Most people know that the spectrum of belief and practice within Christendom is very broad. People who identify as Christians comprise almost one-third of the world’s population. That amounts to about 2.4 billion professing Christians. They can be divided into three major categories: Catholic (49%), Protestant (40%), and Orthodox (11%).
Among the Protestants, there are many subgroups, one of which is the Anabaptists. They represent slightly more than 2 million of Protestantism’s 960 million people. They live in 86 nations.
Anabaptists are divided into more than 300 subgroups, including Mennonites, Hutterites, Schwarzenau Brethren, River Brethren, Apostolic Christian, and of course Amish.
Most Amish people live in North America, with about 395,000 in the U.S. and 6,000 in Canada (as of 2025). They represent about 19% of all Anabaptists, but only .017% of all people who identify as Christians. So if you had 6,000 pennies that represented all of the world’s professing Christians, only 1 of them would be Amish.
There are literally tens of thousands of distinct Christian groups. All of them hold to beliefs and practices that are based upon a combination of biblical revelation, fallible reasoning, and human tradition, and each group possesses different percentages of all three.
New groups are often spawned from old groups because of the desire to follow more biblical revelation and less human tradition. That is the story of the Protestant Reformation, which broke away from Catholicism. That is the story of the Anabaptists, who were made unwelcome among the Protestants and who initiated their own “Radical Reformation.” That is also the story of the Amish, whose founder and namesake, Jakob Ammann, felt that the Swiss Brethren had drifted from certain biblical convictions and practices.
There have been many divisions among the Amish since then. In the second half of the 19th century, they divided into Old Order and Amish Mennonites, the latter of whom eventually joined Mennonite groups.
Today there are three main Amish subgroups that all have significant differences in their ordnungs: Old Order, New Order and Beachy. And there are at least 60 smaller sub-groups. As I mentioned earlier, I live within a 30-minute drive of three Old Order communities, and none of them fellowship with each other. In fact, the second one is a split from the first one, and third one is a split from the second one. All the splits were over ordnung issues.
Generally speaking, many if not most of the members of Christianity’s tens of thousands of distinct groups think that their group is the best, based on some criteria. The potential for pride is real, and all of us should stop and ponder how silly it is to imagine that God is most pleased with our group among the tens of thousands of other Christian groups who hold to different variations of belief and practice.
We also can’t help but mourn for all the division that exists among 2.4 billion people who all claim to believe in the One who prayed, “I do not ask on behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in Me through their word; that they may all be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me” (John 17:20–21), and who also told His followers, “A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another” (John 13:34).
We are not doing a very good job of obeying Jesus’ new commandment, or of being the answer to His prayer that we should be one. We should ask ourselves if the things we consider worth dividing over are equally as important to Jesus. All true Christians could find common ground more readily if we focused on obeying the clear commandments of the Son of God and mutually respecting our different convictions in matters where His will is not as clear.
That, in fact, is exactly what the New Testament instructs Christians to do. Not every Christian in the apostolic church agreed on every detail of what Christians should and shouldn’t do. We have already studied the early church’s first internal dispute, regarding Gentile believers’ relationship to the Mosaic Law. Although the Jewish believers were generally following the Law of Moses, they eventually agreed that Gentile believers were not obligated to be circumcised or to keep any of the Mosaic Law’s rules that were not contained in the law of Christ. They did, however, request that Gentile believers avoid a few practices that would be particularly offensive to Jews, at least when in their presence. It was a compromise of love on their part.
A Closer Look
Two passages in Paul’s letters focus on the issue of differing convictions among Christians. They are found in Romans 14:1–15:12 and 1 Corinthians 8–10. The message Paul conveys in both passages is that Christians of differing convictions should love one another, which requires them to respect one another, not judge one another, not cause a fellow believer to stumble, and compromise to some degree. Not surprisingly, however, Weaver and Zimmerman painfully twist Paul’s instructions into a justification for ordnungs:
In Romans 14 we read of how Christian liberty should be limited by Christian love, meaning we should set boundaries for ourselves so that we don’t knowingly offend our brothers and sisters in Christ. If we insist on owning something or doing something that offends another church member, we’re not walking charitably, or in other words, not according to Christ’s will.
Since we cannot serve two masters, it’s self-evident that a true Christian will limit himself, and the Scriptural church will set standards to avoid offenses and stumbling blocks (p. 90).
To paraphrase the authors, all church members should obey all ordnung rules lest they offend other ordnung-keeping church members or cause them to stumble. But that is a gross twisting of what Paul actually taught.
First, the early church had nothing that remotely resembled modern Plain ordnungs consisting of hundreds of extra-biblical rules that govern even the smallest details of life.
