SDARM & Dress Reform

Long Live Queen Victoria: The Dress Reform of the Seventh-day Adventist Reform Movement (SDARM)

SUMMARY The Reformists of the SDARM generally BELIEVE and TEACH: - A range of bizarre views regarding dress, including: forbid naked limbs; forbid women wearing pants; prohibit women removing any body hair (such as shaving legs); forbid all types of cosmetics; forbid all types of jewelry. - The SDARM consider their peculiar ‘dress reform’ standards a ‘salvation issue’ amounting to a test of fellowship. The Reformists are WRONG because: - The Bible recognises in Deut 22:5 that men and women should wear different clothing.  However, what constitutes ‘men’s’ and ‘women’s’ clothing differs according to culture, time and location.  For example, the dress of the ancient Jews and early Christians, consisting of ezor, kethōneth, simlāh and na'alayim, would probably be considered a woman’s dress in most Western countries today. - The Bible promotes simplicity and humility of dress, and is concerned with overt consumerism.  However, the Bible equally does not promote fanaticism in dress, which can equally become a fixation or idol. - The Bible in passages such as 2 Sam 13:9 and Mat 24:17-18 does not forbid men to have naked sleeves. - The Bible nowhere forbids women from wearing pants. - The Bible in passages such as Num 8:7 make clear women are permitted to remove body hair, and in fact, it is good hygiene recognised in the OT. - The Bible in passages such as Ex 30:22-25; 1 Kings 10:2-10; 2 Chron 16:14; Ruth 3:3; 2 Sam 12:20; Esth 2:12; Is 39:1,2; and Luke 7:34-46, 23:56 recognises some cosmetics are fine and good to use. - The Bible in passages such as Gen 41:42; Jer 22:24; Esth 3:10,12; Hagg 2:23; Luke 15:22 and Jam 2:2 recognises some jewelry is fine and good to wear. - The SDARM standards of dress are not biblical but rather their own peculiar ‘fashion’ derived from 19th Century America. - The SDARM fashion of dress, such as a suit and tie for men, does not come from the Bible.  Rather, it comes from military uniforms and luxurious courtly clothing. - The SDARM do not follow the Bible strictly regarding dress anyway.  For example, they wear shoes in their Churches, contrary to Ex 3:5. - Ellen White made clear that her comments needed to be understood in her cultural context. She made clear, ‘No one precise style has been given me as the exact rule to guide all in their dress.’ - Ellen White made clear that dress reform should not be a test of fellowship.

The Official SDARM Position on Dress Reform
The official SDARM position is outlined in its fundamental statement Health and Dress Reform:      

‘Health and Dress Reform

Because a Christian's body is the temple of the Holy Spirit, the believer will want to safeguard their health by following natural law, discarding health-destroying articles of food and unnatural habits of life, and being moderate in the use of those things which are good. 1 Corinthians 3:16, 17; Philippians 4:5. Habits of dress are an index of the character. Christian modesty and self-respect require us to abstain from the extravagant fashions of the world.

References: 1 Peter 3:1-5; Isaiah 3:16-24; 1 Corinthians 11:15; 1 Timothy 2:9.’

Healthful Dress

"In order to secure the most healthful clothing, the needs of every part of the body must be carefully studied. The character of the climate, the surroundings, the condition of health, the age, and the occupation must all be considered. Every article of dress should fit easily, obstructing neither the circulation of the blood nor a free, full, natural respiration. Everything worn should be so loose that when the arms are raised the clothing will be correspondingly lifted."—Ministry of Healing, p. 293.

"The suffering caused among women by unhealthful dress cannot be estimated. Many have become life-long invalids through their compliance with the demands of fashion. Health and life have been sacrificed to the insatiable goddess. Many seem to think that they have a right to treat their bodies as they please; but they forget that their bodies are not their own. The Creator who formed them has claims upon them that they cannot lightly throw off. Every needless transgression of the laws of our being is virtually a transgression of the law of God, and is sin in the sight of Heaven. The Creator knew how to form the human body. He did not need to consult the mantua-makers in regard to their ideas of beauty. God, who created everything that is lovely and glorious in nature, understood how to make the human form beautiful and healthy. The modern improvements upon his plan are insulting to the Creator. They deform that which he made perfect."—Christian Temperance and Bible Hygiene, pp. 87-88.’ (emphasis added)

The above statement contains eternal principles most Adventists (and probably most Christians) would heartedly agree with.  However, for anyone who has actually visited a SDARM Church, he or she will soon notice that Reformists take the above principles to quite an extreme.  As noted by Vance Ferrel in The Truth About the Adventist Reform Church at page 16:

‘The Reform Church is more pharisaical than the Adventist Church. They stress works—dress, length of hair, diet—and they do it to the extreme.’

