century were reprinted in the 18th and 19th centuries (Nayler being, I think, the exception), there has never been an edition of Fell’s works since that original 1710 publication.

Wow, Chronicler Seth and Marshall Massey commenting and saying they like this!

I always recommend reading through the old advices about plainness. They don’t describe any specific styles of clothing, nor do they proscribe a dour disposition. They’re very clear that the plainness we need is plainness of the heart. Outward plainness is merely a recommended tool to achieve that inner state.

Did Friends in earlier ages make a fetish out of plain dress? Certainly. Every good practice can be taken out of context. Anything we do should be part of an attempt to clear ourselves to hear God better but we forget that and idolize the silence or the meetinghouse architecture or any other outward form as a goal in and of itself.

There’s no reason that plainness as a testimony needs to be abandoned. And there’s no reason to think it shouldn’t be a generic Christian testimony. Everyone from the most hard core traditionalist Friend to the most out-there emergent church non-denominational Christian would do well to consider the advices of plainness. What form plainness takes is contextual and will change and should change if we’ve reached a point where it’s source (The Source) is forgotten and it’s just become another fashion.

My mother grew up in an Indiana Quaker community that was still transitioning from the plain dress and speech. She taught us that the reason for the change was that those customs no longer served their original purpose. Historically, the plain dress reflected the homespun clothes that working class Elizabethans wore. (Colored dyes were very expensive.) Friends’ plain dress was an affirmation of the New Testament teaching that we are all one, and therefore socially equal, in the spirit.

Likewise, Elizabethan English still reflected differences between the familiar “thee” and the formal “you,” similar to the German “tu” and “ihr”. Thee indicated that the person with whom one was speaking was either family, or a friend with whom one was intimate. By using “thee” universally, they were reinforcing Friends commitment to all humanity being family because of the unifying spirit articulated in Jesus’ teaching. The language changed, but Friends didn’t until much later.

There’s a Rufus Jones quote, which I may not remember precisely, but which is one of my favorites when discussing religion. As I remember it, he said: “I’d rather be a smiling St. Francis than a dour-faced old Quaker who looks as if he’s been fed on a spiritual diet of persimmons.” I hope that when Friends discuss the topic of dress and language that they will consider the self-effacing insight, and humor, of our elders.

I had never heard or seen the “red dress” story, and I wouldn’t be the least surprised to find that it is apocryphal, as it sounds rather out of character for Margaret Fell-Fox. What I had been given to understand was that she refused to give up the style of dress that was conventional, though not showy, for a woman in her position — a manorial lady in the English North who had to oversee her estate, treat with the national government on behalf of an embattled movement, and deal with an endless stream of hostile lawyers. I suspect that what happened was a quarrel between Margaret, who was simply utilitarian in her dress, and other Friends who were more Puritanically severe.

It is true that Margaret complained that clothing requirements for everyone comprised the silly poor gospel. It is also true that those who usually quote her on this A) think she meant that wearing plain clothes was the silly poor gospel and B) often prefer that Friends blend into the wider American culture. The question “what is the Lord is directing thee to do?” usually gets shifted away from the discussion when that was at the center of what Margaret was trying to communicate.