In their continued quest to convince discontented Amish folks not to defect from Amish ranks, authors Weaver and Zimmerman appeal at the close of the first chapter of Why be Plain? to the New Testament’s admonitions for Christians to submit to spiritual leaders. From the Amish perspective, that means Amish bishops and ministers. The authors write:
We live in an individualistic society. It’s all about me, my beliefs, my opinions, my rights. This attitude wants to in-filter into the church and we are in danger of losing the Anabaptist way of submission to God, the brotherhood, and ordained ministerial authority…. In the Anabaptist way, group authority guides personal conviction. The Holy Spirit would not give a person one conviction and his brother the opposite one.
The very commandments in the Bible to submit to the brotherhood and the ministry implies that opinions will differ but may not override church authority. Paul admonished the church in Rome not to quarrel over opinions and differences.
It is another matter when a church is willfully disobeying the Bible. But too often people leave because they have a different way of interpreting a confusing verse, not because Bible doctrines have actually been dropped (page 12).
All of this is generally true. The Bible has plenty to say about believers’ obligation to submit to (1) God, (2) secular government, (3) employers (4) church leadership, and (5) one another (Jas. 4:7; Rom. 13:1-7; Tit. 2:9; Heb. 13:17; Eph. 5:21). Of those five, however, there is only one to which Christians are always supposed to submit, and that, of course, is God. The other four are comprised of human leaders who themselves may not be submitted to God. So, Scripture makes it clear that there are times when Christians should not submit to secular government, employers, church leadership, and other Christians. When any of those four stand at odds with what God expects of us, we are obligated—by our obligation to always submit to God—not to submit to them. That means we are obligated to disobey them. It is just that simple.
That is just what the original Anabaptists believed. Many of them, for example, forfeited their lives because they, out of their submission to God, would not submit to civil and religious authorities. You can read their inspiring stories in The Martyr’s Mirror.
The original apostles once similarly suffered the cruel punishment of flogging by civil and religious authorities for preaching the gospel. But after being flogged and warned, they kept right on proclaiming the good news (see Acts 5:40-42). They did not submit.
Peter and John’s Spirit-inspired response to the Jewish Sanhedrin, who commanded them to no longer teach about Jesus, instruct all of us about our own call to God-honoring civil disobedience:
Whether it is right in the sight of God to give heed to you rather than to God, you be the judge; for we cannot stop speaking about what we have seen and heard (Acts 4:19-20, emphasis added).
Church Authorities
Although we naturally expect church authorities to be worthy of our trust, Jesus warned His followers about “false prophets” who are “wolves in sheep’s clothing” (Matt. 7:15). His unforgettable analogy points to the fact that such spiritual wolves could be right among the flock. They are leaders (false prophets claim to speak on God’s behalf), who appear to be sheep, but “inwardly are ravenous wolves.” They aren’t servants of the sheep, but rather, are predators of the sheep.
I doubt that very few Amish leaders fall into the category of being spiritual predators. Nevertheless, sincere leaders can be “the blind leading the blind” to borrow another one of Jesus’ expressions (see Matt. 15:14). Those who are misguided themselves are apt to misguide others.
Current Amish leaders, like all other sincere Amish folks, have been taught Amish doctrines from childhood, and Amish thinking is not easily challenged within Amish circles. Tradition runs very deep, questioning is discouraged, protective walls are tall, disagreement is dealt with by expulsion, and the Bible is often interpreted through Amish lenses. So much so that anyone who challenges Amish tradition or doctrine from the outside or inside is often referred to as a “wolf in sheep’s clothing.”
I don’t write these things to be critical of any Amish leader, but just as a matter of inevitable fact. If I had been raised Amish, I would likely think just like an average Amish person. I would likely interpret the Bible through an Amish lens. If I didn’t understand German and was discouraged from reading an English Bible, I would be even more disadvantaged if I wanted to compare what I was being taught with what the Bible teaches. That being said, if I was actually misguided, I would appreciate anyone who would love me enough to try to help me see what I hadn’t seen. (I am, by the way, one of those people, and that is why I am writing this book even though some refer to me as a wolf in sheep’s clothing!)