So the question is – does the SDARM follow its own principles with respect to dress reform?  As will be explored by this article, there are indications that the Reformists twist these biblical principles, resulting in a perversion that does much to undo the primary benefits that dress reform was meant to offer.

What is Dress Reform Exactly? 

Much is made of ‘dress reform’, especially with the SDARM – but what is it exactly?  Ellen White was principally concerned with combating extremes of dress in her own day:

‘We do not think it in accordance with our faith to dress in the American costume, to wear hoops, or to go to an extreme in wearing long dresses which sweep the sidewalks and streets. If women would wear their dresses so as to clear the filth of the streets an inch or two, their dresses would be modest, and they could be kept clean much more easily, and would wear longer. Such a dress would be in accordance with our faith.’ {1T 424.1}

Moreover, the above quote illustrates Sister White was principally concerned with two primary issues:

Unhealthy feminine fashion

The first major concern involved women wearing unhealthy clothing in the name of feminine fashion.  In her day that included corsets, makeup made of dangerous chemicals and skirts that were so long they dragged in the mud and fifth (remembering the streets were full of horse dung, as this was before cars).  This is much in accordance with the scriptural command in 1 Tim 2:9:

‘I also want the women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, adorning themselves, not with elaborate hairstyles or gold or pearls or expensive clothes.’

The ‘American Costume’

The second major concern involved women attempting to dress healthily, but in doing so discarded feminine attire.  In her day this involved the adoption of the ‘American Costume’, which consisted of:

‘a vest, pants, and a dress resembling a coat and reaching about halfway from the hip to the knee. This dress I have opposed.’—Testimonies, vol. 1, p. 465.

This is much in accordance with the scriptural command in Deut 22:5 to wear gender-distinctive clothing:

‘A woman must not wear men's clothing, nor a man wear women's clothing, for the LORD your God detests anyone who does this.’

Thus, Sister White’s dress reforms were aimed at introducing a commonsense approach to clothing, seeking to combat both extremes in female dress.

The SDARM ‘Fashion’ on Dress

Within the SDARM context, the ‘fashion’ of dress very much depends upon the whims of the local Reformist leader.  As observed by Helmut Kramer in SDA Reform Movement at page 19:

‘The predominant doctrine taught to the people related to dress. The people adopted the standards held by the local leader. The members were much more concerned with externals than with the condition of the heart and a loving spirit toward their fellowman.’

That all said, there are a number of basic elements of SDARM dress reform, especially for women.

Naked limbs are forbidden

As explained in the article by “Clothing in Bible Times” in the ‘independent historic’ Reformist publication Sabbath Sermons:

‘Naked limbs are an invention of Satan to offend God who is very particular about what his human creation should wear.’

Although most dress reform issues relate to women, the Reformist include the issue of naked limbs to include a prohibition on men wearing shorts, as made clear in its official statement on Christian Temperance:

‘Although in time past fashion was mostly a problem with women, unfortunately as we approach the end, Satan is even destroying the experience of some men on this point. Such designs as tight revealing clothing, slits, shorts, and see-through fabrics (exposing nakedness), unhealthful footwear, jewelry and following modern trends for the sake of fashion is detrimental to the Christian's experience and is prohibited in the word of God.’ (emphasis added)

A woman should never wear pants

As explained in the article “Clothing in Bible Times” in the ‘independent historic’ Reformist publication Sabbath Sermons:

‘Pants on their own for women in history has never been the ordained attire for women.’

