This line of reasoning is unconvincing because it is based on faulty logic. The New Testament doesn't say anything about toenails. We can certainly develop a preference about it, whether it's the preference of Menno Simons or any other person, and somebody can even make this issue into a necessary part of a religion if they would want to. But it can't be claimed that such a preference is biblically based on anything the New Testament neglected to say . Haines' argument here is not valid because no one can reasonably claim a biblical position based on silence.
Silence is neutral.
It doesn't divide the faithful from the unfaithful, in the recorded views of either Jesus or the early Christian church. There were and are more important priorities than quibbling whether instruments may be used or must not be used. If we agree that it's crucial to refer to the Bible in developing our practices of faith and worship, let's refer to it honestly and not ascribe to it things it doesn't say. It seems to me quite obvious that, since the New Testament neither recommends nor forbids use of instruments, we should turn most naturally to the next best source, i.e. the Old Testament, for guidance. Jesus considered this material as holy scripture, worthy of consultation and use.