In the two chapters the preceded this one, I have done my best to prove, from the Bible, that (1) the Amish interpretation of the phrase “the world” is unbiblical, (2) that the Amish belief that God has a lower standard for English people to get into heaven and a higher standard for Amish people is also unbiblical, and (3) that there is nothing in the New Testament that resembles an Amish ordnung. If I succeeded in persuading you on these points, you now are aware that your Amish bishop and ministers have been misleading you. They are probably entirely sincere. But still, they are misleading you. And they are misleading you on some very important issues. Perhaps the worst is the idea that you must keep hundreds of rules that can’t be found in the Bible if you want to enter heaven. They are making manmade rules equal with God’s commandments.
All of this is to say, when spiritual leaders are misleading you by means of unbiblical ideas about what is required to get into heaven, but they are telling you that you should submit to them because that is what the Bible teaches, you are under no obligation to submit to them. In fact, if you know the biblical truth, you are under obligation to gently, lovingly, confront those spiritual leaders—for their own sakes and for the sake of those whom they are misleading. For you to submit to such spiritual leaders would be to disobey God. For such spiritual leaders to expect you to submit to them is like a blind person expecting a seeing person to follow him.
No seeing person would allow a blind person to lead him. The only people who would allow a blind person to lead them are other blind people. And no seeing person would remain silent if he saw a blind person leading anyone!
What Does the 1632 Dordrecht Confession Say?
Again, I want to emphasize my sympathy and respect for all Amish leaders and all Amish people. They have all been born, through no choice of their own, into a unique culture and religious system. There are many praiseworthy aspects of Amish culture, all passed down from the original Anabaptists who loved Jesus. And there are so many sincere, wonderful Amish people. They comprise the large majority of Amish folks.
But the current religious system is not like that of the original Anabaptists. The centerpiece of the faith of the original Anabaptists was the new birth and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. They had no ordnung but the commandments of Christ, which is why you won’t find anything about any ordnung in the 1632 Dordrecht Confession. Since they had no ordnung, there is no record of them requiring ordnung vows of baptismal candidates or semi-annual ordnung vow renewals of everyone. Nor is there any record of them shunning anyone who transgressed the ordnung. Beyond that, there is no record that they avoided using any manmade technology or dressed any different than anyone else in their European class.
But here is the real shocker for modern Amish folks: Not only is there no mention about any ordnung in the Dordrecht Confession, that Confession actually contains a prohibition against any ordnung. Let me prove that to you.
The title of Article 5 of the Dordrecht Confession is: “Of the Law of Christ, that is, the Holy Gospel or the New Testament.” When the authors of the Confession wrote the phrase, “the New Testament,” they were not referring to the second part of the Bible that follows the Old Testament. Rather, they were referring to all of Christ’s commandments. The second and third phrases in Article 5’s title—“the New Testament” and “the Holy Gospel”—are just alternate descriptions of “the Law of Christ.” Here is the title once again: “Of the Law of Christ, that is, the Holy Gospel or the New Testament.” So, Article 5 is all about the Law of Christ.
What is the Law of Christ? It is a biblical phrase found in 1 Cor. 9:19-21 that clearly refers to all of Christ’s commandments, just as the phrase “the Law of Moses” in the same passage refers to all the commandments God gave through Moses. The original Anabaptists really focused on the commandments enumerated in Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount, believing that they introduced the higher standards of the gospel. It was God’s “new testament” of the new covenant.
So, Article 5 is all about the believer’s obligation to obey Christ’s commandments. In quoting Article 5 below, I have noted, in brackets, every time the Law of Christ is referenced, and I have also italicized Article 5’s clear prohibition against creating any additional rules beyond Christ’s commandments:
Of the Law of Christ, that is, the Holy Gospel or the New Testament: We also believe and confess that before His ascension He instituted His New Testament [the Law of Christ], and, since it [the Law of Christ] was to be and remain an eternal Testament, that He confirmed and sealed the same [the Law of Christ] with His precious blood, and gave and left it [the Law of Christ] to His disciples, yea, charged them so highly with it [the Law of Christ], that neither angel nor man may alter it [the Law of Christ], nor add to it [the Law of Christ] nor take away from it [the Law of Christ]; and that He caused the same [the Law of Christ], as containing the whole counsel and will of His heavenly Father, as far as is necessary for salvation to be proclaimed in His name by His beloved apostles, messengers, and ministers—whom He called, chose, and sent into all the world for that purpose—among all peoples, nations, and tongues; and repentance and remission of sins to be preached and testified of; and that He accordingly has therein declared all men without distinction, who through faith, as obedient children, heed, follow, and practice what the same [the Law of Christ] contains, to be His children and lawful heirs; thus excluding no one from the precious inheritance of eternal salvation, except the unbelieving and disobedient [to the Law of Christ], the stiff-necked and obdurate, who despise it [the Law of Christ], and incur this through their own sins, thus making themselves unworthy of eternal life. (Jer. 31:31; Heb. 9:15-17; Matt. 26:28; Gal. 1:8; I Tim. 6:3; John 15:15; Matt. 28:19; Mark 16:15; Luke 24:47; Rom. 8:17; Acts 13:46).