And as further explained by Linda Driver in “10 Reasons Why Satan Wants You to Wear Pants”, also from Sabbath Sermons:

‘Satan wants you to wear pants because….he wants you to help promote his ungodly feminist movement. He designed this movement to ensnare rebellious women who are opposing their God-ordained role, and fighting against God’s plan.’ (emphasis added)

A women should have uncut long hair

As explained by Reformist Peter Lausevi in the article “Ribbon of Blue”:

‘When a woman has short hair, or when a man has long hair, God calls it an abomination. Because we are Gods servants, we must call it what God calls it. When Jesus comes, he will have shoulder length hair. This means that a woman’s hair must be longer than shoulder length.’ (emphasis added)

Whilst the Reformist Peter Lausevi prescribes the arbitrary length of a woman’s hair to be at shoulder level, other Reformists suggest hair must actually be uncut on a woman.  The issue of long hair is explored in further detail in a separate article “Reformist Rapunzel” on Sevy Taliban.

A woman should not remove bodily hair

As explained by John Thiel in the article “The Garment Spotted By the Flesh” in the ‘independent historic’ Reformist publication Sabbath Sermons:

‘Let us spell out very carefully the spirit of God in this world and his application to the senses. We are understand what it means to come out and touch not the unclean things. What are worldlings preoccupied with in regards their body? They go to the boutique, they get their nails done, beautiful themselves, wax their legs, what for? Because women think that hairs are ugly on the legs. That is devilish, that is worldly and they don’t even know it.’ (emphasis added)

Cosmetics of any form are forbidden

As explained in the SDARM official statement “Christian Temperance”:

‘Since God has the health of the entire human being in view, all articles of dress that have a definite adverse effect on our health are clearly prohibited in the word of God. For example: anything that restricts free-breathing, that causes curvature of the spine or any deformity of the body, and unhealthful chemicals placed on the body such as those used for dying the hair and cosmetics. Exodus 15:26’ (emphasis added)

Jewelry is forbidden

As made clear in its official SDARM statement on Christian Temperance:

‘Although in time past fashion was mostly a problem with women, unfortunately as we approach the end, Satan is even destroying the experience of some men on this point. Such designs as tight revealing clothing, slits, shorts, and see-through fabrics (exposing nakedness), unhealthful footwear, jewelry and following modern trends for the sake of fashion is detrimental to the Christian's experience and is prohibited in the word of God.’ (emphasis added)

Dress reform should be a test of membership

Finally and most importantly, it is not merely the SDARM conservative stance on dress that is the issue.  Rather, it is the SDARM approach to disciplining those who do not entirely agree with their strict practices.  As argued by Reformist Peter Lausevi in the article “Ribbon of Blue”, citing a passage from SOP:

‘Should Dress Reform Be A Test?

“I have been shown that our church rules are very deficient. All exhibitions of pride in dress, which is forbidden in the word of God, should be sufficient reason for church discipline. If there is a continuance, in face of warnings and appeals and entreaties, to still follow the perverse will, it may be regarded as proof that the heart is in no way assimilated to Christ. Self, and only self, is the object of adoration, and one such professed Christian will lead many away from God.” {4T 647.2}

If they continue in those practices [of not conforming to Reformist standards on dress], they should not continue in the church.’

Mr Lausevi goes even further, suggesting:

‘Those who practice abomination [in dress] will not go to heaven.’

Problems with the SDARM Position on Dress

There is nothing inherently wrong with the SDARM’s conservative approach to dress.  Rather, as will be explored further, the principal concern is their fanaticism over the issue, and insistence that one adopt what effectively amounts to 19^th Century Western dress without regard to cultural circumstance and individual liberty.

The SDARM Reformists often fail to consider cultural context

In Ellen White’s own day, there were some who were erroneously teaching that a particular pattern she referred to was to be the new exact and universal pattern – without regard to changing cultural context.  However, Sister White made clear:

‘Some have supposed that the very pattern given was the pattern that all were to adopt. This is not so. But something as simple as this would be the best we could adopt under the circumstances. No one precise style has been given me as the exact rule to guide all in their dress…. The Lord has not indicated that it is the duty of our sisters to go back to the reform dress. Simple dresses should be worn. Try your talent, my sisters, in this essential reform.’—Letter 19, 1897. (emphasis added)

Many Reformists fall into essentially the same trap.  They act as if all good Christians should be bound to a universal pattern of clothing out of 19^th Century Victorian America.  This is precisely what Sister White warned against.  There is nothing in the Bible that requires women wear dresses or men wear suit-and-ties.  If Mrs White were alive today, no doubt she would recommend we consider her applicable and commonsense principles of dress reform, but adapted to today’s cultural norms, rather than expect us to live according to a cultural time warp of dress from over a 100 years ago.