Second, the very idea of ordnungs flatly contradicts the very principle of loving one another in spite of differing convictions. Ordnungs establish hundreds of standards to which everyone must conform. If people don’t conform to these rules, they are disciplined, and if they still don’t conform, they are excommunicated and shunned. That is the exact opposite of what Paul taught in Romans 14–15 and 1 Corinthians 8–10!
Romans 14
Let’s consider both passages so that all readers can plainly see this for themselves. We will start with Romans 14:1–4:
Now accept the one who is weak in faith, but not for the purpose of passing judgment on his opinions. One person has faith that he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats vegetables only. The one who eats is not to regard with contempt the one who does not eat, and the one who does not eat is not to judge the one who eats, for God has accepted him. Who are you to judge the servant of another? To his own master he stands or falls; and he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.
One example of differing convictions in the early church revolved around eating meat that had been sacrificed to idols. Some believers avoided eating any meat because of the possibility that it might have been sacrificed to pagan idols. To them, eating such meat constituted participating in idolatry. So they became “vegetarians for Jesus.” Paul referred to this group as “weak in their faith,” but we can admire them for their desire to avoid any hint of idolatry and thus not offend the Lord. Other believers (like Paul) had no such convictions. They didn’t believe eating meat, even if it had been sacrificed to idols, was sinful or offensive to the Lord.
Notice that Paul didn’t create an ordnung rule to which everyone must conform. Doing so would have contradicted his instructions for each group to respect the convictions of the other group and not judge one another. Again, ordnungs do the exact opposite of what Paul taught. They cause everyone to judge anyone who doesn’t conform to one standard.
A second example of differing convictions in the early church revolved around the Sabbath. Obviously, Jewish believers would have strictly kept the Sabbath every week—from Friday at sundown to Saturday at sundown (as Jews have always done). Gentiles, however, would not have been accustomed to that Jewish practice and may have questioned its relative importance.
Paul continued:
One person regards one day above another, another regards every day alike. Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind. He who observes the day, observes it for the Lord, and he who eats [meat], does so for the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who eats not [does not eat any meat], for the Lord he does not eat, and gives thanks to God. For not one of us lives for himself, and not one dies for himself; for if we live, we live for the Lord, or if we die, we die for the Lord; therefore whether we live or die, we are the Lord’s. For to this end Christ died and lived again, that He might be Lord both of the dead and of the living (Rom. 14:5–9).
Paul’s point is that all true believers in the Lord Jesus Christ are striving to obey Him. And that is what matters. Contrary to the “vegetarians for Jesus” who judged the meat-eaters to be idolaters, those meat-eaters were giving thanks to the Lord prior to every meal. They were not idolaters! They were servants of the Lord Jesus Christ. For that reason, both groups should stop judging each other and looking at each other with contempt, as they apparently were:
But you, why do you judge your brother? Or you again, why do you regard your brother with contempt? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God. For it is written, “As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to Me, and every tongue shall give praise to God.” So then each one of us will give an account of himself to God (Rom. 14:10–12).
Ordnungs set up church members to constantly judge each other and consequently to treat some members with contempt, to the point of excommunicating and shunning them. Ordnungs do not promote tolerance but intolerance.
Causing a Brother to Stumble
Paul continues:
Therefore let us not judge one another anymore, but rather determine this—not to put an obstacle or a stumbling block in a brother’s way. I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but to him who thinks anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean. For if because of food your brother is hurt, you are no longer walking according to love. Do not destroy with your food him for whom Christ died. Therefore do not let what is for you a good thing be spoken of as evil; for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. For he who in this way serves Christ is acceptable to God and approved by men. So then we pursue the things which make for peace and the building up of one another. Do not tear down the work of God for the sake of food. All things indeed are clean, but they are evil for the man who eats and gives offense. It is good not to eat meat or to drink wine, or to do anything by which your brother stumbles. The faith which you have, have as your own conviction before God. Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves. But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and whatever is not from faith is sin (Rom. 14:13–23).
Here Paul mentions one other point of difference among Christians in his day—the drinking of wine. From an historical perspective, it would seem doubtful that the issue was over the propriety of alcohol (as it is in some Christian circles today), but rather that some wine was perhaps dedicated to idols. Regardless, just as was the case regarding eating meat and keeping the Sabbath, Paul did not lay down an ordnung rule regarding wine. In every case, the only rule was to love one another, which requires tolerating those whose convictions differ regarding matters in which Scripture is not definitive.
In this final paragraph of Romans 14, Paul makes an additional point. He first addresses the meat-eaters, in whose camp Paul admitted he belonged because he knew that no meat is “unclean” even if it has been sacrificed to an idol. He would never want, however, to cause one of the vegetarians to “stumble.” That is, he didn’t want to do anything that might contribute to influencing a “weaker brother” to violate his conscience.