Without dispute, the original Anabaptists believed that eternal salvation was granted to those who repent, believe, and then obey the Law of Christ. To them, that was all that was required. Nothing more. And they also firmly believed that no one should add anything to the Law of Christ, as we just plainly read.
But that is exactly what has been done in Amish circles. Although the authors of Why be Plain? often evasively refer to the ordnung as “guidelines,” the ordnung has actually been elevated in Amish circles to be equal with Christ’s commandments, because every Amish person is required to pledge, at his baptism, to keep all the rules of the ordnung, and unrepented transgressions against the ordnung are treated as sins that result in eternal damnation. The original Anabaptists would be horrified by such an idea or practice. It would remind them of all the additional manmade rules of the Roman Catholic Church that were tied to salvation, rules from which they had been delivered.
In any case, when ordnung-promoting Amish leaders claim that the 1632 Dordrecht Confession—found in practically every copy of The Martyrs’ Mirror, a book in every Amish home—is the standard for their doctrine and practice, they are ignoring Article 5, because it condemns the addition of any rules to the Law of Christ.
The New Testament on Ordnungs
As I have previously written, there is nothing that remotely resembles Amish ordnungs in the New Testament. The apostles saw no need to add hundreds of rules to the Law of Christ.
Of course, Jesus and His apostles, who lived under the old covenant/testament, followed the Law of Moses. They didn’t, however, follow any of the thousands of “fence laws” that were added to the Law of Moses by the scribes and Pharisees.
Moreover, Jesus condemned Jewish leaders whose traditions invalidated God’s commandments, or who “taught as doctrines the precepts of men” (Matt. 15:1-9, emphasis added). He also condemned religious leaders and who “tied up heavy burdens and laid them on men’s shoulders” (Matt. 23:4)—an obvious reference to extra religious obligations that were not included in the Law of Moses. All of that should be instructive to modern spiritual leaders.
The early church at first only consisted of Jewish believers, who naturally continued to keep both the moral and ceremonial requirements of the Law of Moses, as those requirements were the fabric of their culture. Of course, those Jewish believers also began keeping any commandments contained within the Law of Christ that were not included in the Law of Moses, such as Jesus’ commandment to make disciples of all the nations, teaching them to obey all of His commandments (see Matt. 28:19-20).
Years later, when Gentiles, whose culture was pagan, began believing in the Lord Jesus Christ, some of the apostles gathered in Jerusalem to decide if Gentile believers were obligated to keep rules that were included in the Law of Moses that were not included in the Law of Christ, such as the law of circumcision (see Acts 15). They decided that the answer was “no,” and that essentially, God was not requiring anything of the Gentiles beyond obeying the Law of Christ. Some of the Jewish-background apostles soon began to understand the same was true for them! One of them was Paul (see 1 Cor. 9:19-23).
That landmark event in early church history should also be instructive to modern spiritual leaders. The early church, when given an opportunity to add extra rules for Gentile believers to obey, passed on the opportunity, even though those extra rules were of divine origin. They understood that the Law of Christ was sufficient.
The Simplification of God’s Laws
In contrast to Amish leaders (and many leaders of other Christian groups) who add hundreds of rules to Christ’s commandments, Jesus Himself once declared that everything in the Law of Moses and the Prophets can be summarized by two commandments:
One of them, a lawyer, asked Him [Jesus] a question, testing Him, “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” And He said to him, “’You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the great and foremost commandment. The second is like it, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets” (Matt. 22:36-40, emphasis added).