The SDARM do not follow ‘biblical’ dress

At this stage it is helpful to consider what biblical dress actually entails.  In should come as no surprise to most, although people may forget, that biblical men did not wear Western suit-and-ties. Instead, Israelite men typically wore the following:

• Ezor: being a loin cloth, equivalent to modern underpants.
• Kethōneth: being an undergarment, corresponding to a modern long shirt, reaching down to either the knees or ankles, and which was often sleeveless. 
• Simlāh: being the outer garment, or cloak or shawl, which was often removed for a man needed more freedom to move, such as performing manual labour. 
• Me'ı̄l: being an outer garment like the simlāh, but was more expensive and used by the priestly elite or other men of rank.
• Keffiyeh: being a head covering roughly equivalent to head coverings worn by many men in the Middle East (probably best known for being worn by Yasser Arafat).  Turbans, equivalent to those worn in India, may also have been common, especially amongst richer classes. 
• Na'alayim: being sandals, usually made of leather.

For Israelite women, they too wore an ezor, kethōneth, simlāh and na'alayim.  However, as made clear by the Jewish Encyclopedia in the article “Costume in Bible Times”, given the biblical injunction in Deut 22:5 that men and women wear distinct clothing, some of the differences included longer garments with sleeves:

‘The dress of women corresponded in the main to that of the men. They also wore the ketonet and simlah. According to Deut. xxii. 5, however, there must have been some difference. The garments of the women were probably longer (compare Nahum iii. 5; Jer. xiii. 22, 26; Isa. xlvii. 2), provided with sleeves (II Sam. xiii. 19), and wider than those of the men, and therefore better adapted to conceal the figure (compare "Zeit. Deutsch. Paläst. Ver." iv. 60). The dress of noblewomen was distinguished for its luxury and ornaments (compare Isa. iii. 16 et seq.; Ezek. xvi. 10 et seq.), and was even scented with perfumes (Ps. xlv. 8; Cant. iv. 11; compare especially the catalogue in Isa. iii. 16et seq.). The luxury in dress displayed by women in the East at the present day suggests the probability of similarly luxurious habits on the part of their sisters of former times. Niebuhr saw women appear in eight or ten different dresses during one evening.’    

Thus, one can see the SDARM do not follow ‘biblical’ dress.  Instead, they adopt a Western pattern of clothing out of 19^th Century Victorian America.  Whilst there is nothing in itself wrong with such attire, if it is a personal choice, there are issues when Reformist leaders teach that dress as being ordained from heaven, when it clearly is not. If Reformists wish to dress in accordance with the Bible, they would wear clothing somewhat similar to those found in many Middle Eastern countries today. 

The SDARM do not follow biblical injunctions about wearing shoes in a holy place

Whilst one is on the subject of biblical clothing, the SDARM does in fact dispense with clear biblical injunctions of dress when it suits them.  For example, Reformists typically wear shoes in Church, again in accordance with 19^th Century Western dress standards.  However, such behavior is arguably against clear biblical injunction, where God clearly told Moses in Ex 3:5:

‘"Do not come any closer," God said. "Take off your sandals, for the place where you are standing is holy ground."’

As made clear in the Jewish Encyclopedia in the article “Shoes”:

‘There is evidence that shoes were of somewhat recent introduction; hence in solemn moments they were discarded, as in the theophany of Ex. iii. 5, while priests in general performed their offices without shoes. Similarly, in mourning, the bereaved removed their shoes (II Sam. xv. 30; Ezek. xxiv. 17, 23; Isa. xx. 2); this custom has continued to the present day.’

For these reasons, many persons in other religious faiths, including Muslims and Karaite Jews, take off their shoes when inside a holy place.  Similarly for modern Jews:

‘In modern times it is customary to remove, or go without, leather shoes on the Day of Atonement, and to wear slippers instead; the custom is mentioned in Yoma (viii. 1).’

So on what basis do Reformists so strictly enforce man-made and culturally relative rules, such as the wearing of a suit-and-tie in Church, or the denial of women wearing pants, but clearly flout God-given instructions forbidding the wearing of shoes on holy ground?  It is not so much the SDARM practice as their hypocrisy in picking and choosing what to fanatically enforce.