For example, imagine a group of meat-eating Christians sharing a meal when a vegetarian joins them. Wanting to fit in, he might, against his conscience, eat meat. Although his eating meat was actually not a sin, because he thinks eating meat is a sin, to him it is an act of disobedience. As Paul wrote, “To him who thinks anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean” (v. 14b).
Therefore, walking in love requires those who are “stronger” to always consider their “weaker” brothers and sisters when they are together. That, in fact, was Paul’s summarizing point at the beginning of Romans 15:
Now we who are strong ought to bear the weaknesses of those without strength and not just please ourselves. Each of us is to please his neighbor for his good, to his edification (Rom. 15:1–2).
And as Paul concludes the entire section, it becomes even more clear that the dividing issues in Rome were between Jewish and Gentile believers:
Therefore, accept one another, just as Christ also accepted us to the glory of God. For I say that Christ has become a servant to the circumcision [Jews] on behalf of the truth of God to confirm the promises given to the fathers, and for the Gentiles to glorify God for His mercy (Rom. 15:7–9, emphasis added).
This exposition should make it clear that Romans 14–15 cannot be used to compel people to keep every rule of the ordnung so as not to offend others. All of Paul’s instructions were directed towards churches full of members who held differing convictions. In Plain churches, everyone is required to publicly declare, at their baptism and twice annually thereafter, their agreement with the hundreds of rules of the ordnung. The Plain people do not exhibit toleration of differing convictions on these extra-biblical matters, because differing convictions are not permitted! Ordnungs are thus antithetical to everything Paul taught in Romans 14 and 15.
1 Corinthians 8–10
Paul covers this same issue in his first letter to the Corinthians, and he makes the same points, so I will not repeat them. But here is his summary statement:
All things [like eating meat sacrificed to idols] are lawful, but not all things [like eating meat sacrificed to idols in the presence of vegetarian believers] are profitable. All things are lawful, but not all things [like eating meat sacrificed to idols in the presence of vegetarian believers] edify. Let no one seek his own good, but that of his neighbor. Eat anything that is sold in the meat market without asking questions for conscience’ sake; “for the earth is the Lord’s, and all it contains.” If one of the unbelievers invites you [to eat with him] and you want to go, eat anything that is set before you without asking questions for conscience’ sake. But if anyone says to you [that is, if any Christian vegetarian warns you], “This is meat sacrificed to idols,” do not eat it, for the sake of the one who informed you, and for conscience’ sake; I mean not your own conscience, but the other man’s (1 Cor. 10:23–29a).
Those are wise words aimed at meat eaters. But next, Paul addresses the “weaker brethren” who were passing judgment upon him because he ate meat without any scruples:
For why is my freedom judged by another’s conscience? If I partake with thankfulness, why am I slandered concerning that for which I give thanks? (1 Cor. 10:29b–30).
So Paul addressed both groups, calling each side to love one another and be tolerant of their differences. Ordnungs, however, eliminate any need for toleration between sides by legitimizing one view that is intolerant of anything else.
If, as Weaver and Zimmerman claim, these passages in Romans and 1 Corinthians have application to Plain ordnungs, who then are the “weak brothers” in Plain churches who believe that something is wrong when it is not actually wrong according to the standard of God’s Word? And who are the “strong brothers” who, like the apostle Paul, don’t share the convictions of the “weak brothers” because they simply follow the revelation of God’s Word?
If any analogy can be drawn, the weak brothers would have to be most Plain leaders and all who join them in slavishly following hundreds of man-made rules. The strong brothers would be those who realize that God’s commandments are sufficient for those who love God and that no ordnung is necessary to motivate church members to live holy lives. However, Plain churches do not follow Paul’s call for toleration, because they show no toleration for “strong brothers.” The strong brothers are always excommunicated in Plain churches. How does that practice harmonize with Romans 14–15 and 1 Corinthians 8–10? It does not, nor does it harmonize with Paul’s concluding statement in 1 Corinthians 10:31–33:
Whether, then, you eat or drink or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. Give no offense either to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God; just as I also please all men in all things, not seeking my own profit but the profit of the many, so that they may be saved (1 Cor. 10:31–33).
Ordnung keepers are consumed with pleasing, and not offending, others who keep the group’s ordnung. They have no concern for pleasing or not offending others.
So is my goal to persuade all Plain people to abandon their ordnungs? No, my goal is to persuade all Plain people to truly believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. When they do, pleasing Him will become the most important thing in their lives, and they will focus on obeying His commandments. They may end up holding different convictions regarding issues on which the Bible is silent, but they will tolerate those of different convictions. Some Plain folks, for example, will have no scruples about owning and driving cars. Others might still choose to avoid owning a car. But they will all love each other, and the Plain folks who own cars will be happy to provide taxi rides to those who don’t! That is just one example of how Christians of different cultures and convictions can demonstrate to the world that they are all one in Christ!