That is why I am always so amused when professing Christians ask me if I am keeping some morally-insignificant, pet rule for which they think they’ve found a little support in Scripture. I usually tell them, “I’m still working on loving God with all my heart, soul and mind, and loving my neighbor as myself. Once I reach perfection regarding those two commandments, perhaps I can then strive for perfection in lesser things, like you.” (I usually find that people who are focused on morally-insignificant pet rules are not doing well at loving their neighbors as themselves!)
Imitating Jesus (see 1 Cor. 11:1), the apostle Paul liked to simplify God’s expectations by summarizing all of them into one sentence:
Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law. For this, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and if there is any other commandment, it is summed up in this saying, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Rom. 13:8-9, emphasis added).
For the whole Law is fulfilled in one word, in the statement, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Gal. 5:14).
Clearly, Paul believed that by focusing on one commandment—the commandment Jesus referred to as the second greatest—one would keep all the commandments. So, by that one commandment, we can appraise every ordnung rule. Any ordnung rule that is not related to loving my neighbor as myself is exposed as irrelevant to God. So, for example, how is the prohibition regarding driving cars relevant to the second greatest commandment? By driving a car, how would I be violating it? Obviously I wouldn’t, unless I drove my car over a pedestrian with the intent of killing him. Actually, however, by driving a car, I could love my neighbor as myself if I gave my neighbor a ride to the hospital during an emergency, or to the distant grocery store to purchase food.
What do you suppose the apostle Paul would say to Christian leaders who create and enforce hundreds of extra-biblical rules which have no relevancy to the second greatest commandment, as well as no moral, ethical or biblical basis, and who warn their congregations that if they don’t keep them all, they will go to hell? We really don’t have to guess, do we?
As I quoted earlier in this chapter, on page 12 of Why be Plain?, authors Weaver and Zimmerman declare that believers have the right to leave any church that is “willfully disobeying the Bible.” By that declaration, they have unwittingly described every ordnung-promoting Amish church and given every Amish person in them a right to leave.
If the truth be told, Amish people have no more obligation to submit to their bishop when he says, “You must keep the rules of the ordnung” than they would if he were to invite them to his barn and say, “Take off all your clothes.” Both instructions are unbiblical and perverse. Yet Amish leaders who would never utter the latter directive utter the former directive all the time. Again, I know that they are only parroting what they’ve been taught all their lives. If any of them, however, have read this far, they no longer have any excuse!
Shall We Abandon the Ordnung?
Just as the Mosaic Law was the fabric of Jewish culture, so the ordnung is the fabric of Amish culture. And just as God didn’t require Jewish believers in the early church to abandon their cultural connections to the Mosaic Law, neither does God require Amish believers in Jesus to abandon their culture connections to their Amish ordnung.
That being said, God did expect Jewish believers to realize that their salvation was by His grace through a living faith in the Lord Jesus Christ (whose commandments they thus obeyed), and that it was not due to their keeping any aspect of the Law of Moses that is not found in the Law of Christ. He also expected them to view believing Gentiles as their spiritual brothers and sisters in Christ, even though those Gentiles did not keep any aspect of the Law of Moses that was not included in the Law of Christ.
Similarly, God expects Amish believers to realize that their salvation is by His grace through a living faith in the Lord Jesus Christ (whose commandments they thus obey), and that it is not due to their keeping any aspect of the Amish ordnung that is not included in the Law of Christ. He also expects them to view fellow Amish believers who only keep some, or none, of the Amish ordnung, to be their spiritual brothers and sisters in Christ, and also view non-Amish followers of Christ to similarly be their spiritual brothers and sisters in Christ.
Amish leaders who want to follow the New Testament example of the apostles would announce the end of the ordnung-for-salvation, while affirming repentance, faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, and obedience to the Law of Christ.
That would result in Amish communities full of folks who would all be following Christ, but who would happily tolerate others in their community who keep all, some, or none of their former ordnung (that is not part of the Law of Christ), either as a matter of personal conviction or cultural preference. Some would be driving buggies and others would be driving cars. And those with cars could be taxi drivers for those who would only drive buggies! And everyone would love each other and get along!
It would also result in the reconciliation of thousands of Amish families who are currently at odds with each other. If ordnung-for-salvation were eliminated, the result would be one big, happy family. Sounds like heaven!