The SDARM men adopt ‘militaristic’ and ‘high-fashion’ clothing

In fact, not only do Reformists wrongly suggest 19^th Century Western dress is the mandate of heaven, one could well argue that such Western dress is in itself contrary to moral and ethical teachings of the Bible.  Firstly, such clothing is obviously Western, and much derived from a time when White Europeans killed, enslaved and colonized most of the globe.  Such Western clothing was often associated with Christian missionary efforts, where missionary wrongly and naively associated Christianity with Western culture, forgetting Christianity’s roots actually lie with the Middle East.  Thus, in many traditional cultures today, one can find Christians wearing suits-and-ties to Church, even in tropical climates where such clothing is neither healthy nor culturally and historically relevant. 

Second, much of Western clothing that the Reformists promote, especially the suit-and-tie worn by men, owes itself to a combination of military origin or high-fashion.  For example, consider the following:

• Pants: first invented by the horse-riding Iranian peoples of antiquity, where having material wrapped around one’s legs had obvious advantages when traveling and fighting from horseback; however, whilst trousers were not worn by most ancient Israelites (see Ex 20:26, and were scorned by the Romans and Greeks as clothes for barbarians), the High Priest may have worn long legging undergarments (Ex 28:42).
• Boots or shoes: from probably around 1000 BC, as military clothing, given everyday wear consisted of sandals. 
• Suit jacket: from the French word ‘suite’ (as in a luxurious hotel room), which ultimately derives from the luxurious dress of the 17^th century royal courts, attaining mass popularity during the British Regency period in imitation of the splendor of King Louis XIV court in Versailles.
• Tie: from the cravat, worn by 17^th Century Croatian mercenary soldiers, also later adopted as a luxurious item by the French, and then in England as an item of high fashion of the royal courts. 

Thus, it is arguable that when Reformists insist that their men adopt a suit-and-tie as the norm for attending Church, they are in effect asking men to wear clothing whose origins come from a combination of military uniform and high-fashion.

Naked limbs are not necessarily evil

Contrary to SDARM teachings, naked limbs, especially on men, are not necessarily evil. As explained above, the Hebrew kethōneth, being the undergarment, was often sleeveless.  Whilst one’s naked limbs were then covered by the simlāh, or cloak or shawl, the simlāh restricted movement, so it had to be taken off when working.  As made clear in the Jewish Encyclopedia in its article about “Coat”, describing the evolution of the wearing of the kethōneth:

‘The shirt was made at first without sleeves, and also failed to cover the left shoulder (see Müller, l.c. pp. 296 et seq.). The working classes continued to wear the "primitive loin-cloth" (Müller, ib. p. 297), or the sleeveless coat, as this allowed full freedom of movement for both arms and legs. When the shirt was long, a belt or girdle was worn over it, partly for the purpose of holding it together, but mainly to enable the wearer to tuck in the laps when running, walking, or working.’ (emphasis added)

Rather, as also made clear by the Jewish Encyclopedia in the article “Costume in Bible Times”, it appears only women’s clothing always had sleeves, which seems to be one of the distinguishing features between male and female clothing in ancient Israel:

‘The garments of the women were probably longer (compare Nahum iii. 5; Jer. xiii. 22, 26; Isa. xlvii. 2), provided with sleeves (II Sam. xiii. 19), and wider than those of the men, and therefore better adapted to conceal the figure (compare "Zeit. Deutsch. Paläst. Ver." iv. 60).’ (emphasis added)

Jesus Himself notes this in Matt 24:17-18, observing a man working in the field would have left his cloak back at the house:

‘Let no one on the housetop go down to take anything out of the house. Let no one in the field go back to get their cloak.’

Thus, it is simply wrong to say that the Bible teaches that naked limbs are evil, given the opposite is actually true. This is especially the case for men, who needed clothes that allowed freedom of movement to perform manual labour. 

Pants on women are not necessarily evil

Pants are of major concern for most Reformists, as they are seen as part of the ‘American costume’ warned about by Ellen White:

‘In wide contrast with this modest dress is the so-called American costume, resembling very nearly the dress worn by men. It consists of a vest, pants, and a dress resembling a coat and reaching about halfway from the hip to the knee. This dress I have opposed, from what has been shown me as in harmony with the word of God; while the other I have recommended as modest, comfortable, convenient, and healthful.’ {1T 465.1}

However, the Reformists adopt Sister White’s statement in a literalist way she probably never intended.

First, the statement by Ellen White does not suggest pants in all situations amount to male dress.  Rather, she was clearly addressing cultural norms, which existed in her own time and place of 19^th Century America. Within her cultural context, a woman wearing pants was clearly an act of a woman wearing a man’s clothes.  However, no doubt in her time and society, if a man wore biblical clothing akin to a modern Arab man’s gown, such a man would have no doubt been accused of wearing a dress.  

Second, one could actually make the case that all pants, on men and women are evil.  Nowhere does the Bible suggest men should wear pants.  At most, the high priest seems to have worn leggings, but only as undergarments, which were still covered by a long robe.  As outlined above, pants were typically seen as the clothing of barbarians and marauding horse soldiers. 

Finally, presuming there needs to be a distinction in dress, one might assume that female modesty is more important than men’s.  For example, in the Bible it was women’s clothing that had sleeves, whilst men would go sleeveless at times in order to better perform manual labour in the fields.  Thus, it seems highly illogical that men should completely cover their undergarments with clothe, but women wear clothing that allows for the possibility of revealing a woman’s undergarments (and the lustful mental images that come with that).  On this basis, there is a strong case for suggesting men should wear robes (like they do in many Middle Eastern countries, or kilts in Scotland, or Togas in ancient Greece) and women wear pants. 

A women’s hair shorter than shoulder length is not evil

As explained by Reformist Peter Lausevi in the article “Ribbon of Blue”:

‘When a woman has short hair, or when a man has long hair, God calls it an abomination. Because we are Gods servants, we must call it what God calls it. When Jesus comes, he will have shoulder length hair. This means that a woman’s hair must be longer than shoulder length.’ (emphasis added)

However, one might ask the obvious question – how does Mr Lausevi know Jesus had shoulder-length hair?  Perhaps Mr Lausevi has seen one too many man-made pictures of Jesus?  In fact, if Jesus had shoulder-length hair, wouldn’t that suggest he had quite feminine-looking hair? 

If Mr Lausevi is suggesting Jesus was bound by the oath of the Nazarite (like Samson and John the Baptist), then Jesus’ hair would have been longer than shoulder-length, as the Nazarite oath described in Num 6:2-5 demands uncut hair, which is then totally shaved off.  In any event, Jesus was unlikely to have taken the Nazarite vow, as he would be prohibited under the Law of Moses in Num 6:3 from drinking wine or grape juice, something Jesus clearly did per Matt 11:19; 26:29;  Luke 7:34; 22:16,17 and John 2:1-3.

Removing female bodily hair is not necessarily evil

There is nothing inherently evil in removing body hair.  In fact, removing bodily hair is prescribed as an act of cleansing and purification, according to Jewish laws of hygiene, as made clear in Num 8:7:

‘Thus you shall do to them to cleanse them: Sprinkle water of purification on them, and let them shave all their body, and let them wash their clothes, and so make themselves clean.’ (emphasis added)

Not all cosmetics are necessarily evil

The Bible is clear in condemning the use of cosmetics, as explained in 1 Tim 2:9-10, Jer 4:30 and 1 Pet 3:3-4.  Much of the condemnation stems from the fact that in Bible times (and in many respects like today), makeup, especially when used excessively, was usually a sign of prostitution, as explained in 2 Kings 9:30 and Ez 23:40.

However, the use of various oils, moisturizers and perfumes, which maintain natural health and beauty, are not so condemned.  Perhaps the best-known example is Mary’s washing of Jesus feet with exotic and expensive perfumed oil, as recounted in John 12:3:

‘Then Mary took a pound of very costly oil of spikenard, anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped His feet with her hair. And the house was filled with the fragrance of the oil.’

Other biblical references to the use of perfumed oils include Ex 30:22-25; 1 Kings 10:2-10; 2 Chron 16:14; Ruth 3:3; 2 Sam 12:20; Esth 2:12; Is 39:1,2; and Luke 7:34-46, 23:56.  The best advice probably comes from the example of Esther, who refused the excessive cosmetics of many other girls in the harem, but did allow for the regime as advised by the King’s Eunuch, as observed in Esth 2:12,13,15:

‘Each young woman’s turn came to go in to King Ahasuerus after she had completed twelve months’ preparation, according to the regulations for the women, for thus were the days of their preparation apportioned: six months with oil of myrrh, and six months with perfumes and preparations for beautifying women.  Thus prepared, each young woman went to the king, and she was given whatever she desired to take with her from the women’s quarters to the king’s palace… Now when the turn came for Esther the daughter of Abihail the uncle of Mordecai, who had taken her as his daughter, to go in to the king, she requested nothing but what Hegai the king’s eunuch, the custodian of the women, advised. And Esther obtained favor in the sight of all who saw her.’

Not all jewelry is necessarily evil

It is certainly true that jewelry should be avoided.  Paul makes clear in 1 Tim 2:9:

‘I also want the women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, adorning themselves, not with elaborate hairstyles or gold or pearls or expensive clothes.’ (emphasis added)

Similarly, Peter makes clear in 1 Pet 3:3: 

‘Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as elaborate hairstyles and the wearing of gold jewelry or fine clothes.’ (emphasis added)

However, it is not true to say all jewelry is necessarily evil or unbiblical.  In relation to rings in particular, there are several passages in the Bible, both in the OT and NT, where rings wore worn by men of God.  In particular, within a biblical and ancient-world view, a ring was a sign or authority.  Examples include Gen 41:42; Jer 22:24; Esth 3:10,12; Hagg 2:23; Luke 15:22 and Jam 2:2. 

Other jewelry is not in itself evil either.  For example, in searching for a new bride, Abraham’s servant did not just bring jewelry – he bought nose rings, as well as some bracelets!  As explained in Gen 24:22:

‘When the camels had finished drinking, the man took out a gold nose ring weighing a beka and two gold bracelets weighing ten shekels.’  (emphasis added)

Ellen White herself, in her typical sensitive and pragmatic style, acknowledged the importance of cultural context when it comes to the issue of wedding rings:

‘Americans can make their position understood by plainly stating that the custom is not regarded as obligatory in our country… In countries where the custom is imperative, we have no burden to condemn those who have their marriage ring; let them wear it if they can do so conscientiously; but let not our missionaries feel that the wearing of the ring will increase their influence one jot or tittle’ – Testimonies to Ministers, pp.180-181. (emphasis added)

The primary thing that Sister White acknowledged is there is no biblical injunction to wear wedding rings, and they could be a great waste of money.  However, we should equally be careful of imposing our own Western and American values on other cultures, where norms are different.

The SDARM clothing is just ‘fashion’ of its own sort

For the above reasons, one can see the inconsistency and hypocrisy of the SDARM approach.  Far from adopting biblical dress, the Reformists adopt a Western cultural pattern of 19^th Century Victorian America. In this way, the SDARM standards of dress are just as much a ‘fashion’, which Reformists must adhere to with the sort of peer pressure that would put the high-fashionisters of Milan, Rome or Paris to shame. 

SDARM dress reform, especially concerning hair, can itself be unhealthy

A key, if not the key purpose of dress reform is the promotion of health and hygiene. However, as explained by Vance Ferrel in The Adventist Reform Church at page 9, Reformist women must have excessively long hair, which results in the following health problems for the sake of SDARM ‘fashion’:

‘The Reform women told my wife that they had regular headaches on the back of their heads. These occipital pains were caused by the large buns they had to wear. The Reform women do not dare cut their hair, lest they shame their family and be declared to be in apostasy.

They also told my wife that they could not get their work done with hair that hangs down to their waist, so they keep it rolled up into a knot on the back of their head. The result is the appearance of very short hair—and those headaches. They also said that the overly long hair, if not kept rolled up, tends to fall out.’

With further irony, these heavy buns appear to be contrary to principles of good hair and head health counselled by Mrs White Ellen White.  Perhaps with prophetic insight, she did warn that such ‘unnatural positions’ of the hair would result in hair falling out and pressure being put on the brain:

‘Fashion loads the heads of women with artificial braids and pads, which do not add to their beauty, but give an unnatural shape to the head. The hair is strained and forced into unnatural positions, and it is not possible for the heads of these fashionable ladies to be comfortable. The artificial hair and pads covering the base of the brain, heat and excite the spinal nerves centering in the brain. The head should ever be kept cool. The heat caused by these artificials induces the blood to the brain. The action of the blood upon the lower or animal organs of the brain, causes unnatural activity, tends to recklessness in morals, and the mind and heart is in danger of being corrupted. As the animal organs are excited and strengthened, the moral are enfeebled. The moral and intellectual powers of the mind become servants to the animal.’ (HR October 1, 1871, par. 9)

The Reformist aversion to cosmetics or hair removal is also likely to have a negative impact on the use of such products in a commonsense way, which the Bible itself promotes for good hygiene.

SDARM ‘fashion’ is now so outdated it is now a distraction

The excuse which Reformists give as to why they do not dress in accordance with biblical clothing is that SOP counseled against standing out too much, in a way that would be a distraction:

‘No, we should not be odd or singular in our dress for the sake of differing from the world, lest they despise us for so doing.’ {1T 424.2}

As explained by John Thiel in “Dress Reform and the Sanctuary Part 2” in ‘independent historic’ Reformist publication Sabbath Sermons:

‘We are to dress according to the age in which we live. We are not to be regarded as odd or different if we dress within the principles that we have been learning. We can dress within the framework of the age in which we live.’

However, SDARM ‘fashion’ is now so far out of date, especially amongst women, that it arguably is now a distraction. There is no logical reason why dress standards of 19^th Century America should be adopted over modern standards, or non-Western standards, or biblical standards of two thousand years ago.  The SDARM fashion, now one hundred years out of date, is now so odd or singular that for the sake of differing from the world, the world arguably does despise Reformists, acting as an overwhelming distraction from the Gospel message, including the Sabbath truth. 

Ellen White made clear that dress reform should not be a test question

Many conservative members of the mainstream SDA Church adhere to the same beliefs and practices of the SDARM when it comes to dress reform.  However, what really distinguishes the mainstream SDA conservatives from the SDARM Reformists is that only the latter go so far as to make dress reform a test of membership.  In this sense, it is not the Reformists’ dress that is the issue, but their attitude to it.

Ellen White did counsel disciplining Adventists who seemed worldly and continually acted contrary to clear biblical principles of modesty and simplicity of dress.  However, making dress reform a test of membership, as the SDARM do, is clearly contrary to Ellen White’s own counsel:

‘Some were greatly troubled because I did not make the dress a test question and still others because I advised those who had unbelieving husbands or children not to adopt the reform dress, as it might lead to unhappiness that would counteract all the good to be derived from its use.’ (Testimonies, vol. 4, p. 637)

Conclusion: SDARM ‘fashion’ is often enforced to a level of fanaticism

In conclusion, the major issue here is not what Reformists choose to wear – it is the fanaticism they adopt in relation to this issue.  Ultimately, Ellen White got so concerned with this type of fanaticism in relation to dress reform that she in effect abandoned it altogether:

‘The question may be asked, ‘Why has this dress been laid aside? and for what reason has dress reform ceased to be advocated?’ The reasons for this change I will here briefly state. While many of our sisters accepted this reform from principle, others opposed the simple, healthful style of dress which it advocated. It required much labor to introduce this reform among our people…

Nor was this all. Some who adopted the reform were not content to show by example the advantages of the dress, giving, when asked, their reasons for adopting it, and letting the matter rest there. They sought to control others' conscience by their own.  If they wore it, others must put it on. They forgot that none were to be compelled to wear the reform dress…’

Much unhappy feeling was created by those who were constantly urging the reform dress upon their sisters. With extremists, this reform seemed to constitute the sum and substance of their religion. It was the theme of conversation and the burden of their hearts; and their minds were thus diverted from God and the truth. They failed to cherish the spirit of Christ, and manifested a great lack of true courtesy. Instead of prizing the dress for its real advantages, they seemed to be proud of its singularity’ — Testimonies., p. 637.

However, the final word of advice for our SDARM friends is best left to our Lord Jesus Christ himself in Matt 23:23:

‘Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices--mint, dill and cumin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law--justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former.’

If only they would take head of our Lord’s advice about priorities in life:

‘But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.’

Through their fanaticism, the SDARM arguably undo much of the benefit that dress reform was meant to offer. In this way, dress reform is an excellent example of how the SDARM turn a non-essential issue into an essential issue, thereby destroying the blessing by turning legalistic requirements into a burden.